Illegal Drugs

The Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017, Story 1: Steven Paddock — Medicated Mad Mass Murderer Acted Alone — Drug/Alcohol/Hooker Assisted Homicides and Suicide — Big Drinker, Gambler At Video Poker,  “Mental Health Symptoms” — Addicted To Risk Taking — Treat Mental Illness — Banning Bump Fire Stock Is Not Addressing The Problem of Mental Illness and Prescribed Drug Induced Suicides and Homicides — Common Sense Mental Illness Ban? — Nonsense — Videos — Story 2: House of Representatives Passed Budget Blueprint — $600 Billion Plus Budget Deficit and Unbalanced Budgets — A Blueprint of Financial Irresponsibility By Burdening Current and Future Generations With Massive Debt — Replace Big Government Two Party Tyranny, Oppression and Empire with A Limited Government Representative Republic As The Founders Envisioned Under The Constitution –Videos

Posted on October 6, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Drugs, Independence, Knifes, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Science, Social Security, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for drugs and mass shootings

 

Image result for House of Representatives blueprint for a better america

Image result for medicated mass murders

Image result for medicated mass shootings in U.S.

Image result for medicated mass murders

Image result for drugs and mass shootings

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

 

Story 1: Steven Paddock — Medicated Mad Mass Murderer Acted Alone — Drug/Alcohol/Hooker Assisted Homicides and Suicide — Big Drinker, Gambler At Video Poker,  “Mental Health Symptoms” — Addicted To Risk Taking — Treat Mental Illness — Banning Bump Fire Stock Is Not Addressing The Problem of Mental Illness and Prescribed Drug Induced Suicides and Homicides — Common Sense Mental Illness Ban? — Nonsense — Videos —

Video from ABOVE SHOOTER – 48th Floor of Mandalay Bay during Las Vegas Shootings (GRAPHIC LANGUAGE)

Sharon Judy recalls Stephen Paddock talking about his gambling

Steve Paddock’s Neighbor Tells Michael Savage He Was an Average Guy

Las Vegas Gunman’s Hotel Room Was Comped Because He Gambled So Much

Video Poker – How to Win and How it Works

How to Become a Winning Video Poker Player with Video Poker Expert Henry Tamburin

Las Vegas Shooting: Inside Stephen Paddock’s Mandalay Bay Hotel Room | TODAY

Who is Stephen Paddock, Vegas shooting suspect?

BAD News After What Was Just Found On Shooter’s Hotel Room Video And Who He Was Caught Paying

SWAT and FBI at Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock’s Reno home

Gun Owners Discuss Massacre At Las Vegas Area Gun Range | MSNBC

Gun shop manager who sold firearms to Stephen Paddock speaks out

Las Vegas, “Bump Stocks”, and How We Fix This: Thursday Rough-Cut

Sarah Huckabee Sanders responds to NRA support for ‘bump stock’ ban

Paul Ryan: Bump Stocks Clearly ‘Something We Need To Look Into’ | MSNBC

Paul Ryan BUSTED On Mental Health Lie

The NRA Wants To Regulate ‘Bump Stock’ Gun Accessories, Paul Ryan Says We Need To Learn More | TIME

NRA: Government should review if bump stocks comply with law

What is a bump fire stock?

Installing and using a Bump Stock on my AR-15

Bump Fire Stock VS Real M-16

Banning Bump Fire Stocks Is NOT The Answer NRA!

EXCLUSIVE: Las Vegas shooter gambled $100,000 an hour in video poker with ‘constant stream of booze’ and was VIP guest at tournaments with free rooms and shopping sprees

  • Las Vegas shooter was so hooked on gambling he played up to 1,000 hands of video poker in a single hour – at a cost of $100,000
  • Stephen Paddock was well-enough known to be invited to $50,000 prize video poker tournaments but was not considered ‘a whale’, the biggest gamblers
  • He was not friendly or sociable and other players noticed he always had a drink with him 
  • Paddock would also play video poker by himself, betting five $125 hands similtaneously, moving so quickly that he could stake $100,000 in an hour
  • Experts say he could easily have been breaking even as video poker has the best odds of doing so but that in the long run casinos always win
  • Michael Shackleford, a casino analyst, said: ”I think he was a smart recreational gambler who saw it as a way to have a free vacation.’

The Las Vegas shooter was so hooked on gambling he played up to 1,000 hands of video poker in a single hour – at a cost of $100,000.

Stephen Paddock bet the colossal sums by playing $125 a time hands at ‘ferocious’ speeds for eight hour stints in casinos on The Strip and in Reno.

Top video poker players told DailyMail.com that players like Paddock look like ‘stenographers’ on the machines because their fingers move so fast.

They had seen Paddock at exclusive VIP tournaments in Las Vegas where he won and lost six-figure sums.

The players described him was a ‘low level high roller’ but he still would have got perks like free limousine rides and $10,000 of free money to play with.

Drinking concern: Gamblers say they saw Stephen Paddock playing video poker with a 'constant stream of booze' by his side when he was a guest at VIP tournaments

Drinking concern: Gamblers say they saw Stephen Paddock playing video poker with a ‘constant stream of booze’ by his side when he was a guest at VIP tournaments

Fast and furious: These are the video poker machines which allowed Paddock to gamble stakes of up to $100,000 in an hour by playing multiple hands at once

Crack cocaine: A review in the late 1990s compared the machines to the most addictive drugs but they also offer some of the best odds of coming out even, experts say

Crack cocaine: A review in the late 1990s compared the machines to the most addictive drugs but they also offer some of the best odds of coming out even, experts say

Paddock’s girlfriend Marilou Danley was taken on all-expenses paid shopping trips and they would have stayed in expensive hotel suites for free.

DailyMail.com can also disclose that other high rollers were concerned about Paddock drinking a ‘constant stream of booze’ whilst he was playing.

They described him as a ‘heavy, heavy drinker’ and wondered if his high alcohol intake contributed to his mental deterioration.

Paddock shot dead 58 people and injured more than 500 on Sunday when he opened fire on a music festival from his suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay casino before shooting himself dead.

The FBI are no closer to understanding the motive of a man who his brother Eric described as ‘just a guy’.

But what is clear is that the 64-year-old had a passion for gambling which he indulged in his retirement with the estimated $2 million fortune he had built up through a real estate business.

Friends have said that Paddock, a former accountant and auditor, developed what he thought was an algorithm which would let him beat the system at video poker.

Anthony Curtis, a former professional gambler and currently the owner and publisher of Las Vegas Advisor, a website covering the casino business, told DailyMail.com that Paddock was not a ‘whale’ in the casino world, meaning the very biggest spenders.

But he was a known quantity and would be seen at invite-only tournaments where players would compete for $50,000 cash prizes.

Curtis said that according to players in Vegas he knows, Paddock ‘gambled big, he really did’, but he was not sociable.

He said: ‘Nobody knew him, that was the weirdest thing

‘People I know only knew of him, they didn’t know him. He wasn’t friendly but wasn’t unfriendly.’

If anything stood out it was Paddock’s drinking, said Curtis, who is a consultant for the Alea Consulting Group, which represents gambling experts.

He said: ‘He was a heavy drinker, heavy drinker, that’s what I heard… some people thought he was a pure alcoholic. He had a constant stream of booze coming his way’.

Curtis said that video poker players he knew told him that Paddock played $25 a hand machines where you can put in five bets at one time, bringing the stake for each game up to $125.

Players at his level would be playing at 800 to 1,000 hands an hour, or one every 3.6 seconds – Curtis said he and his former playing friends used to time each other to see who was fastest.

Players have to go quickly to improve their likelihood of getting hands like a royal flush which come on average every 40,000 hands and might earn $50,000 on a $125 wager.

Red carpet welcome: As a VIP gambler, Paddock was given a warm welcome with 'comps' which included room and board. Even bigger gamblers get private jets but Paddock was not a 'whale'

Red carpet welcome: As a VIP gambler, Paddock was given a warm welcome with ‘comps’ which included room and board. Even bigger gamblers get private jets but Paddock was not a ‘whale’

Also benefited: VIP poker invitations come with free shopping sprees for partners as well as meals and hotel rooms 'comped'

Also benefited: VIP poker invitations come with free shopping sprees for partners as well as meals and hotel rooms ‘comped’

In a game of video poker the player is up against just the machine and not a human dealer and each hand is dealt from a new 52-card virtual deck.

By working out the probabilities of hands players, can beat the house and at the Mandalay Bay video poker machines pay out a maximum of 99.17 percent, or $99.17 for every $100 wagered.

By the time you add in the perks, or ‘comps’, short for complimentary, they are more than breaking even.

For the highest rollers, they are treated like rock stars and essentially get anything they want, be it front row tickets to a concert, Super Bowl tickets and a Lear Jet to take them wherever they want.

Even at the lowest level of such tournaments they will get ‘full RFB’, meaning room, food and board. The presence of the amblers helps build the casino’s image.

Michael Shackleford, a former professional actuary and video poker player who now has a career analyzing casino games, said: ‘The low level players will get free low end meals, buffets, maybe free rooms midweek

‘As you get up they’ve going to treat you to the better restaurants, better rooms, free tournaments, free airfare, free transportation.

‘The way the casinos look at it is every player has a particular value.

‘If you have a player who is losing $1m a trip, the casino will give him $300,000 worth of stuff just for coming in.

‘They don’t like to give you money, they prefer to do it in the form of comps. In Vegas it’s fiercely competitive for the big players, they often negotiate to get the best offer.’

Shackleford said that video poker players tended to be smart, disciplined and patient.

He said that you have to be able to sit down at the machine and play it for hours at speed but if you press one button wrong it could cost you two hours in value to play.

He said: ‘It’s a very volatile game and if you’re going to be playing it professionally.

‘You go up and down like a roller coaster. You need nerves of steel to keep playing in the bad times.’

Shackleford himself used to lose $25,000 in a single day – but once won $40,000 when he got a royal flush.

Expert: Bob Dancer made $1 million from video poker but warns: 'There are a lot lot lot lot more net losers than there are net winners.'

Expert: Bob Dancer made $1 million from video poker but warns: ‘There are a lot lot lot lot more net losers than there are net winners.’

He said: ‘In the long run I can say it’s averaged out and my results are where they should be.

‘You just say you have to believe in the math, it doesn’t matter if you win or lose, it matters if you had a good bet and treat it like a job’.

Shackleford’s assessment of Paddock echoed that of the other experts; he was not a professional but had clearly studied how to win and had some ability.

He said: ‘I think he was a smart recreational gambler who saw it as a way to have a free vacation. That’s my impression of the guy.’

Curtis said: ‘Think about this; if you want to go to an NFL game you have to pay for a personal seat. It can cost tens of thousands of dollars just to see your team play.

‘What’s the difference between that and what he was doing? He was paying for entertainment – that’s how I see the whole thing.’

Video poker was described by the National Gambling Impact Study Commission in the late 1990s as being the ‘crack-cocaine’ of gambling because it is so addictive.

Reports have said that those who are most addicted have brain disorders similar to drug addicts.

Among the infamous cases of video poker players is San Diego’s former mayor Maureen O’Connor.

She took $2 million from the foundation set up for her dead husband, bet a cumulative total of more than $1 billion at casinos on a wild spree of wins and losses – and ended up owing $13 million.

Players are drawn to the game because of odds which are better than most other casino games.

John Grochowski, a longtime gambling columnist and author, said that the average person can get the a handle of playing video poker in a month using books and programs that are widely available.

But he doubted that it was possible to win consistently at a high level and said that Paddock would have been ‘deluded’ if he thought he had a system that would beat the house.

He said: ‘You need either to be in a position where the money just doesn’t matter and you want the thrill to gamble.

‘If you’re really trying to make money at this and you’re fooling yourself into thinking you can make money at this you need to think you’re smarter than you really are.

‘You have to go in absolute convinced your system works and stick with it in the bad times and roll with the losses and unfortunately most people can’t really roll with losses at that level.

‘Discipline is the key. You need to stay within your own bankroll, don’t bet money you can’t afford to lose.

‘For some people video poker is the crack cocaine of gambling, it’s certainly engaging, it’s interactive and it will hold your attention.

‘For a certain personality that may be true but there also may be personalities who are going to stay within their limits and stay within what they can afford’.

Few have been more successful at video poker than Bob Dancer, an expert and author of 10 books on the subject.

Dancer has made more than a million dollars playing video poker for 20 years using strategies he developed himself.

The bulk of his winnings was in the late 1990s and early 2000s including one 12-month stretch where he and his ex-wife Shirley would go on a $100,000 losing streak – then make $70,000 back.

In February 2001 at the MGM Grand in Vegas he made $100,000 on a royal flush within 15 minutes of playing and less than half an hour later Shirley won $400,000 with the same hand on a different machine.

Dancer said that it was possible to make a living being a professional video poker player. He said that the key factor was who had the advantage; him or the casino.

Back in the 1990s the describes the casinos as ‘mathematically challenged’ and he was able to work out his winnings faster than they could, giving him the advantage.

He describes the feeling after winning a big payout as being ‘bulletproof’ and that ‘you think it’s because you’re smart’.

When faced with a big loss he shrugged it off because he was sure that over time it would even out, but Shirley found it harder.

Dancer said: ‘Shirley was scared of the swings and every time we lost she would get all tense up and we had a masseuse on retainer for her.

‘We’d lose $30,000 in a night and she’d think that was an automobile and it would be extremely traumatic than her.

‘She could deal with the wins but the losses –  I shrugged them off – she took them really personal and really hard.’

As for Paddock, Dancer said: ‘I never met Mr Paddock. I never heard his name before he was dead.

‘I do not know if he was a successful player or not.

‘It’s clear he hit some jackpots at some times. Whether he was a net winner or a net loser I have no idea.’

He added: ‘There are a lot, lot, lot, lot more net losers than there are net winners.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4951890/Vegas-shooter-drank-non-stop-gambled-100-000-hour.html#ixzz4ughzDMfF

 

Vegas Shooter’s Girlfriend Says He Would Lie in Bed Moaning, Screaming

WASHINGTON — Marilou Danley, the woman investigators hoped would provide key details into the motive behind her boyfriend’s deadly shooting attack, said she remembers him exhibiting symptoms such as lying in bed and moaning, according to two former FBI officials who have been briefed on the matter.

“She said he would lie in bed, just moaning and screaming, ‘Oh, my God,'” one of the former officials said.

The other former official said Danley spoke about Paddock displaying “mental health symptoms.”

Las Vegas Shooter’s Mental
Distress 1:28

Investigators believe Stephen Paddock, who claimed nearly 60 lives and injured hundreds more in Las Vegas on Sunday, may have been in physical or mental anguish, the sources said.

Related: Las Vegas Gunman’s Girlfriend Marilou Danley Says She Had No Idea

But so far the FBI has not identified a clear motive, said two FBI officials. And they do not believe Paddock’s mental health had deteriorated to a point that would have triggered him to commit such an act.

Image: Stephen Paddock
Stephen Paddock.U.S. government / via NBC News

Other lines of inquiry the FBI and Las Vegas police are investigating include what Paddock did in the hour between shooting a security guard and his room being breached by officers. Paddock was found dead after a SWAT team breached his door, but it is unclear when he took his own life.

Investigators are also examining approximately six media devices left behind by Paddock, one of the former officials said. Included in that search is an inquiry into Paddock’s web browsing history. Multiple law enforcement officials told NBC News that Paddock researched other attack locations in Boston and Chicago.

Danley’s lawyer did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/las-vegas-shooting/trump-holds-fate-rapid-fire-bump-stocks-n808176

Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common… and it’s not guns

Tuesday, April 02, 2013
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles…)
Tags: mass shootingspsychiatric drugsantidepressants
Mass shootings

(NaturalNews) The following is a republishing of an important article written by Dan Roberts from AmmoLand.com. It reveals the real truth about mass shootings that bureaucrats and lawmakers are choosing to sweep under the rug: psychiatric drugs. If you want to know the real reason why mass shootings are taking place, this is the “inconvenient truth” the media won’t cover.

As part of a collective grassroots effort to defend the Bill of Rights against usurpers and tyrants, Natural News is republishing this article without asking for permission first. When it comes to fighting tyrants and defending liberty, the unstated agreement across the entire liberty-loving grassroots community is, “Use our articles; help spread the word!” Every article I write here on Natural News, for example, may be reprinted with credit and a link back to the original source article on NaturalNews.com.

Here’s the full article by Dan Roberts:

(Ammoland.com) Nearly every mass shooting incident in the last twenty years, and multiple other instances of suicide and isolated shootings all share one thing in common, and it’s not the weapons used.

The overwhelming evidence points to the signal largest common factor in all of these incidents is the fact that all of the perpetrators were either actively taking powerful psychotropic drugs or had been at some point in the immediate past before they committed their crimes.

Multiple credible scientific studies going back more than a decade, as well as internal documents from certain pharmaceutical companies that suppressed the information show that SSRI drugs ( Selective Serotonin Re-Uptake Inhibitors ) have well known, but unreported side effects, including but not limited to suicide and other violent behavior. One need only Google relevant key words or phrases to see for themselves. www.ssristories.com is one popular site that has documented over 4500 ” Mainstream Media ” reported cases from around the World of aberrant or violent behavior by those taking these powerful drugs.

The following list of mass shooting perpetrators and the drugs they were taking or had been taking shortly before their horrific actions was compiled and published to Facebook by John Noveske, founder and owner of Noveske Rifleworks just days before he was mysteriously killed in a single car accident. Is there a link between Noveske’s death and his “outting” of information numerous disparate parties would prefer to suppress, for a variety of reasons?

I leave that to the individual readers to decide. But there is most certainly a documented history of people who “knew too much” or were considered a “threat” dying under extraordinarily suspicious circumstances.

From Katherine Smith, a Tennessee DMV worker who was somehow involved with several 9/11 hijackers obtaining Tennessee Drivers Licenses, and was later found burned to death in her car, to Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Gary Webb, who exposed a CIA Operation in the 80’s that resulted in the flooding of LA Streets with crack cocaine and was later found dead from two gunshot wounds to the head, but was officially ruled as a “suicide”, to Frank Olson, a senior research micro biologist who was working on the CIA’s mind control research program MKULTRA.

After Olson expressed his desire to leave the program, he was with a CIA agent in a New York hotel room, and is alleged to have committed “suicide” by throwing himself off the tenth floor balcony. In 1994, Olson’s sons were successful in their efforts to have their fathers body exhumed and re examined in a second autopsy by James Starrs, Professor of Law and Forensic science at the National Law Center at George Washington University. Starr’s team concluded that the blunt force trauma to the head and injury to the chest had not occurred during the fall but most likely in the room before the fall. The evidence was called “rankly and starkly suggestive of homicide.” Based on his findings, in 1996 the Manhattan District Attorney opened a homicide investigation into Olson’s death, but was unable to find enough evidence to bring charges.

As I said, I leave it to the individual readers to make up their own minds if Noveske suffered a similar fate. On to the list of mass shooters and the stark link to psychotropic drugs.

• Eric Harris age 17 (first on Zoloft then Luvox) and Dylan Klebold aged 18 (Columbine school shooting in Littleton, Colorado), killed 12 students and 1 teacher, and wounded 23 others, before killing themselves. Klebold’s medical records have never been made available to the public.

• Jeff Weise, age 16, had been prescribed 60 mg/day of Prozac (three times the average starting dose for adults!) when he shot his grandfather, his grandfather’s girlfriend and many fellow students at Red Lake, Minnesota. He then shot himself. 10 dead, 12 wounded.

• Cory Baadsgaard, age 16, Wahluke (Washington state) High School, was on Paxil (which caused him to have hallucinations) when he took a rifle to his high school and held 23 classmates hostage. He has no memory of the event.

• Chris Fetters, age 13, killed his favorite aunt while taking Prozac.

• Christopher Pittman, age 12, murdered both his grandparents while taking Zoloft.

• Mathew Miller, age 13, hung himself in his bedroom closet after taking Zoloft for 6 days.

• Kip Kinkel, age 15, (on Prozac and Ritalin) shot his parents while they slept then went to school and opened fire killing 2 classmates and injuring 22 shortly after beginning Prozac treatment.

• Luke Woodham, age 16 (Prozac) killed his mother and then killed two students, wounding six others.

• A boy in Pocatello, ID (Zoloft) in 1998 had a Zoloft-induced seizure that caused an armed stand off at his school.

• Michael Carneal (Ritalin), age 14, opened fire on students at a high school prayer meeting in West Paducah, Kentucky. Three teenagers were killed, five others were wounded..

• A young man in Huntsville, Alabama (Ritalin) went psychotic chopping up his parents with an ax and also killing one sibling and almost murdering another.

• Andrew Golden, age 11, (Ritalin) and Mitchell Johnson, aged 14, (Ritalin) shot 15 people, killing four students, one teacher, and wounding 10 others.

• TJ Solomon, age 15, (Ritalin) high school student in Conyers, Georgia opened fire on and wounded six of his class mates.

• Rod Mathews, age 14, (Ritalin) beat a classmate to death with a bat.

• James Wilson, age 19, (various psychiatric drugs) from Breenwood, South Carolina, took a .22 caliber revolver into an elementary school killing two young girls, and wounding seven other children and two teachers.

• Elizabeth Bush, age 13, (Paxil) was responsible for a school shooting in Pennsylvania

• Jason Hoffman (Effexor and Celexa) – school shooting in El Cajon, California

• Jarred Viktor, age 15, (Paxil), after five days on Paxil he stabbed his grandmother 61 times.

• Chris Shanahan, age 15 (Paxil) in Rigby, ID who out of the blue killed a woman.

• Jeff Franklin (Prozac and Ritalin), Huntsville, AL, killed his parents as they came home from work using a sledge hammer, hatchet, butcher knife and mechanic’s file, then attacked his younger brothers and sister.

• Neal Furrow (Prozac) in LA Jewish school shooting reported to have been court-ordered to be on Prozac along with several other medications.

• Kevin Rider, age 14, was withdrawing from Prozac when he died from a gunshot wound to his head. Initially it was ruled a suicide, but two years later, the investigation into his death was opened as a possible homicide. The prime suspect, also age 14, had been taking Zoloft and other SSRI antidepressants.

• Alex Kim, age 13, hung himself shortly after his Lexapro prescription had been doubled.

• Diane Routhier was prescribed Welbutrin for gallstone problems. Six days later, after suffering many adverse effects of the drug, she shot herself.

• Billy Willkomm, an accomplished wrestler and a University of Florida student, was prescribed Prozac at the age of 17. His family found him dead of suicide – hanging from a tall ladder at the family’s Gulf Shore Boulevard home in July 2002.

• Kara Jaye Anne Fuller-Otter, age 12, was on Paxil when she hung herself from a hook in her closet. Kara’s parents said “…. the damn doctor wouldn’t take her off it and I asked him to when we went in on the second visit. I told him I thought she was having some sort of reaction to Paxil…”)

• Gareth Christian, Vancouver, age 18, was on Paxil when he committed suicide in 2002, (Gareth’s father could not accept his son’s death and killed himself.)

• Julie Woodward, age 17, was on Zoloft when she hung herself in her family’s detached garage.

• Matthew Miller was 13 when he saw a psychiatrist because he was having difficulty at school. The psychiatrist gave him samples of Zoloft. Seven days later his mother found him dead, hanging by a belt from a laundry hook in his closet.

• Kurt Danysh, age 18, and on Prozac, killed his father with a shotgun. He is now behind prison bars, and writes letters, trying to warn the world that SSRI drugs can kill.

• Woody __, age 37, committed suicide while in his 5th week of taking Zoloft. Shortly before his death his physician suggested doubling the dose of the drug. He had seen his physician only for insomnia. He had never been depressed, nor did he have any history of any mental illness symptoms.

• A boy from Houston, age 10, shot and killed his father after his Prozac dosage was increased.

• Hammad Memon, age 15, shot and killed a fellow middle school student. He had been diagnosed with ADHD and depression and was taking Zoloft and “other drugs for the conditions.”

• Matti Saari, a 22-year-old culinary student, shot and killed 9 students and a teacher, and wounded another student, before killing himself. Saari was taking an SSRI and a benzodiazapine.

• Steven Kazmierczak, age 27, shot and killed five people and wounded 21 others before killing himself in a Northern Illinois University auditorium. According to his girlfriend, he had recently been taking Prozac, Xanax and Ambien. Toxicology results showed that he still had trace amounts of Xanax in his system.

• Finnish gunman Pekka-Eric Auvinen, age 18, had been taking antidepressants before he killed eight people and wounded a dozen more at Jokela High School – then he committed suicide.

• Asa Coon from Cleveland, age 14, shot and wounded four before taking his own life. Court records show Coon was on Trazodone.

• Jon Romano, age 16, on medication for depression, fired a shotgun at a teacher in his New York high school.

Missing from list… 3 of 4 known to have taken these same meds….

• What drugs was Jared Lee Loughner on, age 21…… killed 6 people and injuring 14 others in Tuscon, Az?

• What drugs was James Eagan Holmes on, age 24….. killed 12 people and injuring 59 others in Aurora Colorado?

• What drugs was Jacob Tyler Roberts on, age 22, killed 2 injured 1, Clackamas Or?

• What drugs was Adam Peter Lanza on, age 20, Killed 26 and wounded 2 in Newtown Ct?

Those focusing on further firearms bans or magazine restrictions are clearly focusing on the wrong issue and asking the wrong questions, either as a deliberate attempt to hide these links, or out of complete and utter ignorance.

Don’t let them! Force our elected “representatives” and the media to cast a harsh spotlight on this issue. Don’t stop hounding them until they do.

About Dan Roberts
Dan Roberts is a grassroots supporter of gun rights that has chosen AmmoLand Shooting Sports News as the perfect outlet for his frank, ‘Jersey Attitude’ filled articles on Guns and Gun Owner Rights. As a resident of the oppressive state of New Jersey he is well placed to be able to discuss the abuses of government against our inalienable rights to keep and bear arms as he writes from deep behind NJ’s Anti-Gun iron curtain. Read more from Dan Robertsor email him at DRoberts@ammoland.com You can also find him on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/dan.roberts.18

Story 2: House of Representatives Passed Budget Blueprint — $600 Billion Plus Budget Deficit and Unbalanced Budgets — A Blueprint of Financial Irresponsibility By Burdening Current and Future Generations With Massive Debt — Replace Big Government Two Party Tyranny, Oppression and Empire with A Limited Government Representative Republic As The Founders Envisioned Under The Constitution –Videos

Building a Better America Budget

Building a Better America
A PLAN FOR FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

For years, House Republicans have made a commitment to balance the budget. With our national debt and deficits continuing to increase at an unsustainable rate, the time to take action is now. We no longer have the option to shy away from our responsibility to promote a fiscal path that helps create prosperity and ensures opportunity for future generations.

Our budget, Building A Better America, balances within 10 years. For too long, the federal government’s excessive spending has put future generations at risk. Massive tax increases or crippling austerity measures are the natural conclusion of our current rate of spending, and future generations will pay the price. Failure to take swift and decisive action is not only inexcusable, it is immoral.

Some will disagree with our budget, but the status quo is unacceptable. Our budget is one of sustainability, smaller government, stronger national security, and greater freedom for individuals. The status quo is unsustainable spending, higher deficits and debt, higher taxes, bigger government, and more federal control over the lives of Americans.
We have a better way.

Page 4
4
BUILDING A BETTER AMERICA | A Plan for Fiscal Responsibility
In past years, the budget resolution passed by this committee has been a statement of principles – a vision for a long-term fiscal path to sustainability and prosperity. This year is different. The budget resolution is no longer a theoretical outline with little chance of implementation. It is the major governing document of the 115th Congress, and it is the concrete fulfillment of our promise to the American people.

To achieve these goals, our budget resolution provides a path that will require subsequent legislation. But this Congress is committed to following through on our promises.
Building a Better America achieves the goals we have laid out this year and in past Congresses. The fiscal year 2018 budget resolution:
 Develops a Sustainable Spending Path by Balancing in 10 Years
oThe budget deficit and our national debt are impediments to greater prosperity and a threat to the security of future generations. This committee’s budget balances in 10
years and reforms government programs to put us on a sustainable spending path.
 Promotes Economic Growth
o For the last eight years, government has hindered economic growth. That will no longer be the case. Our budget calls for reducing burdensome regulations, and it suggests keyreforms to our tax code and government programs that will help unleash the potential of the American economy.

 Strengthens Our National Defense

There is no greater task for the federal government than to protect its citizens and the
homeland. This committee’s budget increases funding for our military and provides
significant resources for our homeland security, including protecting our borders.

Returns Power Back to the States
Our budget calls for returning significant authority to the states, which have both the ability and the will to reform and modernize programs that serve their citizens. The laboratories of democracy, not the federal government, are where these reforms should happen.
 Reforms and Strengthens Government Programs While Improving Accountability
o Hardworking Americans earn every tax dollar that the federal government collects.
Responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars is a fundamental tenet of our budget
resolution. At every opportunity possible, our budget encourages reforms of
government programs and improves accountability, while generating better outcomes
for Americans.

The budget process will be difficult, but we were elected by the American people to meet these challenges head-on. Building a Better America sets us on a sustainable fiscal path, promotes our security, and encourages prosperity.
This is our opportunity to fulfill the promises we made to the American people. We cannot afford to let this moment pass.

https://budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Building-a-Better-America-PDF-2.pdf

Budget Blueprint: Build-A-Better America

https://budget.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/Building-a-Better-America-PDF-2.pdf

House Passes Budget Blueprint, Taking Step Toward Tax Overhaul

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-978

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 977, October 4, 2017, Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzo Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos — Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos — Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Posted on October 4, 2017. Filed under: Abortion, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Assault, Benghazi, Biology, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Chemistry, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Killing, Knifes, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Lying, Media, Medical, Medicare, Monetary Policy, Movies, National Interest, Networking, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Privacy, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Science, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

 

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

Story 1: Mass Murderer Steve Paddock Was Prescribed A Very Addictive Anti-anxiety Drug Valium or Diazepam (Benzodiazepines) — Possible Adverse Effects of Benzodiazepines or Benzos Include Disinhibition and Aggressive Behavior — Benzos Are The Most Prescribed and Abused Drug in United States — Videos —

Image result for drug valium diazepam

Psychiatric Drug Links to Violent Behavior

Psychiatric Drugs Homicide and Suicide The Connection

Vegas shooter was reportedly prescribed anti-anxiety meds

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Valium (Diazepam) Review and Side Effects

What Are The Side Effects Of Valium? | Learn The Dangerous Valium Side Effects Now!

Top 10 Most Abused Prescription Drugs

00:57 #10: Dilaudid [aka Hydromorphone]

01:56 #9: Soma [aka Carisoprodol]

02:45 #8: Ambien [aka Zolpidem]

03:48 #7: Valium [aka Diazepam]

04:52 #6:  Fentanyl

05:53 #5: Xanax [aka Alprazolam]

07:05 #4: Adderall

08:28 #3:Codine

09:26 #2: Vicodine

10:50 #1: OxyCotin [OxyCodone]

‘As Prescribed’ – Trailer for Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Documentary

The Many Faces of Benzo (Ativan Klonopin Xanax Valium) Withdrawal

What are Benzodiazepines? Benzo Facts and Effects

Facts You Should Know About Benzodiazepine Abuse

Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined

How I got myself off valium – Benzodiazepine

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick -Part 1 of 2)

Valium withdrawal symptoms – benzodiazapines really are awefull to kick – Part 2 of 2)

GABA Neurotransmitters, Anxiety, and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines

Dr. Von Stieff explains the dangers of what benzodiazepines do and how these GABA drugs, like Xanax and diazepam, can lead to prescription addiction and even cause alcoholics to relapse. Learn how benzodiazepine effects on GABA neurotransmitters can actually incite anxiety.

Alcohol Effects and Neurotransmitters: The GABA and Glutamate Balance

GABA Neurotransmitters and Glutamate

Relapse Prevention: Overcome Fear and Anxiety Attacks and Prevent Panic Attacks

MY BENZO EXPERIENCE: What it Feels Like to Take a Benzodiazepine for Anxiety

Some days I wake up with nearly crippling anxiety for no apparent reason. This was one of those days unfortunately and after suffering through my physical symptoms for many hours like I often do, I decided to take 1 mg of Ativan (Benzodiazepine) and film my experience on it and how it affected my anxiety.

The Untold Story of Psychotropic Drugging – Making a Killing – Full Documentary

SSRI Drugs are Dangerous!

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

Prescription for Mayhem: SSRI’s and The War on Drugs

#LasVegasShooting Live Stream Update: Dissecting the Preposterous, the Possible and the Probable

Psych Meds and Big Pharma and the Link to Shootings

19. Aggression III

May 14, 2010) Robert Sapolsky continues his neurobiological exploration of human aggression. He discusses correlations between neurotransmitter prevalence and aggression levels, aggressive activity differences from genetic variance, societal factors and application, amplification from alcohol, and crime and punishment.

20. Aggression IV

“Behave” by Robert Sapolsky, PhD

By Kyle Feldscher |   

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium in June, a drug that has aggressive behavior as a possible side effect.

The Las Vegas Review-Journal reported Paddock was prescribed the medication in June. He was supposed to take one pill per day and fulfilled the prescription on the same day it was written.

“If somebody has an underlying aggression problem and you sedate them with that drug, they can become aggressive,” said Dr. Mel Pohl, chief medical officer of the Las Vegas Recovery Center, told the newspaper. “It can disinhibit an underlying emotional state. … It is much like what happens when you give alcohol to some people … they become aggressive instead of going to sleep.”

Paddock killed 59 people and injured more than 500 others when he opened fire with high-powered rifles from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay Resort and Hotel late Sunday night. He shot into a country music festival taking place on the street below.

Officials continue to investigate the incident, the largest mass shooting in American history.

Questions remain over whey Paddock wired $100,000 to the Philippines just before the shooting. The island nation is the home country of his girlfriend, who was out of the country at the time of the shooting.

He also reportedly gambled with more than $10,000 during the day before the shooting.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/las-vegas-shooter-stephen-paddock-was-prescribed-anti-anxiety-drug-months-before-killing/article/2636485

 

Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication Valium which can trigger aggressive behavior four months before Las Vegas massacre

  • Stephen Paddock was prescribed anti-anxiety medication in June, records show
  • He was taking tablets of diazepam – or Valium – which can trigger aggression
  • It is not known why he was prescribed the drug or whether he had anger issues
  • Former neighbors said Paddock was a reclusive weirdo, while coffee shop workers said he was often rude to girlfriend Marliou Danley 
Stephen Paddock, the man behind America's worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Stephen Paddock, the man behind America’s worst ever mass shooting, was prescribed Valium months before the massacre

Las Vegas killer Stephen Paddock was prescribed an anti-anxiety medication four months before shooting 58 people dead and wounding more than 500.

Paddock was prescribed 50 10 milligram diazepam tablets – also known as Valium – on June 21 by Vegas doctor Steven Winkler, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reports.

Diazepam is a sedative-hypnotic drug that can trigger aggressive behavior in people with underlying behavioral problems, multiple studies have shown.

It is not known why Paddock was prescribed the drug, or whether he had any behavioral issues.

Multiple people who knew him, including his own brother Eric, say he displayed no outward signs of aggression and did not appear as the kind of person who would carry out a mass shooting.

Staff at Dr Winkler’s office would not confirm to the Review-Journal if Paddock had been a patient, and said the doctor would not be answering questions.

One study conducted in Finland, and another in Australia and New Zealand, linked the use of benzodiazepines – the class of drugs to which diazepam belongs – to increased instances of aggressive behavior.

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles

On Sunday Paddock used a vantage point from the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel to slaughter 58 people and wound more than 500 using high-powered rifles
Paddock’s medical history was revealed as more information emerged about America’s worst-ever mass shooter.

On Tuesday investigators said he wired $100,000 to the Philippines before carrying out his massacre, the same country that girlfriend Marilou Danley was visiting at the time of the killings and where she is believed to have been born.

FBI agents met Danley as she arrived back in the US from Manila on Tuesday and said she is a ‘person of interest’ in their investigation. 

Investigators have not revealed where or to whom the $100,000 was sent.

The news emerged after actress and Scientologist Kirstie Alley put out a series of tweets claiming a common denominator in mass killings – aside from guns – are psychiatric drugs.

‘We have to solve the mystery of why there were no ‘shooters’ or almost 0 before the 1980’s. I know one common denominator other than guns,’ Alley tweeted Monday.

‘One additional common denominator of ‘shooters’ is USA’s mass usage of psychiatric drugs. A % do have side effects of VIOLENCE & SUICIDE,’ continued the outspoken actress.

Elsewhere workers at a Starbucks in the town of Mesquite, where the couple lived, shed some light on their relationship – saying that Paddock was always rude to Danley whenever the pair came to the shop.

SIDE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM (VALIUM)

For most patients, these are the typical side effects:

  • drowsiness
  • tired feeling
  • dizziness
  • spinning sensation
  • fatigue
  • constipation
  • loss of balance
  • memory problems
  • restlessness
  • irritability
  • muscle weakness
  • nausea
  • drooling
  • dry mouth
  • slurred speech
  • blurred vision
  • double vision
  • skin rash
  • itching
  • lost interest in sex

However, the pamphlet that accompanies the medication tells patients to call their doctor if they experience the following symptoms:

  • thoughts about suicide or dying
  • new or worse anxiety
  • trouble sleeping (insomnia)
  • acting on dangerous impulses
  • attempts to commit suicide
  • feeling agitated or restless
  • new or worse irritability
  • an extreme increase in activity and talking (mania)
  • new or worse depression
  • panic attacks
  • acting aggressive, being angry, or violent
  • other unusual changes in behavior or mood

Mendoza said the abuse came when Danley would ask to use his casino card to purchase their drinks.

‘He would glare down at her and say, “You don’t need my casino card for this. I’m paying for your drink, just like I’m paying for you,'” Mendoza recalled.

She told the Los Angeles Times that Danley would then cower behind him and softly say, ‘OK’.

Meanwhile a former neighbor of Paddock’s from his time living in Reno described him as a reclusive ‘weirdo’ who barely spoke to anyone else on the street.

‘He would keep his face down, avoid all conversation and was just very unfriendly and strange,’ Susan Page told The Sun.

Paddock opened fire on the Route 91 Harvest Festival from a suite on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel on Sunday night with multiple rifles, some of which had been modified to effectively fire on full-automatic mode.

During an estimated 72 minute shooting spree he killed 58 people and wounded 527 in America’s worst ever mass shooting.

Paddock then took his own life as police breached the door of his hotel room.

Officers say they found 23 guns inside the room, most of them rifles, along with thousands of rounds of ammunition.

At Paddock’s home in nearby Mesquite they found another 19 weapons, along with explosive tannerite and fertilizer which can be used to make bombs.

Investigators have been unable to determine a motive for the attack, and the FBI says there is no evidence linking Paddock to any foreign terror organization despite ISIS claiming responsibility.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4947276/Stephen-Paddock-prescribed-Valium-Vegas-massacre.html#ixzz4uatJjYxV

 

 

Drug- Induced Behavioural Disinhibition

Incidence, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications

Adverse Effects

Summary

Behavioural disinhibition implies the loss of restraint over some form of social behaviour. Such disinhibition can be drug induced and, on rare occasions, lead to extreme acts of aggression or violence. Examples of behavioural disinhibition are often considered paradoxical and rare reactions to drugs, but they may in fact be a more severe behavioural manifestation of a general effect that the drug has on emotions and behaviour. However, the incidence of drug-induced behavioural disinhibition varies considerably and cannot be estimated accurately, as accounts stem mainly from case reports rather than from controlled clinical trials. Adverse effects of drugs are rarely, if ever, the sole focus of clinical studies, although they are now monitored more rigorously in controlled trials.

There are numerous anecdotal case reports in the literature of behavioural disinhibition occurring during administration of benzodiazepines, and recent controlled trials have addressed this issue. The incidence varies with the population studied, but tends to be higher in patients with pre-existing poor impulse control. Alcohol (ethanol) potentiates the disinhibiting effect of benzodiazepines. Aberrant forms of disinhibited behaviour may be accompanied by memory loss.

Disinhibition has also been reported after treatment with tricyclic antidepressants, and reports are now appearing that describe disinhibition in patients who have been treated with selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine; 5-HT) reuptake inhibitors. These include incidents of akathisia, suicidal urges, agitation, hyperactivity and mania. They are more prevalent in children and those with learning disabilities.

Disinhibition is rare with antipsychotics and non-benzodiazepine anticonvulsants but some isolated case reports contain descriptions of such reactions with newer compounds.

The most important drug variable in drug-induced behavioural disinhibition is dosage, although mode of administration is also important. Discontinuation of the drug is usually expected to resolve behavioural reactions, but in certain cases drug withdrawal may precipitate a reaction. In order to minimise drug-induced behavioural disinhibition, it is essential to always use the minimum dosage necessary, to increase the dosage gradually and to monitor the effects carefully. Multiple drug use should be avoided whenever possible.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.2165/00023210-199809010-00005

 

Disinhibitory reactions to benzodiazepines: A review

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Volume 49, Issue 5, May 1991, Pages 519-523

Abstract

This article reviews some of the important aspects of benzodiazepineinduced disinhibitory reactions. Although reactions of this type are relatively rare, they may sometimes manifest themselves in aggressive behavior accompanied by suicidal or homicidal tendencies. It appears that these reactions occur more commonly in younger patients, although the elderly (above 65 years) may also be at risk. Many mechanisms have been postulated, but none truly explain how these reactions arise. The concept that central cholinergic mechanisms may play a role, however, remains attractive and stems primarily from physostigmine’s ability to successfully reverse this type of reaction. The potential role of the benzodiazepine antagonists, eg, flumazenil, in reversing disinhibitory reactions is also discussed. Apart from patients who previously exhibited poor impulse control, there are no reliable indicators for recognizing potential candidates for this type of reaction. To minimize the occurrence of disinhibitory reactions, some guidelines, which include the avoidance of certain drug combinations, the use of low doses of benzodiazepines, slow incremental intravenous administration, and good rapport with patients, are presented.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/027823919190180T

 

Benzodiazepines

What are Benzodiazepines

Benzodiazepines are a class of agents that work on the central nervous system, acting selectively on gamma-aminobutyric acid-A (GABA-A) receptors in the brain. GABA is a neurotransmitter that inhibits or reduces the activity of nerve cells (neurons) within the brain. Benzodiazepines open GABA-activated chloride channels, and allow chloride ions to enter the neuron. This makes the neuron negatively charged and resistant to excitation.

All benzodiazepines work in a similar way but there are differences in the way individual benzodiazepines act on the different GABA-A receptor sub-types. In addition, some benzodiazepines are more potent than others or work for a longer length of time. Because of this, some work better than others in particular conditions. Benzodiazepines may be used in the treatment of anxiety, panic disorder, seizures, or sleep disorders. They may also be used as a muscle relaxant, during alcohol withdrawal, or before surgery to induce relaxation and amnesia (memory loss).

List of Benzodiazepines:

Filter by:
— all conditions —
Alcohol Withdrawal
Anxiety
Benzodiazepine Withdrawal
Bipolar Disorder
Borderline Personality Disorder
Burning Mouth Syndrome
Cervical Dystonia
Chronic Myofascial Pain
Cluster-Tic Syndrome
Depression
Dysautonomia
Endoscopy or Radiology Premedication
Epilepsy
Hyperekplexia
ICU Agitation
Insomnia
Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome
Light Anesthesia
Light Sedation
Meniere’s Disease
Migraine Prevention
Muscle Spasm
Nausea/Vomiting
Nausea/Vomiting, Chemotherapy Induced
Night Terrors
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Opiate Withdrawal
Panic Disorder
Periodic Limb Movement Disorder
Restless Legs Syndrome
Sedation
Seizure Prevention
Seizures
Sleep Paralysis
Status Epilepticus
Tardive Dyskinesia
Temporomandibular Joint Disorder
Tetanus
Tinnitus
Drug Name DownUp( View by: Brand | Generic ) Reviews Ratings DownUp
Zetran (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
10
Prosom (ProMore…)
generic name: estazolam
2 reviews
  
9.7
Alprazolam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
7 reviews
  
9.6
Doral (ProMore…)
generic name: quazepam
3 reviews
  
9.5
Niravam (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
12 reviews
  
9.5
Diazepam Intensol (More…)
generic name: diazepam
6 reviews
  
9.4
Librium (ProMore…)
generic name: chlordiazepoxide
115 reviews
  
9.1
Tranxene (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
9 reviews
  
9.1
Xanax XR (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
52 reviews
  
9.1
Klonopin Wafer (More…)
generic name: clonazepam
17 reviews
  
8.9
Xanax (ProMore…)
generic name: alprazolam
637 reviews
  
8.9
Serax (More…)
generic name: oxazepam
12 reviews
  
8.8
Dalmane (ProMore…)
generic name: flurazepam
11 reviews
  
8.7
Klonopin (ProMore…)
generic name: clonazepam
578 reviews
  
8.7
Valium (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
206 reviews
  
8.7
Halcion (ProMore…)
generic name: triazolam
20 reviews
  
8.6
Diastat (ProMore…)
generic name: diazepam
2 reviews
  
8.5
Lorazepam Intensol (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
9 reviews
  
8.3
Ativan (ProMore…)
generic name: lorazepam
317 reviews
  
8.2
Restoril (ProMore…)
generic name: temazepam
63 reviews
  
7.5
Tranxene SD (More…)
generic name: clorazepate
2 reviews
  
7.0
Tranxene T-Tab (ProMore…)
generic name: clorazepate
0 reviews
  
7.0
Versed (More…)
generic name: midazolam
29 reviews
  
5.4
Onfi (ProMore…)
generic name: clobazam
5 reviews
  
5.2
Diastat AcuDial (More…)
generic name: diazepam
1 review
  
5.0
Diastat Pediatric (More…)
generic name: diazepam
0 reviews Add rating

Story 2: The Mass Murderer’s Former Girlfriend, Marilou Danley Is Now “A Person of Interest” — Flies Back To United States From Phillipines and Met By FBI To Answer Questions — Fully Cooperating With FBI — Knew Nothing of Friend’s Plans — The Criminal Investigation of Las Vegas Mass Murderer Killed 58 — 47 Fire Arms Recovered From Murder’s Hotel Room (23), Home (19), and Reno Home (7) — Videos —

 

Image result for person of interest marilou danley

WATCH: Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter releases statement through lawyer

Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend thought him ‘kind & caring’

Steyn: Vegas shooter’s social media profile ‘weirdly blank’

Scott Adams offers another hypothesis on Stephen Paddock’s motivation

Scott Adams rules out some theories on the Vegas gunman

Scott Adams talks about the Vegas shooter and does an FBI profile on him

Scott Adams: FBI profile and possible motivation – Part 2

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | SPECIAL REPORT FROM THE LAS VEGAS W/ SEAN HANNITY

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | LAS VEGAS INCIDENT PUTS FOCUS ON GUN CONTROL DEBATE

BREAKING NEWS TONIGHT 10/3/17 | DISCUSSING THE LAST NIGHT IN VEGAS W/ LOU DOBBS

Who Is Marilou Danley, Girlfriend Of Las Vegas Shooter? | NBC Nightly News

Las Vegas shooter’s girlfriend: Who is Marilou Danley?

Marilou Danley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Who is Marilou Danley?

Person of Interest: Season 1 Trailer

Person of Interest | Flashbacks S1-S4 | somewhat HD

 

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

Las Vegas massacre probe turns to gunman’s girlfriend in Philippines

by Reuters
Wednesday, 4 October 2017 02:36 GMT

ABOUT OUR HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE

From major disaster, conflicts and under-reported stories, we shine a light on the world’s humanitarian hotspots

(Recasts with latest law enforcement news conference, officials say death toll confirmed at 58 plus the gunman, 12 weapons found in hotel suite equipped with ‘bumper stocks’, 47 guns recovered altogether, purchased in four states, crime scene photos are authentic, paragraphs 1, 11-12, 15, 17)

* Live-in companion sought for questioning

* Wire transfer of $100,000 under examination

* Trump calls gunman ‘a sick, demented man’

* Killer amassed dozens of weapons, explosives, ammunition

* Massacre stirs gun control debate

By Sharon Bernstein and Alexandria Sage

LAS VEGAS, Oct 3 (Reuters) – The investigation into the motives of a Las Vegas retiree who killed 58 people in the worst mass shooting in modern U.S. history turned on Tuesday to the gunman’s girlfriend in the Philippines, where she turned up after the massacre, authorities said.

Stephen Paddock, who killed himself moments before police stormed the hotel suite he had transformed into a sniper’s nest on Sunday night, left no clear clues as to why he staged his attack on an outdoor concert below the high-rise building.

But law enforcement authorities were hoping to obtain some answers from a woman identified as Paddock’s live-in companion, Marilou Danley, who Clark County Sheriff Joseph Lombardo said was a “person of interest” in the investigation.

Lombardo, who said on Monday Danley was believed to be in Tokyo, told reporters on Tuesday she had been located in the Philippines and the Federal Bureau of Investigation was in the process of trying to bring her back to the United States.

“We are in conversations with her,” he told an afternoon news briefing. He reiterated police had no other suspects in the shooting itself.

Danley, an Australian citizen reported to have been born in the Philippines, had been sharing Paddock’s condo at a retirement community in Mesquite, Nevada, about 90 miles (145 km) northeast of Las Vegas, according to police and public records.

Investigators were examining a $100,000 wire transfer Paddock, 64, sent to an account in the Philippines that “appears to have been intended” for Danley, a senior U.S. homeland security official told Reuters on Tuesday.

The official, who has been briefed regularly on the probe but spoke on condition of anonymity, said the working assumption of investigators was that the money was intended as a form of life insurance payment for Danley.

The official said U.S. authorities were eager to question Danley, who described herself on social media websites as a “casino professional,” mother and grandmother, about whether Paddock encouraged her to leave the United States before he went on his rampage.

The official said investigators had also uncovered evidence that Paddock may have rehearsed his plans at other venues before ultimately carrying out his attack on the Route 91 Harvest country music festival from the 32nd floor suite of the Mandalay Bay hotel on the Las Vegas Strip.

ARSENAL RECOVERED

Fresh details about the massacre and the arsenal Paddock amassed emerged on Tuesday.

Police said Paddock strafed the concert crowd with bullets for nine to 11 minutes before taking his own life, and had set up cameras inside and outside his hotel suite so he could see police as they closed in on his location.

A total of 47 firearms were recovered from three locations searched by investigators – Paddock’s hotel suite, his home in Mesquite, and another property associated with him in Reno, Nevada, according to Jill Snyder, special agent for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).

Snyder said 12 of the guns found in the hotel room were fitted with so-called bump-stock devices that allow the guns to be fired virtually as automatic weapons. The devices are legal under U.S. law, even though fully automatic weapons are for the most part banned.

The rifles, shotguns and pistols were purchased in four states – Nevada, Utah, California and Texas – Snyder told reporters at an evening news conference.

A search of Paddock’s car turned up a supply of ammonium nitrate, a fertilizer that can be formed into explosives and was used in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing of a federal office building that killed 168 people, Lombardo said earlier.

Police also confirmed that photos widely published online showing the gunman’s body, his hands in gloves, lying on the floor beside two firearms and spent shell casings, were authentic crime-scene images obtained by media outlets. An internal investigation was under way to determine how they were leaked.

Video footage of the shooting spree on Sunday night caught by those on the ground showed throngs of people screaming in horror, some crouching in the open for cover, hemmed in by fellow concert-goers, and others running for cover as extended bursts of gunfire rained onto the crowd of some 20,000.

Police had put the death toll at 59 earlier on Tuesday, not including the gunman. However, the coroner’s office revised the confirmed tally to 58 dead, plus Paddock, on Tuesday night.

More than 500 people were injured, some trampled in the pandemonium. At least 20 of the survivors admitted to one of several hospitals in the area, University Medical Center, remained in critical condition on Tuesday, doctors said.

The union representing firefighters disclosed that a dozen off-duty firefighters who were attending the music festival were shot while trying to render aid to other spectators, two of them while performing cardiopulmonary resuscitation on victims.

“This is a true feat of heroism on their part,” said Ray Rahne of the International Association of Fire Fighters.

WHAT DROVE GUNMAN?

But the central, unanswered question to the bloodshed was what drove the gunman’s actions.

Federal, state and local investigators have found no evidence that Paddock had even incidental contacts with foreign or domestic extremist groups, and reviews of his history showed no underlying pattern of criminal behavior or hate speech, the homeland security official said.

While investigators had not ruled out the possibility of mental illness or some form of brain injury, “there’s no evidence of that, either,” the official said.

Paddock’s brother, Eric, has said he was mystified by the attack.

“It just makes less sense the more we use any kind of reason to figure it out,” Eric Paddock said in a text message on Tuesday. “I will bet any amount of money that they will not find any link to anything … he did this completely by himself.”

He said the family did not plan to hold a funeral for his brother, who was not religious, saying it could attract unwanted attention. He described his brother as a financially well-off enthusiast of video poker and cruises, with no history of mental health issues.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Tuesday that Paddock had been “a sick man, a demented man.”

GUN DEBATE STIRRED

The attack stirred the fractious debate about gun ownership in the United States, which is protected by the Second Amendment of the Constitution, and about how much that right should be subject to controls.

Sunday’s shooting followed the massacre of 26 young children and educators in Newtown, Connecticut, in 2012, and the slaying of 49 people at a gay nightclub in Orlando last year.

The latter attack was previously the deadliest mass shooting in modern U.S. history.

Democrats reiterated what is generally the party’s stance, that legislative action is needed to reduce mass shootings. Republicans, who control the White House and both chambers of Congress, argue restrictions on lawful gun ownership cannot deter criminal behavior.

“We’ll be talking about gun laws as time goes by,” said Trump, who strongly supported gun rights during his presidential campaign.

Paddock seemed unlike the troubled, angry young men who experts said have come to embody the mass-shooter profile in the United States.

Public records on Paddock point to an itinerant existence across the U.S. West and Southeast, including stints as an apartment manager and aerospace industry worker. He appeared to be settling in to a quiet life when he bought a home in a Nevada retirement community a few years ago.

(Additional reporting by Lisa Girion in Las Vegas, Jonathan Allen and Frank McGurty in New York, John Walcott, Susan Cornwell, Doina Chiacu and Jeff Mason in Washington, Bernie Woodall in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Jon Herskovitz in Austin, Texas and Brendan O’Brien in Milwaukee; Writing by Steve Gorman and Scott Malone; Editing by Frances Kerry, Jonathan Oatis and Andrew Hay)

http://news.trust.org/item/20171003193434-ladhk

 

Las Vegas shooting suspect’s girlfriend is ‘person of interest’, says sheriff

  • Marilou Danley was in Philippines at time of shooting and remains there
  • Stephen Paddock placed cameras inside and outside his hotel room
The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday.
 The Clark County sheriff Joe Lombardo, flanked by Las Vegas’s Mayor Carolyn Goodman, left, and US representative Dina Titus, speaks during a news conference on Tuesday. Photograph: Ethan Miller/Getty Images

Las Vegas gunman Stephen Paddock’s girlfriend is “a person of interest” in the criminal investigation into America’s worst mass shooting, police said on Tuesday.

Sheriff Joseph Lombardo of Clark County said detectives are in contact with Marilou Danley, who was travelling in the Philippines at the time of the massacre and remains there. “The investigation with her is ongoing and we anticipate some further information from her shortly,” he told reporters. “Currently she is a person of interest.”

Lombardo declined to comment on an NBC news report that 64-year-old Paddock wired $100,000 to an account in the Philippines some time in the week before the attack.

Paddock opened fire from the windows of his room on the 32nd floor of the Mandalay Bay hotel, killing 59 people – all but three of whom have been identified – and injuring more than 500 at a country music festival. Police stormed his room and found he had killed himself.

Lombardo said the first report to police came at 10.08pm and Paddock continued to fire for nine minutes. The sheriff also told a press conference Paddock had set up cameras inside and outside his room, including one on a food service trolley. “I anticipate he was looking for anybody coming to take him into custody,” he said.

The evidence offers an insight into Paddock’s careful planning of the shooting. Lombardo said: “I’m pretty sure he evaluated everything that he did in his actions, which is troubling.”

Police have said they found 23 guns in Paddock’s room at the hotel. The sheriff added: “We are aware of a device called a bump stock that enables an individual to speed up the discharge of ammunition.” Bump stocks can be used to modify guns and make them fire as if they were fully automatic.

He also said authorities had completed their investigation at the gunman’s property in Reno, finding five handguns, two shotguns and a “plethora” of ammunition.

Paddock’s motive remains unknown. “This person may have radicalised, unbeknownst to us, and we want to identify that source.”

The sheriff said the number of people injured would go down slightly because of some double counting. “We also had very heroic acts of people attending the event … Citizens providing medical aid and transport for people to get to the hospital.”

Lombardo added: “It’s an ongoing investigation and when I say I don’t know, I may know … I assure you this investigation is not ended with the demise of Mr Paddock.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/oct/03/las-vegas-shooting-girlfriend-marilou-danley-person-of-interest-sheriff

 

Person of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Person of interest” is a term used by U.S. law enforcement when identifying someone involved in a criminal investigation who has not been arrested or formally accused of a crime. It has no legal meaning, but refers to someone in whom the police are “interested,” either because the person is cooperating with the investigation, may have information that would assist the investigation, or possesses certain characteristics that merit further attention.

While terms such as suspecttarget, and material witness have clear and sometimes formal definitions, person of interest remains undefined by the U.S. Department of Justice.[1]Unsub is a similar term which is short for “unknown subject” (used often, for example, in the TV show Criminal Minds). Person of interest is sometimes used as a euphemism for suspect, and its careless use may encourage trials by media.

With respect to terrorism investigations, Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times: “Law enforcement officials say that the term simply reflects the new tactics required to fight terrorism. But some legal scholars say officials are trying to create a more benign public image, even as their power expands.”[2]

History

According to Eric Lichtbau in the New York Times:

The term has an ugly history; in the 1960s American law enforcement officials began creating secret dossiers on Vietnam War protesters, civil rights leaders and other persons of interest…The vaguely sinister term has been applied to targets of terrorisminvestigations, the chief suspect in the murder of the Baylor basketball player Patrick Dennehy and Steven J. Hatfill, the scientist who has figured prominently in the investigation into the 2001 anthrax attacksAttorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft is often credited with popularizing the person-of-interest label, having used it [in 2002] to describe Dr. Hatfill.[2]

The term was used widely in mass media at least as early as the 1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing in reference to Richard A. Jewell. Its initial uses aroused controversy, but it has since seen increasingly regular use.[1] Jewell later remarked on the use of the term:

Question: Do you believe that the public will formulate the same idea about that person’s involvement in criminal activity upon hearing the term “person of interest”? Is this just a euphemism, just another way of saying “suspect”?

Jewell: I’d say so. The public knows what’s going on. Because of what happened to me, things have changed. It has definitely changed the way the media in Atlanta refer to people that are arrested or are suspects. And I’ve seen it on some of the national channels like Fox NewsNBC and CNN. They’ve all changed. Go back before 1996, at a shooting or a murder and see how they refer to the person whom they’re arresting in the incident. Compare that with something that’s recent and look at the difference. What happened to me is a factor in that change.[3]

Hatfill v. Ashcroft

The use of the term became widely critiqued when United States Attorney GeneralJohn Ashcroft used it in a press conference when asked if Dr. Steven J. Hatfill was a suspect in the 2001 anthrax attacks case. In 2002, Hatfill’s attorney filed a complaint with the Justice Department‘s Office of Professional Responsibility, arguing that “the term is not recognized in law or criminal procedure and that Ashcroft did not have the right ‘to preside over the public shredding of [Hatfill’s] life. This is un-American. Mr. Ashcroft owes Dr. Hatfill an apology.'”[4] Hatfill sued the Department of Justice for violation of federal privacy law; the case was settled in 2008 for $5.8 million.[5]

Definition

Normal Justice Department parlance for subjects of investigation includes “suspect,” “subject” and “target.” Each has specific meanings relevant to different levels of investigation. SenatorChuck GrassleyRepublican of Iowa, wrote to the Attorney General for clarification of the unfamiliar phrase in September 2002. In December of that year, Nuclear Threat Initiative‘s Global Security Newswire summarized the response as follows:[6]

… the U.S. Justice Department has said that it did not intend for Hatfill to come under such intense media scrutiny by describing him has a “person of interest” in the anthrax investigation, according to department letters sent to Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), which were released yesterday. … The department did not intend to cause any harm to Hatfill when it described him as a person of interest, Assistant Attorney General Daniel Bryant said in one of the letters. Instead, the department meant “to deflect media scrutiny” and “explain that he (Hatfill) was just one of many scientists” who had cooperated with the FBI investigation, Bryant said.

Grassley said yesterday that he appreciates the department’s replies to his inquiries. “I also appreciate the department’s candidness that the action regarding Mr. Hatfill and his employment is unprecedented,” Grassley said in a statement, and that “there is no … formal definition for the term ‘person of interest.’

See also

References

Story 3: Gun Grabbing Baby Killing Democrat Advocates vs. Pro Life and Pro Second Amendment Advocates — Real Aim of Gun Grabbers : Confiscate All Guns and Repeal Second Amendment — Gun and Ammunition Sales Booming — Make My Day  — Lying Lunatic Left Lies of Jimmy Kimmel — Videos

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for leading of blacks

Image result for leading killer of blacks is abortion

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Hannity 10/4/17 | Fox News Today October 4, 2017

Tucker Carlson Tonight 10/4/17 – Tucker Carlson Fox News October 4, 2017 TRUMP, REX TILLERSON

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

Tucker Carlson; Blasts Hillary Clinton over Gun Control Tweet moments after attack..!

LAS VEGAS SHOOTER WAS ON VALIUM – HERE’S WHY IT MATTERS

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott, Jr.: Why gun bans don’t work

John Lott: Evidence proves owning a gun is the best way to protect your family

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

In a talk given on the very day a gunman was apprehended at the University of Austin, American senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and gun rights expert John Lott explains why guns bans only serve to increase gun crime rates, why the pilots should be armed, and how statistics prove that since the DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a dramatic drop in the murder rate. Lott points to his research which proves that there isn’t a place in the world where a gun ban lowers gun crime, in fact stricter firearms regulation habitually leads to an increase in murder rates, because the only people who follow such regulations are law-abiding citizens who turn in their guns and thus leave themselves vulnerable to armed criminals who don’t obey the law. Speaking on the subject of pilots being armed, Lott points out that up until 1979, pilots were mandated to carry with them a loaded handgun and throughout decades of this policy there is not one example handguns causing a problem on an airliner, demolishing the innumerable “what if” hypothetical arguments of those who oppose arming the pilots, as well as the arguments against having concealed carry on college campuses. Lott details statistics that show since the Washington DC handgun ban was lifted, there has been a huge drop in murder rates, a fact that has received virtually no news coverage in the anti-second amendment establishment media. Crimes using guns since the ban was lifted fell by about three times as fast as other crimes not involving guns. Alternatively, since the Chicago gun ban in 1982, Lott documents how gun crime soared in both Chicago and surrounding areas.

Ben Shapiro Responds To Jimmy Kimmel

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

Top 5 Gun Control Myths Debunked! | Louder With Crowder

HIDDEN CAM: “Gun Show Loophole” Exposed!

Obama’s Gun Control Town Hall Lies | Louder With Crowder

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

Gun Contol Penn and Teller Bull Shit

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

REBUTTAL: Everything Wrong With Jimmy Kimmel’s Las Vegas Rant | Louder With Crowder

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

    Close up image of the Second Amendment

    The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights.

    The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

    In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, “The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence” and limited the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not protect weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.”[10][11]

    In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment’s impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment against state and local governments.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding” and that its protection is not limited to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15]

    Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[16]

    Contents

     [show

    Text

    There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with capitalization or punctuation differences. Differences exist between the drafted and ratified copies, the signed copies on display, and various published transcriptions.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24] The importance (or lack thereof) of these differences has been the source of debate regarding the meaning and interpretation of the amendment, particularly regarding the importance of the prefatory clause.[25][26]

    One version was passed by the Congress, and a slightly different version was ratified.[27][28][29][30][31] As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert, the amendment says:[32]

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The hand-written copy of the proposed Bill of Rights, 1789, cropped to show only the text that would later be edited and ratified as the Second Amendment

    Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:[33]

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    Pre-Constitution background

    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

    The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded in English law as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[34] The English Bill of Rights of 1689 emerged from a tempestuous period in English politics during which two issues were major sources of conflict: the authority of the King to govern without the consent of Parliament and the role of Catholics in a country that was becoming ever more Protestant. Ultimately, the Catholic James II was overthrown in the Glorious Revolution, and his successors, the Protestants William III and Mary II, accepted the conditions that were codified in the Bill. One of the issues the Bill resolved was the authority of the King to disarm its subjects, after James II had attempted to disarm many Protestants, and had argued with Parliament over his desire to maintain a standing (or permanent) army.[35] The bill states that it is acting to restore “ancient rights” trampled upon by James II, though some have argued that the English Bill of Rights created a new right to have arms, which developed out of a duty to have arms.[36] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court did not accept this view, remarking that the English right at the time of the passing of the English Bill of Rights was “clearly an individual right, having nothing whatsoever to do with service in the militia” and that it was a right not to be disarmed by the Crown and was not the granting of a new right to have arms.[37]

    The text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 includes language protecting the right of Protestants against disarmament by the Crown. This document states: “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”[38] It also contained text that aspired to bind future Parliaments, though under English constitutional law no Parliament can bind any later Parliament.[39] Nevertheless, the English Bill of Rights remains an important constitutional document, more for enumerating the rights of Parliament over the monarchy than for its clause concerning a right to have arms.

    The statement in the English Bill of Rights concerning the right to bear arms is often quoted only in the passage where it is written as above and not in its full context. In its full context it is clear that the bill was asserting the right of Protestant citizens not to be disarmed by the King without the consent of Parliament and was merely restoring rights to Protestants that the previous King briefly and unlawfully had removed. In its full context it reads:

    Whereas the late King James the Second by the Assistance of diverse evill Councellors Judges and Ministers imployed by him did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant Religion and the Lawes and Liberties of this Kingdome (list of grievances including) … by causing severall good Subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when Papists were both Armed and Imployed contrary to Law, (Recital regarding the change of monarch) … thereupon the said Lords Spirituall and Temporall and Commons pursuant to their respective Letters and Elections being now assembled in a full and free Representative of this Nation takeing into their most serious Consideration the best meanes for attaining the Ends aforesaid Doe in the first place (as their Auncestors in like Case have usually done) for the Vindicating and Asserting their ancient Rights and Liberties, Declare (list of rights including) … That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.[38]

    The historical link between the English Bill of Rights and the Second Amendment, which both codify an existing right and do not create a new one, has been acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court.[40][41]

    The English Bill of Rights includes the proviso that arms must be as “allowed by law.” This has been the case before and after the passage of the Bill. While it did not override earlier restrictions on the ownership of guns for hunting, it was written to preserve the hunting rights of the landed aristocracy and is subject to the parliamentary right to implicitly or explicitly repeal earlier enactments.[42] There is some difference of opinion as to how revolutionary the events of 1688–89 actually were, and several commentators make the point that the provisions of the English Bill of Rights did not represent new laws, but rather stated existing rights. Mark Thompson wrote that, apart from determining the succession, the English Bill of Rights did “little more than set forth certain points of existing laws and simply secured to Englishmen the rights of which they were already posessed [sic].”[43]Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[44] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was “also declared” in the English Bill of Rights.[45][46]

    The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute 1 W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[47]

    Although there is little doubt that the writers of the Second Amendment were heavily influenced by the English Bill of Rights, it is a matter of interpretation as to whether they were intent on preserving the power to regulate arms to the states over the federal government (as the English Parliament had reserved for itself against the monarch) or whether it was intent on creating a new right akin to the right of others written into the Constitution (as the Supreme Court decided in Heller). Some in the United States have preferred the “rights” argument arguing that the English Bill of Rights had granted a right. The need to have arms for self-defence was not really in question. Peoples all around the world since time immemorial had armed themselves for the protection of themselves and others, and as organized nations began to appear these arrangements had been extended to the protection of the state.[48] Without a regular army and police force (which in England was not established until 1829), it had been the duty of certain men to keep watch and ward at night and to confront and capture suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.[49]

    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

    Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[50]

    Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[51][52][53][54][55][56][57][58]

    • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
    • participating in law enforcement;
    • deterring tyrannical government;[59]
    • repelling invasion;
    • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[60][61][62]
    • facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

    Which of these considerations were thought of as most important and ultimately found expression in the Second Amendment is disputed. Some of these purposes were explicitly mentioned in early state constitutions; for example, the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 asserted that, “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state”.[63]

    During the 1760s pre-revolutionary period, the established colonial militia was composed of colonists, including many who were loyal to British imperial rule. As defiance and opposition to British rule developed, a distrust of these Loyalists in the militia became widespread among the colonists, known as Patriots, who favored independence from British rule. As a result, some Patriots created their own militias that excluded the Loyalists and then sought to stock independent armories for their militias. In response to this arms build up, the British Parliament established an embargo on firearms, parts and ammunition on the American colonies.[64]

    British and Loyalist efforts to disarm the colonial Patriot militia armories in the early phases of the American Revolution resulted in the Patriot colonists protesting by citing the Declaration of Rights, Blackstone’s summary of the Declaration of Rights, their own militia laws and common law rights to self-defense.[65] While British policy in the early phases of the Revolution clearly aimed to prevent coordinated action by the Patriot militia, some have argued that there is no evidence that the British sought to restrict the traditional common law right of self-defense.[65] Patrick J. Charles disputes these claims citing similar disarming by the patriots and challenging those scholars’ interpretation of Blackstone.[66]

    The right of the colonists to arms and rebellion against oppression was asserted, for example, in a pre-revolutionary newspaper editorial in 1769 Boston objecting to the British army suppression of colonial opposition to the Townshend Acts:

    Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature, and have been carried to such lengths, as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon its inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal: such violences are always to be apprehended from military troops, when quartered in the body of a populous city; but more especially so, when they are led to believe that they are become necessary to awe a spirit of rebellion, injuriously said to be existing therein. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defence; and as Mr. Blackstone observes, it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.[65]

    The armed forces that won the American Revolution consisted of the standing Continental Army created by the Continental Congress, together with regular French army and naval forces and various state and regional militia units. In opposition, the British forces consisted of a mixture of the standing British Army, Loyalist militia and Hessian mercenaries. Following the Revolution, the United States was governed by the Articles of Confederation. Federalists argued that this government had an unworkable division of power between Congress and the states, which caused military weakness, as the standing army was reduced to as few as 80 men.[67] They considered it to be bad that there was no effective federal military crackdown on an armed tax rebellion in western Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion.[68] Anti-federalists on the other hand took the side of limited government and sympathized with the rebels, many of whom were former Revolutionary War soldiers. Subsequently, the Constitutional Convention proposed in 1787 to grant Congress exclusive power to raise and support a standing army and navy of unlimited size.[69][70] Anti-federalists objected to the shift of power from the states to the federal government, but as adoption of the Constitution became more and more likely, they shifted their strategy to establishing a bill of rights that would put some limits on federal power.[71]

    Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison “did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions.”[72]In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison’s intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.[73]

    One aspect of the gun control debate is the conflict between gun control laws and the right to rebel against unjust governments. Blackstone in his Commentaries alluded to this right to rebel as the natural right of resistance and self preservation, to be used only as a last resort, exercisable when “the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression”.[74] Some believe that the framers of the Bill of Rights sought to balance not just political power, but also military power, between the people, the states and the nation,[75] as Alexander Hamilton explained in 1788:

    [I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude[, ] that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.[75][76]

    Some scholars have said that it is wrong to read a right of armed insurrection in the Second Amendment because clearly the founding fathers sought to place trust in the power of the ordered liberty of democratic government versus the anarchy of insurrectionists.[77][78]Other scholars, such as Glenn Reynolds, contend that the framers did believe in an individual right to armed insurrection. The latter scholars cite examples, such as the Declaration of Independence (describing in 1776 “the Right of the People to…institute new Government”) and the Constitution of New Hampshire (stating in 1784 that “nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind”).[79]

    There was an ongoing debate beginning in 1789 about “the people” fighting governmental tyranny (as described by Anti-Federalists); or the risk of mob rule of “the people” (as described by the Federalists) related to the increasingly violent French Revolution.[80] A widespread fear, during the debates on ratifying the Constitution, was the possibility of a military takeover of the states by the federal government, which could happen if the Congress passed laws prohibiting states from arming citizens,[81] or prohibiting citizens from arming themselves.[65] Though it has been argued that the states lost the power to arm their citizens when the power to arm the militia was transferred from the states to the federal government by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, the individual right to arm was retained and strengthened by the Militia Acts of 1792 and the similar act of 1795.[82][83]

    Drafting and adoption of the Constitution

    James Madison (left) is known as the “Father of the Constitution” and “Father of the Bill of Rights”[84] while George Mason (right) with Madison is also known as the “Father of the Bill of Rights”[85]
    Patrick Henry (left) believed that a citizenry trained in arms was the only sure guarantor of liberty[86] while Alexander Hamilton (right) wrote in Federalist No. 29 that “little more can be reasonably aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed …”[76]

    In March 1785, delegates from Virginia and Maryland assembled at the Mount Vernon Conference to fashion a remedy to the inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. The following year, at a meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, 12 delegates from five states (New JerseyNew YorkPennsylvaniaDelaware, and Virginia) met and drew up a list of problems with the current government model. At its conclusion, the delegates scheduled a follow-up meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania for May 1787 to present solutions to these problems, such as the absence of:[87][88]

    • interstate arbitration processes to handle quarrels between states;
    • sufficiently trained and armed intrastate security forces to suppress insurrection;
    • a national militia to repel foreign invaders.

    It quickly became apparent that the solution to all three of these problems required shifting control of the states’ militias to the federal congress and giving that congress the power to raise a standing army.[89] Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution codified these changes by allowing the Congress to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States by doing the following:[90]

    • raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    • provide and maintain a navy;
    • make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    • provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    • provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[91] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[92][93] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution’s adoption. This compromisepersuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[94] The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[95] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

    Ratification debates

    The debate surrounding the Constitution’s ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[96]

    The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[97] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[98]though Whitehill’s language was never debated.[99]

    There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states’ reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[100][101]

    In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[102]

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved … Is it possible … that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”[103] Noah Webster similarly argued:

    Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[104][105]

    George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them … by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[104][106]

    Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[107]

    Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[108]

    While both Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed …”[104][109]

    By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[104]

    Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

    James Madison‘s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[110]

    On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[111] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[112] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[113]

    In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

    By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[115] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[116]

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[117] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

    A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[118]

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Militia in the decades following ratification

    Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America

    During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[64] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid – held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[64] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantesassumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[64] On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]

    The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers “that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.”[119] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[120] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[121] None is mentioned in the legislation.[119]

    The Model 1795 Musket was made in the U.S. and used in the War of 1812

    The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[122] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[64] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[64] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[64] Congress did subsequently pass “[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines” on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[123]Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia’s poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[121]

    Scholarly commentary

    Early commentary

    William Rawle of Pennsylvania (left) was a lawyer and district attorney; Thomas M. Cooleyof Michigan (right) was an educator and judge.
    Joseph Story of Massachusetts (left) became a U.S. Supreme Court justice; Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania (right) was a political economistand delegate to the Continental Congress.

    Richard Henry Lee

    In May of 1788, Richard Henry Lee wrote (Wikiquote link) in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a “militia.”

    George Mason

    In June of 1788, George Mason addressed (Wikiquote link) the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a “militia.”

    Tench Coxe

    In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[124]

    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[125][126]

    Tucker/Blackstone

    The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[127] Tucker wrote:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[128]

    In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government” and “whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.” Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”[127] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker’s annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.[129]

    Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”[127]

    William Rawle

    Tucker’s commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England’s “arbitrary code for the preservation of game,” portraying that country as one that “boasts so much of its freedom,” yet provides a right to “protestant subjects only” that it “cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence” and reserves for “[a] very small proportion of the people[.]”[130] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

    No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[131]

    Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[132]

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[132][133]

    Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that “this right [to bear arms] ought not…be abused to the disturbance of the public peace” and, paraphrasing Coke, observed: “An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.”[130]

    Joseph Story

    Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[134] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment’s clear meaning:

    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[135][136]

    Story describes a militia as the “natural defence of a free country,” both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a “moral check” against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[136]

    Lysander Spooner

    Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[137] Spooner’s theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[138] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a “right of resistance” is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.[139]

    The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.[140]

    Timothy Farrar

    In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”:[126][141]

    The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

    Judge Thomas Cooley

    Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,[142][143] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the “right of the people”:

    It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.[144]

    Late 20th century commentary

    Assortment of 20th century handguns

    In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[145] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.[146]

    The first, known as the “states’ rights” or “collective right” model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens “have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard”.[126] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.[147] Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the “collective right” model.[148][149] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.[150]

    The second, known as the “sophisticated collective right model”, held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.[151][152] Some scholars have argued that the “sophisticated collective rights model” is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the “collective rights model.”[153] Other commentators have observed that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the “sophisticated collective right model”.[154]

    The third, known as the “standard model”, held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[126] Supporters of this model argued that “although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms”.[155] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the “absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment’s preamble does not render it a ‘dead letter’ because the preamble is a ‘philosophical declaration’ safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple ‘civic purposes’ for which the Amendment was enacted”.[156]

    Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[157] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[158] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[159] However, under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example – one of many reasons for the amendment.[45] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[160]

    The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[161] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.[162]

    Meaning of “well regulated militia”

    The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164]

    In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about “organizing”, “disciplining”, “arming”, and “training” of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

    If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security … confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority … [but] reserving to the states … the authority of training the militia … A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[76]

    Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the ‘natural right of self-defence’ and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right”:

    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[165]

    Justice Stevens in dissent:

    When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[166]

    Meaning of “the right of the People”

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[167]

    An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are “the People” when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[168]

    The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people” … While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

    There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” instead of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.[169][170]

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context – that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[167]

    In a dissent, joined by Justices SouterGinsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.[171]

    Supreme Court cases

    In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[172] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.[173] In the Dred Scott decision, the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”[174]

    State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the “individual rights” model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the “collective rights” model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The “collective rights” model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

    The Supreme Court’s primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

    Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[175]

    Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[176]

    United States v. Cruikshank

    In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v. Cruikshank92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”[177]

    The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ……”[178] Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:

    The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.[179]

    Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.[180]

    Presser v. Illinois

    In Presser v. Illinois116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[64][181]

    At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.” This decision upheld the States’ authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[64] However the court said: “A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force.”[182]

    Miller v. Texas

    In Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law:[64] “As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.”[183]

    Robertson v. Baldwin

    In Robertson v. Baldwin165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:

    The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.[184]

    United States v. Miller

    In United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

    Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully … transport in interstate commerce from … Claremore … Oklahoma to … Siloam Springs … Arkansas a certain firearm … a double barrel … shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length … at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce … not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code … and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order … as provided by Section 1132C …”[185]

    In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated “the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.”[186] As the Court explained:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[187]

    Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in Miller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.”[188] They also claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.”[189] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”[190]

    District of Columbia v. Heller

    Judgment

    The Justices who decided Heller

    According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[191] in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[191][192]

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.[191][192]

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.[191][192]
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.[191][192]
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.[191][192]
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.[191][192]
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.[191][192]
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.[191][192]
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.[191][192]
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. pp. 56–64.[192]

    There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller.[193][194][195][196][197][198] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller’s findings and reasoning:

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense” (id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[199]

    Notes and analysis

    Heller has been widely described as a landmark decision.[200][201][202][203][204] To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:[205]

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[206]

    The Court’s statement that the right is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media.[207][208][209][210][211] The majority opinion also said that the amendment’s prefatory clause (referencing the “militia”) serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing “the people”), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because “the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’….”[212]

    Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[213]

    Stevens went on to say the following:

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.[214]

    This dissent called the majority opinion “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was referred to as a “hybrid” definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an “incoherent” and “[g]rotesque” idiomatic meeting.[214]

    Justice Breyer, in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that “the amendment protects an ‘individual’ right – i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred”.[215]

    Regarding the term “well regulated”, the majority opinion said, “The adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[216] The majority opinion also stated that:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[217]

    The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument.[218]

    Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.[192] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. CruikshankPresser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).[192]

    Heller pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban. These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another.

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster…. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District’s licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”[192]

    Justice Ginsburg has been a vocal critic of Heller. Speaking in an interview on public radio station WNYC, she called the Second Amendment “outdated,” saying:

    When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function … If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only – and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that “[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”[220] This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[14] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.[221]

    Justice Thomas noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”, and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.[222] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[222]

    In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

    Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[199]

    Caetano v. Massachusetts

    On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”, that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”, and that the protection is not restricted to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15][223]

    United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller

    Before Heller

    Until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), United States v. Miller (1939) had been the only Supreme Court decision that “tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment].”[224] Miller did not directly mention either a collective or individual right, but for the 62-year period from Miller until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson (2001), federal courts recognized only the collective right,[225] with “courts increasingly referring to one another’s holdings…without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue”.[224]

    Emerson changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[224] Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit conflicted with Emerson in Silviera v. Lockyer, and the D.C. Circuit supported Emerson in Parker v. District of Columbia.[224] Parker evolved into District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    After Heller

    Since Heller, the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.[226][227] The following are post-Heller cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes:

    D.C. Circuit

    • Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 – On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[228] On September 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that requiring gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, although the court upheld requirements that gun owners be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete a safety training course.[229]
    • Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a “good reason” to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession.[230]

    First Circuit

    • United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) – On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited “the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns” and observed “the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.”[231]

    Second Circuit

    • Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942 – On November 28, 2012, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s may-issue concealed carry permit law, ruling that “the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.”[232]

    Fourth Circuit

    • United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) – On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.[233]
    • United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) – On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).[234] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller’s exception for “presumptively lawful” gun regulations made in accordance with “longstanding prohibitions”.[235]
    • Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2016) – On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. District Court decision upholding a Maryland law banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles, ruling that the District Court was wrong to have applied intermediate scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the higher strict scrutiny standard is to be applied on remand.[236] On March 4, 2016, the court agreed to rehear the case en banc on May 11, 2016.[237]

    Fifth Circuit

    • United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) – On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.[238][239]
    • United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “straw purchases.” A “straw purchase” occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.[233]
    • United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) – On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

    Sixth Circuit

    • Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff’s Dept., 775 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) – On December 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to firearms regulations when regulations burden “conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood.”[240] At issue in this case was whether the Second Amendment is violated by a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits possession of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. The court did not rule on the provision’s constitutionality, instead remanding the case to the United States district court that has earlier heard this case.[241] On April 21, 2015, the Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, thereby vacating the December 18 opinion.[242]

    Seventh Circuit

    • United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) – Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny,[243] on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.[243] Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.[244][245] Editorials favoring gun rights sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban,[246] while editorials favoring gun regulations praised the ruling as “a bucket of cold water thrown on the ‘gun rights’ celebration”.[247]
    • Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269)[248] – On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois’s ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court stayed this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation.[249][250][251] On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a vote of 5-4.[252] On July 9, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly, overriding Governor Quinn’s veto, passed a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms.[253]

    Ninth Circuit

    • Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012) – On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case en banc on September 24, 2009.[254][255][256][257] The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while upholding an Alameda County, California ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property.[258][259] The en banc panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance’s constitutionality and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[260] On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel’s May 2 decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc.[261][262] On April 4, 2012, the panel sent the case to mediation.[263] The panel dismissed the case on June 1, 2012, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance’s exception for “events”, subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.[264]
    • Teixeira v. County of Alameda, (Circuit docket 13-17132) – On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included being able to buy and sell firearms. The court ruled that a county law prohibiting a gun store being within 500 feet of a “[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served” violated the Second Amendment.[265]

    See also

    Notes and citations

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977

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 964, September 14, 2017, Story 1: Did President Trump Betray His Supporters By Promising Citizenship or Pathway To Citizenship For Illegal Alien “Dreamers”? — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers (Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ) Say They Have A Deal or Understanding and Rollover Republicans Support Trump (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan) — No Wall and No Deportation For 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Including “Dreamers” — You Were Warned Not To Trust Trump — Rollover Republicans Want Touch-back Amnesty For Illegal Aliens — Hell No — Illegal Aliens Must Go — Trump Has 48 Hours To Confirm or Deny Dreamer Citizenship Deal — Political Suicide Watch Countdown — Videos

Posted on September 14, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Jeb Bush, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Middle East, National Interest, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, South America, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017Image result for branco cartoons on trump on immigrationImage result for cartoons trump on dreamersImage result for cartoons on trump on dreamers

Image result for cartoons trump on dreamers

Image result for u.s. Border patroll statistic on apprehensions thourght 1990-2015

Image result for u.s. Border patroll statistic on apprehensions thourght 1990-2015

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Image result for u.S. immigration by decades througj 2010

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – NumbersUSA.com

Ann Coulter on illegal immigration

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U.S.? – Introduction

Published on Oct 20, 2007

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

Published on Oct 20, 2007

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

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

Published on Oct 20, 2007

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

Published on Oct 20, 2007

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

Published on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Fred Elbel

Published on Oct 20, 2007

Story 1: Did President Trump Betray His Supporters By Promising Citizenship or Pathway To Citizenship For Illegal Alien “Dreamers”? — Big Lie Media and Lying Lunatic Left Losers (Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi ) Say They Have A Deal or Understanding and Rollover Republicans Support Trump (Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan) — No Wall and No Deportation For 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens Including “Dreamers” — You Were Warned Not To Trust Trump — Rollover Republicans Want Touch-back Amnesty For Illegal Aliens — Hell No — Illegal Aliens Must Go — Trump Has 48 Hours To Confirm or Deny! — Political Suicide Watch Countdown — Videos

He’s a BETRAYER” Ann Coulter goes off on President Trump for deal with democrats

Tucker Carlson Tonight 9/14/17 | Tucker Fox News September 14, 2017

Ann Coulter Urges President Trump to Terminate DACA

President Donald Trump Supports DACA Amnesty? | True News

No, Trump Did Not Cave on the Border Wall in His DACA Deal

Laura Ingraham Show 9/14/17 Podcast – Trump Violating Pledge On The Wall at His Own Peril

Gohmert on ‘Political Realignment’ on Capitol Hill

Gohmert on Border Wall: ‘Some of Us Are Not Giving Up”

Breitbart And Ann Coulter Lash Out At Trump After Alleged Immigration Deal With Dems

“Amnesty Don” – the new country Western song about Trump supporting amnesty for illegals

Would the border wall be a part of the DACA deal?

President Trump: ‘Fairly close’ to DACA deal with Democrats

Daca: Trump denies reaching ‘Dreamers’ deal with Democrats

Trump disputes Democrats’ claim on DACA agreement

President Trump statement on immigration, green card reform with Sen Tom Cotton, Sen David Perdue

9 Misconceptions about the Green Card

Image result for green card

USCIS Form I-765 – Application for Employment Authorization

Image result for employment authorization card

Donald Trump: Green Card Reforms Will Reduce Unskilled Immigration | CNBC

Trump Makes Announcement on Immigration Reform

GOP lawmaker: Trump risking blowing up his base

Chuck Schumer Senate Floor: President Trump DACA Deal 9/14/17

Pelosi: Trump, Dems Agreed to ‘Move Forward’

Did Trump Just Give Away The Border? | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 383

It’s fine Trump is talking to Democrats on DACA: Sen. Ted Cruz

“Donald Trump will betray you on every issue” ~ Ted Cruz

Donald Trump: ‘We need to keep illegals out’ | Fox News Republican Debate

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Trump on immigration: ‘We either have a country or we don’t’

Donald Trump’s entire immigration speech

Trump: I want an immigration policy that benefits Americans

Rep Steve King discusses Trump’s touchback amnesty

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

US-Mexico border wall needs to be built: Rep. Gohmert

“Shut the Border!” Ben Shapiro on Illegal Immigration Reform

Ben Shapiro: Amnesty Will Destroy Conservatives

Why Trump Is 100% Correct In Ending #DACA

Trump Is Right About Illegal Immigration and the New World Order & Deep State Vow to Destroy Him

Ann Coulter: Immigration Act of 1965 designed to change demographics

Edwin Meese on Immigration

The 1986 IRCA and Current Reform Efforts

he 1986 IRCA and Contemporary Reform Efforts

Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986

Lessons learned from the 1986 immigration reform

Ronald Reagan’s amnesty legacy

Ronald Reagan – “I Believe in Amnesty for Illegal Aliens”

Reagan on Mexico Border 1980 – No Wall!

BEST VERSION: Reagan on Amnesty & Illegal Immigration

President Reagan’s Remarks at Ceremony for Immigration Reform and Control Act. November 6, 1986

1965 Immigration and Nationality Act

How the 1965 Immigration Act Changed America

The Immigration Act of 1965 and its Effects

The Impact of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965

1952: The McCarran-Walter Immigration Act

1924 Immigration Act

1917 Immigration Act

The Immigration History of the United States

America’s Sources of Immigration (1850-Today)

The Sopranos 6.06 – “How much more betrayal can I take?”

Trump’s die-hard supporters are fuming after an apparent about-face on ‘dreamers’

 September 14

Staunch conservative allies of President Trump have erupted in anger and incredulity after Democrats late Wednesday announced that the president had agreed to pursue a legislative deal that would protect thousands of young undocumented immigrants from deportation but not secure Trump’s signature campaign promise: building a massive wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

Nearing midnight and into Thursday, social media accounts came alive as elected officials and activists on the right dashed off tweets and posts to share their shock.

And in between those posts, there was a flurry of fuming calls and text messages — a blaring political fire alarm among Trump’s die-hard supporters.

“The reality is sinking in that the Trump administration is on the precipice of turning into an establishment presidency,” Sam Nunberg, a former Trump campaign adviser, said in an interview early Thursday morning.

While the initial wave of fury could change direction as new details emerge, the torrent represented the first major break of Trump’s devoted base from the president on a core issue.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), one of the GOP’s biggest immigration hawks, issued a dramatic warning to the president after he scrolled through news reports.

“If AP is correct, Trump base is blown up, destroyed, irreparable, and disillusioned beyond repair,” King tweeted, referencing an Associated Press story on the bipartisan agreement.

e added, “No promise is credible.”

Conservative radio talk show host Laura Ingraham, who is friendly with Trump, mocked him for seeming to shelve the pledge that has animated his supporters since his campaign’s launch.

“Exactly what @realDonaldTrump campaigned on. Not,” Ingraham wrote on Twitter. She later added, “BUILD THE WALL! BUILD THE WALL! … or … maybe … not really.”

Trump tried to calm the conservative outrage early Thursday in a series of tweets that insisted the border wall “will continue to be built” and that no deal was hashed out with Democrats on the undocumented young immigrants known as “dreamers.”

“No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,” Trump wrote, referring to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, an Obama-era program that has allowed 690,000 “dreamers” to work and go to school without fear of deportation.


Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) talks with President Trump in the Oval Office on Sept. 6. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)

As he departed the White House on Thursday en route to Florida, which has been ravaged by Hurricane Irma, Trump told reporters that “the wall will come later … The wall is going to be built, it’ll be funded a little bit later.”

“We are working on a plan for DACA,” Trump said, calling the negotiations “fairly close” to concluding. Congressional Republican leaders, he added, were “very much on board” with his position.

Conservative polemicist Ann Coulter, who wrote a book titled “In Trump We Trust”, did not buy the president’s explanation.

“At this point, who DOESN’T want Trump impeached?” Coulter tweeted on Thursday morning.

Breitbart News, the conservative website now run by former White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon, quickly became a gathering place for aggrieved Trump backers. Readers congregated by the thousands in the comments section for an article with a bright red headline: “Amnesty Don.”

Days earlier, Bannon said on CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he was “worried about losing the House now because of this, because of DACA,” arguing that Republican voters would lack enthusiasm for Trump and the party if they felt it was drifting to the center on immigration.

“If this goes all the way down to its logical conclusion, in February and March it will be a civil war inside the Republican Party that will be every bit as vitriolic as 2013,” Bannon said, referencing the stalled fight that year over a comprehensive immigration bill. “And to me, doing that in the springboard of primary season for 2018 is extremely unwise.”

“This a betrayal of the highest order,” a Breitbart editor, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said in a phone call late Wednesday. “Donald Trump should be ashamed of himself. He wasn’t elected to do this.”

The editor was mostly echoed by the site’s readers:

“Put a fork in Trump. He is done.”

“PRIMARY TIME!!!!”

“What a HUGE let down.”

“I can reconcile Trump caving on virtually any issue, Amnesty and not building the wall are not one of them.”

Adding to the tumult in the deep of night: conflicting accounts over what exactly Trump and Democrats had brokered.

Aides to Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) asserted that Trump had agreed not to request wall funding as part of their pact to soon move legislation to help undocumented immigrants who are protected under the executive order.

Play Video 2:47
What to know about the decision to end DACA
Embed
Share
The Trump administration is rescinding Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. The Obama-era program granted two-year work permits to undocumented immigrants brought into the country as children. (Jenny Starrs/The Washington Post)

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders tweeted at 10:21 p.m.: “While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to.”

Eleven minutes later, Matt House, an adviser to Schumer, tweeted: “The President made clear he would continue pushing the wall, just not as part of this agreement.”

Sanders’s Twitter assurance, however, did little to calm the roiled voices, especially in the populist-nationalist wing of the Republican Party — a wing deeply linked to Trump.

“Deep State Wins, Huge Loss for #MAGA,” Fox Business anchor Lou Dobbs tweeted, alluding to Trump’s “Make America Great Again” campaign slogan.

Others who have supported Trump’s immigration positions took a wait-and-see approach amid the chaos.

“My sense is that he told Chuck and Nancy what they wanted to hear, and they heard what they wanted to hear. I think there could be some mischief-making on the part of Schumer since the White House is walking it back,” said Mark Krikorian, an immigration hard-liner who runs the Center for Immigration Studies, in an interview.

Sen. Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa), the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, tweeted Thursday that his efforts to work with Democrats on immigration policy were “undercut” by Trump’s moves and asked the White House staff to “brief me.”

Meanwhile, Fox News host Sean Hannity, who is in regular contact with Trump, directed his ire over the developments not at the president but at GOP leaders on Capitol Hill.

“Well Mitch GREAT JOB!” Hannity tweeted, referring to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.). “You failed so miserably with Healthcare and ‘excessive expectations’ now @POTUS has to deal with Dem Leaders!”

Hannity added later, “I blame R’s. They caused this. They wanted him to fail and now pushed him into arms of political suicide — IF TRUE.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/09/14/according-to-democrats-trump-has-done-an-about-face-on-dreamers-his-diehard-supporters-are-fuming/?utm_term=.773af8800f82

You asked if anyone wants to deport ‘dreamers,’ President Trump: Yes. Your base.

Commentary: 

Don’t buy into all of that rosy PR about DACA

Mickey KausSpecial to the Washington Post

Who wants to deport “Dreamers”? Not many people, it turns out. Even veteran immigration restrictionists seem willing to legalize this subset of immigrants in the country illegally if it is part of a package deal. That’s true even though a lot of what’s said about the DACA recipients is PR-style hooey.

For example, it’s often said — indeed, former President Barack Obama just recently said — that the approximately 800,000 of them were “brought to this country by their parents.” Well, many were. But that’s not required to qualify as a protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program recipient under the various plans, including Obama’s. You just have to have entered the country illegally before age 16. You could have decided to sneak in against your parents’ wishes. You’re still a “Dreamer!”

Likewise, we’re told DACA recipients are college-bound high school grads or military personnel. That’s an exaggeration. All that’s actually required is that the person enroll in a high school course or an “alternative,” including online courses and English-as-a-second-language classes. Under Obama’s now-suspended program, you didn’t even have to stay enrolled.

Compared with the general population, DACA recipients are not especially highly skilled. A recent survey for several pro-”Dreamer” groups, with participants recruited by those groups, found that while most DACA recipients are not in school, the vast majority work. But their median hourly wage is only $15.34, meaning that many are competing with hard-pressed lower-skilled Americans.

The DACA recipients you read about have typically been carefully selected for their appeal. They’re valedictorians. They’re first responders. They’re curing diseases. They root for the Yankees. They want to serve in the Army. If DACA recipients are the poster children for the much larger population of immigrants in the country illegally, these are the poster children for the poster children.

Still, taking the DACA recipients as a whole, not just the dreamiest of them, they represent an appealing group of would-be citizens. So why not show compassion and legalize them? Because, as is often the case, the pursuit of pure compassion comes with harmful side effects.

First, it would create perverse incentives. Can you imagine a stronger incentive for illegal immigration than the idea that if you sneak into the country your kids will get to be U.S. citizens? Sure, the protections don’t currently apply to recent entrants — under Obama’s plan, you had to have come before 2007. But those dates can be changed — Obama himself tried to do it once. And the rationale for rewarding those who arrive when young — that they’re here through “no fault of their own” and know only America, etc. — can apply on into the future, with no apparent stopping point. What about the poor kids who came in 2008? 2018? There’s a reason no country has a rule that if you sneak in as a minor, you’re a citizen. We’d be inviting the world.

Second, it would have knock-on effects. Under “chain migration” rules established in 1965 — ironically as a sop to conservatives, who foolishly thought that they’d boost European inflows — new citizens can bring in their siblings and adult children, who can bring in their siblings and in-laws, until whole villages have moved to the United States. That means today’s DACA recipients would quickly become millions of newcomers, who may well be low-skilled and who would almost certainly include the parents who brought them — the ones who, in theory, are at fault.

There are obvious, sensible ways to control these side effects. Pair any DACA recipient amnesty with a major upgrade to our system to prevent a new undocumented wave — such as a mandatory extension of E-Verify, the system that lets employers check on the legal status of hires. Curtail the right to bring in distant relatives. Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., has proposed such a compromise — and it would be easy to compromise on his compromise, say by cutting back on chain migration only by the number of people that the new DREAM Act program adds to the citizenry. President Donald Trump could declare a one-time act of mercy for those who came here during the pre-Trump Era of Laxity, but make clear the game was changed for future entrants.

Why wouldn’t Democrats jump at such a deal? For years they’ve been touting “comprehensive immigration reform,” a mix of amnesty with stepped-up enforcement to prevent another surge of people entering the country illegally. But the DREAM Act is not comprehensive. It’s all amnesty, no prevention — let alone any compensating reduction in legal inflows. It’s hard to avoid the thought that Democrats (and Republicans who support the DREAM Act ) aren’t really interested in preventing illegal inflows. They’re not inclined to take Cotton up on his deal because they don’t think they have to.

If they win, we’ll get the compassion without dealing with its consequences. That would be especially unfortunate given the signs that Trump’s immigration crackdown, simply stepping up enforcement of current laws, is already helping to tighten the low end of the labor market and boost wages of low-skilled workers. News organizations are featuring stories from employers who aren’t getting their usual supply of workers in the U.S. illegally and are forced to take radical measures — such as raising wages. Proof of this connection, in the public mind, may be what terrifies the pro-immigration lobby the most.

The Washington Post

Mickey Kaus, the author of “The End of Equality,” writes at http://www.kausfiles.com.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-perspec-dreamers-daca-narrative-0914-story.html

 September 14

 

It seems like only about a week ago that the White House issued a statement from President Trump arguing that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program should be ended because, Trump argued, it encouraged illegal immigration and hurt salaries and job prospects for American citizens.

In fact, it was only about a week ago. On Sept. 5, Trump’s attorney general argued that the program — which allows some of those who immigrated to the country illegally as minors to live and work legally in the country — should be ended. The White House issued a statement from Trump bolstering Jeff Sessions’s arguments. The administration sent out talking points encouraging those in the program to use the six months before it ended to prepare to leave the country.

Even that afternoon, however, Trump seemed conflicted. A bit over a week later, his position on DACA has apparently flipped entirely.

Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!…..

…They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security

There’s a question embedded in those tweets: Who could possibly want to toss these immigrants out of the country (except for the White House a week ago)? And the answer is: A large percentage of the people who elected Donald Trump.

Shortly before Election Day last year, American National Election Studies pollsters interviewed thousands of Americans about their views on a number of political issues, including the issues at the heart of DACA.

What should happen to those who immigrated illegally as children but who met the criteria of the program, the pollsters asked. Most Americans — including most Republicans and Trump voters — thought they should be allowed to stay and work in the country.

Nearly a fifth of Americans, though, thought that those immigrants should be “sent back where they came from” — a percentage powered by nearly 3-in-10 Republicans holding that position.

What’s most important to note in that graph are the last two numbers. Thirty-two percent of Trump general-election voters thought that DACA recipients should be deported. This isn’t a big surprise: Nearly a fifth of Trump voters in November thought that immigration was the most important issue facing the country, according to exit polls.

But notice that the 32 percent of Trump voters supporting deportation is significantly lower than the 40 percent of Trump primary voters who hold that position. Trump’s primary voters — the core base of support that powered him to the Republican nomination and then the presidency — is more supportive of deporting DACA recipients than anyone else.

We’ve made this argument before, but it bears repeating. A hard line on immigration was central to Trump’s candidacy. His comments about Mexican immigrants “bringing crime” and being “rapists” at his campaign launch spurred a public backlash that, in turn, drew a lot of attention to his campaign and his position on immigration — a position that appealed to a lot of conservative voters but which was anathema to mainstream Republicans. The controversy over immigration allowed him to cement the support of a big chunk of the Republican electorate — a chunk large enough to vault him into the lead in the crowded field and, eventually, push him to the nomination.

Marco Rubio would keep Barack Obama’s executive order on amnesty intact. See article. Cannot be President.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/02/marco-rubio-jorge-ramos-will-keep-obamas-first-executive-amnesty-place-legislative-amnesty-enacted/ 

Photo published for Marco Rubio To Jorge Ramos: I Will Keep Obama's First Executive Amnesty In Place Until Legislative...

Marco Rubio To Jorge Ramos: I Will Keep Obama’s First Executive Amnesty In Place Until Legislative…

“I think it will have to end at some point and I hope it will end because of some reform to the immigration laws,” Rubio said.

breitbart.com

Perhaps Trump is making a more nuanced case reflecting the evolution he himself seems to have gone through over the past week: Once people get to know these kids, to think about the issue in a broader context, they’ll change their minds. Given how fervent opposition to illegal immigration is among a number of conservatives, though, it seems unlikely that those views would shift simply because Trump’s position has. Trump once said that he “could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody” without losing any support. That argument has proven to be sound repeatedly. But it’s not clear if Trump could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and safely grant residency status to an immigrant here illegally.

Trump expressing bafflement that anyone could want to deport DACA recipients is, in a sense, like Trump wondering aloud if there were actually people who would have supported Trump in July 2015. Trump’s presidency was built on the people who Trump now speculates couldn’t possibly exist.

No wonder those people are now angry.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/14/you-asked-if-anyone-wants-to-deport-dreamers-president-trump-yes-your-base/?utm_term=.e16b3e26390d

Trump vows to work with Dems to legalize Dreamers, says ‘the wall will come later’

 – The Washington Times – Thursday, September 14, 2017

President Trump said Thursday that he is working with Democratic leaders on a plan to legalize illegal immigrant Dreamers, and said he won’t insist on funding his border wall as part of it, saying that “will come later.”

The president also said GOP leaders in Congress are “very much on board” the deal he’s working with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

The two Democrats emerged from a working dinner at the White House Wednesday to say they’d all reached a framework, which would speed a bill to grant Dreamers full legal status, coupled with more border security. But they said the president agreed the wall wouldn’t be part of that security.

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders disputed that version later Wednesday, but Mr. Trump on Thursday agreed with the Democrats’ reading, saying that the wall will not be part of the deal.

“The wall will come later, we’re right now renovating large sections of wall, massive sections, making it brand new,” he said as he departed the White House en route to Florida, where he was to look at hurricane recovery efforts.

Mr. Trump said he will insist on “massive border controls” as part of the Dreamer bill.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/sep/14/donald-trump-vows-work-democrats-legalize-dreamers/

‘If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing’: Trump says there WILL eventually be a border wall and there won’t be amnesty for Dreamers

  • Democrats Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi claimed after a dinner at the White House with the president that a DACA deal had been done
  • They said  that Trump agreed to enshrine protections for 800,000 illegal immigrants, aka Dreamers, in a border security package ‘excluding the wall’ 
  • White House press secretary Sarah Sanders later said that there was no agreement on the wall during the meeting
  • President Trump said the same thing in a string of tweets on Thursday morning
  • ‘No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,’ he said 
  • Follow up message: ‘The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built’
  • Trump again pushed Congress to pass legislation protecting the immigrants – but said he wanted ‘BIG border security’
  • As he left the White House, Trump admitted he was ‘fairly close’ to reaching a deal with Democrats that excluded the wall and GOP leader are ‘on board’
  • Pelosi and Schumer released a statement around the same time saying the president’s tweets were not inconsistent with what they said 
  • When he landed in Florida Trump clarified that there will be a wall, just later, when he’s ready for it – and there won’t be amnesty for illegal immigrants 

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he’s ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress.

‘Ultimately, we have to have the wall. If we don’t have the wall, we’re doing nothing,’ Trump reporters from the tarmac when he landed in Florida for a briefing on Hurricane Irma this morning.

The president also denied that he was giving ‘amnesty’ to illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children as part of an agreement he’s working on with Democrats.

‘We’re not looking at citizenship. We’re not looking at amnesty. We’re looking at allowing people to stay here. We’re working with everybody, Republican, we’re working with Democrat,’ Trump stated.

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he's ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress. He talked to reporters from the tarmac in Florida

President Donald Trump says he expects funding for his border wall to pass when he’s ready for it or Republicans will become the obstructionists in Congress. He talked to reporters from the tarmac in Florida

His claim about citizenship directly contradicts what the leading House Democrat is saying about a conversation that took place over dinner last night at the White House.

Nancy Pelosi said at a news conference this morning Democrats and Trump have an ‘understanding’ and that people under the DACA program would get a path to citizenship. 

‘It’s in the DACA bill,’ Pelosi said. ‘The path to citizenship … they get way at the end of the line of people who’ve been here fully documented…Just in terms of timing it’s a long way down the road,’ she said.

The president admitted earlier on Thursday as he left the White House for the daylong trip that he discussed a deal with Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall.

Citizenship did not come up in the original dispute. The part of the conversation the White House was quibbling with was about the border wall.

After claiming in early morning tweets that ‘no deal’ had been reached, Trump told reporters awaiting his departure that he was ‘fairly close’ to hammering out an agreement that mirrors the one his White House smacked down last night as a false negotiation.

‘We’re working on a plan for DACA. People want to see that happen. You have 800,000 young people brought here, no fault of their own, so we’re working on a plan, we will see how it works out. But we are going to get massive border security as part of that, and I think something can happen,’ Trump said over the roar of Marine One.

The president explicitly said, ‘The wall will come later.’ He also claimed that House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are ‘on board’ with the DACA deal he hammered out last night at a private meeting with Democrats.

‘The wall is going to be built, and it will be funded later,’ he asserted.

Trump admitted Thursday as he left the White House for a daylong trip to Florida that he discussed a deal with Democrats to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Trump admitted Thursday as he left the White House for a daylong trip to Florida that he discussed a deal with Democrats to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Trump explained in Florida that funding for the wall would not be a part of the immigration and border security package that’s in the works on Capitol Hill. It’s part of a separate set of budget and spending priorities his administration sent to Congress.

The president said he anticipates that a DACA deal will come to fruition in the next six months, although there is not one now, clarifying a disagreement that erupted last night and has sucked in all of Washington.

After Democratic leaders sent out a statement last night saying they ‘agreed’ with the president on a border package that doesn’t include the wall, news outlets reported that Trump struck a deal with the opposing party and caved on one of his top campaign priorities.

The statement did not say there was a ‘deal.’ It referred to an agreement, though, creating mass confusion about what had actually happened. The White House added to the chaos by claiming in a tweet that Trump did not agree to exclude funding for the border wall from a DACA and border security package.

Except that he did, as acknowledge himself today.

‘It doesn’t have to be here,’ he said of the DACA and border security package, ‘but they can’t obstruct the wall if its in a budget or anything else.’

 The president indicated then that Pelosi and Schumer’s original statement was not inaccurate, it had just been misinterpreted. 

‘There was no deal and they didn’t say they had a deal…they didn’t say that at all,’ he stated.

A debacle for both sides, the DACA ‘deal’ became a major distraction for Trump as he prepared to leave Washington for Florida to survey the damage caused by Hurricane Irma.

Trump said in this early morning tweets that ‘massive border security’ adjustments would have to be on the table for him to make a handshake agreement with Democrats.

‘No deal was made last night on DACA. Massive border security would have to be agreed to in exchange for consent. Would be subject to vote,’ he said in back to back messages. ‘The WALL, which is already under construction in the form of new renovation of old and existing fences and walls, will continue to be built.’

Schumer, the top Senate Democrat, and Pelosi, the head Democrat in the House, said in a joint statement at roughly the same time as Trump was speaking to the press at the White House that his tweets were not inconsistent with what they’d claimed in the Wednesday evening statement.

They said last night after a White House dinner that an agreement had been brokered that would protect the 800,000 immigrants who benefited from former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.

Trump had put the program on a six-month sunset and urged Congress to pass legislation in that window to keep Dreamers, as they are called, in the U.S. permanently.

The Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of an agreement to keep Dreamers from being deported.

Hours later, as he spoke to reporters as the White House, Trump seemed to confirm what Pelosi and Schumer had said.

‘We want to get massive border security, and I think that both Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, I think they agree with it,’ Trump posited. ‘So we met last night, with, as you know, Schumer, Pelosi and a whole group. I think we’re fairly close but we have to get massive border security. ‘

Trump said he’d spoken to McConnell and Ryan since, and they had no qualms with the package that’s under development.

Oh I think he’s on board, yeah, Mitch is on board. Paul Ryan’s on board. We all feel, look, 92 percent of the people agree on DACA, but we want, is we want very, very powerful border security,’ Trump said.

President Donald Trump says he did not make a deal with Democratic leaders to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall 

President Donald Trump says he did not make a deal with Democratic leaders to protect illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as minors from deportation and fund some border security enhancements but not a wall

Schumer and Pelosi more or less agreed with Trump’s take on the meeting in a joint statement that hit inboxes as he was talking.

‘President Trump’s Tweets are not inconsistent with the agreement reached last night. As we said last night, there was no final deal, but there was agreement on the following:

‘We agreed that the President would support enshrining DACA protections into law, and encourage the House and Senate to act.

‘What remains to be negotiated are the details of border security, with a mutual goal of finalizing all details as soon as possible. While both sides agreed that the wall would not be any part of this agreement, the President made clear he intends to pursue it at a later time, and we made clear we would continue to oppose it.

‘Both sides agreed that the White House and the Democratic leaders would work out a border security package. Possible proposals were discussed including new technology, drones, air support, sensor equipment, rebuilding roads along the border and the bipartisan McCaul-Thompson bill.’

Pelosi vouched later at a press conference in the Capitol for the president’s overall sincerity, as well.

‘When we’re talking about this legislation to protect the DREAMers, yes I do trust that the president is sincere in understanding that the public supports that overwhelmingly, the public supports not sending these young people back,’ Pelosi said.

It’s the second time in two weeks that Trump has met with Pelosi and Schumer to talk about a deal with the potential to anger conservatives. The first time he met with them Ryan and McConnell were present. The meeting ended with a firm agreement to move forward with a three-month extension of government funding and the debt limit.

Importantly, the deal provided immediate aid to areas affected by Hurricane Harvey.

A joint Democratic statement that hit inboxes at 9:45 pm last night that began the brouhaha over DACA and the border wall said Pelosi and Schumer had a ‘very productive meeting at the White House with the President’ once again.

‘The discussion focused on DACA. We agreed to enshrine the protections of DACA into law quickly, and to work out a package of border security, excluding the wall, that’s acceptable to both sides.’

At 10:21 pm, White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said they were mistaken.

‘While DACA and border security were both discussed, excluding the wall was certainly not agreed to,’ she tweeted.

Trump followed up in a series of tweets this morning that suggested the joint statement was wrong, too. He defended the Dreamers again – yet said ‘no deal’ had been made.

‘Does anybody really want to throw out good, educated and accomplished young people who have jobs, some serving in the military? Really!’ he said. ‘They have been in our country for many years through no fault of their own – brought in by parents at young age. Plus BIG border security.’

The DACA program provides two-year work permits and protection from deportation to its 800,000 recipients.

Trump said he was ending the program this month and giving Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before DACA paperwork begins to expire.

Conservatives were quick to point out that previous amnesty deals did not end with immigration overhaul like the one Trump has been pushing.

‘Reagan led with Amnesty, 1986. Bush 43 led with Amnesty ’06, Obama led with Amnesty ’13. All failed so…Trump leads with DACA Amnesty 2017,’ Iowa Rep. Steve King tweeted.

A joint Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of the agreement. The White House spokeswoman immediately slapped the claim down

A joint Democratic statement said that Trump agreed to set aside the border wall as part of the agreement. The White House spokeswoman immediately slapped the claim down

The deal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (picturd on Wednesday) following a White House dinner would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as children

The deal announced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi (picturd on Wednesday) following a White House dinner would enshrine protections for the nearly 800,000 immigrants brought illegally to this country as children

The White House initially said the president had had 'a constructive working dinner' with Schumer (pictured), Pelosi and administration officials

The White House had initially claimed that the president had had ‘a constructive working dinner’ with Schumer, Pelosi and administration officials ‘to discuss policy and legislative priorities’ such as DACA.

‘This is a positive step toward the President’s strong commitment to bipartisan solutions for the issues most important to all Americans,’ the White House said.

During a White House meeting earlier in the day with Republicans and Democrats, Trump brought DACA back to the forefront of the discussion.

‘We don’t want to forget DACA,’ Trump said. ‘We want to see if we can do something in a bipartisan fashion so that we can solve the DACA problem and other immigration problems.’

Trump has called Schumer a ‘clown’ and a ‘loser’ in the past, but has turned to the fellow New Yorker more recently to help break through congressional gridlock.

‘More and more we’re trying to work things out together,’ Trump said Wednesday. ‘If you look at some of the greatest legislation ever passed, it was done on a bipartisan manner. And so that’s what we’re going to give a shot.’

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said earlier Wednesday that Trump was 'committed to the wall. It doesn't have to be tied to DACA but its important and he will get it done'

White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said earlier Wednesday that Trump was ‘committed to the wall. It doesn’t have to be tied to DACA but its important and he will get it done’

Trump (pictured on Wednesday) ended the DACA program earlier this month and had given Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before the statuses of the so-called 'Dreamers' begin to expire

Trump (pictured on Wednesday) ended the DACA program earlier this month and had given Congress six months to come up with a legislative fix before the statuses of the so-called ‘Dreamers’ begin to expire

Sanders said Wednesday that Trump was ‘committed to the wall’ while acknowledging that ‘it doesn’t have to be tied to DACA.’

‘But it’s important and he will get it done,’ she said.

Ryan, the House speaker, told AP Wednesday during an interview that deporting Dreamers was ‘not in our nation’s interest.’ Trump was right to include a six-month sunset in his DACA termination orders.

‘I wanted him to give us time. I didn’t want this to be rescinded on Day One and create chaos,’ Ryan said. Congress how has time to ‘come up with the right kind of consensus and compromise to fix this problem.’

At a news conference on Thursday afternoon, Ryan reiterated his position on a DACA fix.

McConnell said in a paper statement that he and his colleagues ‘look forward’ to Trump’s proposal.

‘As Congress debates the best ways to address illegal immigration through strong border security and interior enforcement, DACA should be part of those discussions. We look forward to receiving the Trump administration’s legislative proposal as we continue our work on these issue,’ the senator said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4882526/Trump-agrees-deal-Democrats-protect-immigrants.html#ixzz4sgM3IU7l

 

Cruz Is Far Tougher On Illegal Aliens Than Trump, Who Supports “Touchback” Amnesty

In the 2016 GOP primaries, Donald Trump has positioned himself as a hardliner on immigration. The general consensus is that no one is tougher on illegal aliens than Donald Trump. But is that actually the case?

While Trump would work diligently to deport all illegal immigrants-he has even proposed creating a “deportation force”-most would be surprised to learn that he would welcome the non-violent, “good” ones back in on an expedited basis. An expedited basis means line-cutting, and line-cutting means amnesty.

Trump’s specific plan-deportation before amnesty-is known as “touchback” amnesty, which was first proposed in 2007 by some members of Congress but failed after strong opposition from conservatives.

Marc Thiessen has written about it here, and also explains it below:

“My position is very simple. I oppose amnesty. I oppose citizenship. I oppose legalization … Today, tomorrow, forever. I believe in the rule of law.”

Cruz recently made note of the difference between his position and Trump’s:

Some Trump supporters will say that Cruz flip-flopped on a legal status-although Cruz insists that he was inserting a poison pill into the Gang of Eight bill.

If we are going to consider past positions, we can’t forget that Trump said in 2012 that Mitt Romney’s plan for self-deportation was “maniacal” and “mean-spirited.” And in 2013, Trump told a group of DREAMers that they had “convinced” him.

Ultimately voters will have to ask themselves whose immigration policy they prefer, and which candidate they trust.

https://www.redstate.com/diary/southernconstitutionalist/2016/01/11/cruz-far-tougher-illegal-aliens-trump-supports-touchback-amnesty/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-964

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 944, August 10, 2017, Story 1: Trump Preparing for Casus Belli and Negotiating With “Locked and Loaded” …Ready, Aim, “Fire and Fury” — Boom-Boom- Boom- Boom — Born To Be Wild — Thunder – Thunder – Thunder – Thunder — Thunderstruck — Videos

Posted on August 11, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Japan, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Mike Pence, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, South Korea, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939,  August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902, May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901, May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900, May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899, May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898, May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897, May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896, May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895, May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894, May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893, May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892, May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891, May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890, May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889, May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888, May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887, May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886, May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885, May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884, May 1, 2017

Image result for presser president trump and vice president mike pence august 10, 207

Image result for president trump locked and loaded

Image result for preemptive war quotesImage result for fire and furyImage result for boom boom boom HookerImage result for fire and fury

Story 1: Trump Preparing for Casus Belli and Negotiating With “Locked and Loaded” …Ready, Aim, “Fire and Fury” — Boom-Boom- Boom- Boom — Born To Be Wild — Thunder – Thunder – Thunder – Thunder- Thunderstruck — Videos

President Trump holds a Press Conference

Brand New President Trump Presser! This is Awesome! (8-10-17)

Europa Universalis IV – The Musical: Casus Belli

Casus belli – Seinfeld

Scott Adams tells you why “fire and fury” is smart persuasion \ 2017.08.09

Scott Adams tells you how Trump is “pacing” North Korea and treating them like serious foes

China To Trump Prepare For War

Trump Tells N. Korea What Will Happen If They Hit Guam | Trump Full Remarks On N. Korea – 8/10/17

Preemptive War Debate (Part 1)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 2)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 3)

Preemptive War Debate (Part 4)

John Lee Hooker – Boom Boom (from “The Blues Brothers”)

John Lee Hooker – Boom Boom [HQ]

Steppenwolf – Born To Be Wild (Easy Rider) (1969)

AC/DC – Thunderstruck (Official Video)

Thunderstruck
Thunder, thunder, thunder, thunder
I was caught
In the middle of a railroad track
I looked round
And I knew there was no turning back
My mind raced
And I thought what could I do
And I knew
There was no help, no help from you
Sound of the drums
Beating in my heart
The thunder of guns
Tore me apart
You’ve been
Thunderstruck
Rode down the highway
Broke the limit, we hit the town
Went through to Texas, yeah Texas, and we had some fun
We met some girls
Some dancers who gave a good time
Broke all the rules
Played all the fools
Yeah yeah they, they, they blew our minds
And I was shaking at the knees
Could I come again please
Yeah them ladies were too kind
You’ve been
Thunderstruck
I was shaking at the knees

AC-DC Thunderstruck / Jet Fighters

Battleship & ACDC – Thunderstruck

PRESIDENT TRUMP DECLARES THAT US IS “LOCK AND LOADED” IN RESPONSE TO ANY NORTH KOREAN PROVOCATION AGAINST GUAM OR ALLIES

Here is President Trump’s response to North Korea’s recent threats made against Guam:

 

Military solutions are now fully in place,locked and loaded,should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!

In his latest broadside at North Korea, President Trump bluntly warned dictator Kim Jong Un on Friday that the U.S. military was “locked and loaded” in case the country should “act unwisely.”

“Military solutions are now fully in place, locked and loaded, should North Korea act unwisely. Hopefully Kim Jong Un will find another path!” Trump said on Twitter.

It was not clear exactly what sort of “military solutions” Trump was referring to or what precisely would constitute unwise action by the North Korean leader.

But North Korea said on Thursday it was putting together a plan to fire four missiles in the direction of the U.S. territory of Guam, a Pacific island that is home to large American military installations.

Trump’s warning came a day after Defense Secretary Jim Mattis told reporters in Silicon Valley that the U.S. effort to “get this under control” was “diplomatically led,” “gaining traction,” and “gaining diplomatic results.”

Mattis underlined that he wanted to “stay right there right now” and warned that the cost of conflict could be “catastrophic,” but also said that when it comes to the U.S. military, “we are ready.”  [Yahoo News]

http://www.rokdrop.net/2017/08/president-trump-declares-that-us-is-lock-and-loaded-in-response-to-any-north-korean-provocation-against-guam-or-allies/

An American A-10 Warthog landed at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, on Thursday.CreditYonhap, via Associated Press

WASHINGTON — North Korea’s threat on Thursday to test-fire ballistic missiles soon near the American territory of Guam deepened the challenge confronting the Trump administration: how to defang Pyongyang’s missile programs without risking all-out war.

President Trump has made clear that his goal is to deny North Korea the capability to field a long-range nuclear-tipped missile that could strike the United States.

And though the Pentagon still hopes for a diplomatic solution, highly classified military options are at the ready, last seriously debated when the Clinton administration pondered pre-emptive action to try to thwart North Korea’s nuclear program.

Even a limited strike against a North Korean missile on its launching pad or the shooting down of a missile in midair would pose risks that the North’s leader, Kim Jong-un, might retaliate, setting off a spiral of escalation that could plunge the Korean Peninsula into war.

“In the event of a first strike against Kim, even a non-nuclear option, it is highly likely that Kim would retaliate at least conventionally against South Korea,” said James Stavridis, a retired four-star admiral who is now dean of Tufts University’s Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy. “This almost certainly would create an upward spiral of violence which would be extremely difficult to manage or to mitigate.”

The Trump administration’s first recourse has been diplomacy. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson sought to head off North Korea’s missile program this week by suggesting that the United States could open talks with Pyongyang if North Korea would halt its missile tests.

GRAPHIC

What Can North Korea Reach With Its Missiles?

North Korea’s ballistic missile program has recently accelerated faster than expected.

On Thursday, however, North Korea raised the stakes by saying that it was considering a plan to test-fire four intermediate-range Hwasong-12 missiles in international waters near Guam, home to American air and naval bases as well as a Thaad antimissile system.

Mr. Trump hinted broadly later in the day that he has his own military options in mind. “Obviously we’re spending a lot of time looking at, in particular, North Korea,” he told reporters, “and we are preparing for many different alternative events.”

But few of the military options are straightforward, and some former Pentagon officials involved in war planning for North Korea pointed to the complexities.

A major consideration would be whether and when to evacuate American and other allied civilians, which is no small feat as Seoul, a city of about 10 million, is within range of North Korea’s rockets and artillery and the North Korean military is also armed with chemical and biological weapons.

“With all this talk, what I worry about is a serious miscalculation,” said James D. Thurman, a retired Army general who served as the top United States commander in South Korea from 2011 to 2013. “Before we start talking about all these military options, we have to decide what are we going to do with the U.S. citizens over there.”

He estimated that at least a quarter-million Americans would have to be moved.

If the United States was prepared to go beyond a limited strike, it could conduct a surprise attack on North Korea’s missile garrison and weapon storage areas, using American aircraft stationed in Guam, in Japan and on aircraft carriers as well as strategic bombers that would be refueled in flight.

American officials, however, do not have high confidence that the military could find and destroy North Korea’s entire arsenal of long-range missiles and nuclear warheads. It would be up to American missile defenses to knock out any that survived and that North Korea might use to attack the United States or its allies.

North Korea could also use its artillery, rockets and special operations forces to attack South Korea. To better defend against the threat, the United States could deploy more of its own artillery, counterbattery and reconnaissance aircraft to South Korea and send more air and naval forces to the region. But that would forfeit any element of surprise.

“I can’t underscore enough how unappealing all the military options are,” said Christine Wormuth, the Pentagon’s top policy official at the end of the Obama administration. “This wouldn’t end well. The U.S. would win, but it would be ugly.”

Diplomatic efforts are also deeply complicated. Unless China believes the United States is serious about using military options to head off North Korea’s emerging missile threat, it may be difficult to gain the cooperation from Beijing needed to fashion a political solution.

“I am 100 percent sure from a number of conversations that, as a last resort, he would use military force to deny them the capability to strike the homeland with a nuclear weapon,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, who met privately with Mr. Trump on the issue a month ago.

“He has convinced me,” Mr. Graham added. “Now it is up to him to convince the Chinese and North Koreans.”

To prevent nuclear attacks from elsewhere, namely Russia and China, the United States has relied on its potent nuclear arsenal. Some experts say the approach could also work with North Korea — a “least-bad option,” said Jeffrey A. Bader of the Brookings Institution.

But Mr. Trump has indicated that he does not want to rely on deterrence for a country he sees as bellicose and unpredictable.

Discouraging the enemy from massive escalation has worked even in the midst of war. During the 1991 Persian Gulf war, the administration of George Bush led an effort to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait while dissuading Saddam Hussein from employing chemical weapons.

The Iraqis were warned shortly before the conflict by Secretary of State James A. Baker III that they would pay a heavy price if they used weapons of mass destruction. The Iraqi government interpreted that as meaning that the United States would rush to Baghdad to topple their government.

The United States could try a similar approach: attacking North Korea’s missiles while warning Mr. Kim that his government would be the next target if he dared to strike back. But few analysts are confident he would be restrained.

Those urging firmer action assert that a military buildup in and around South Korea could give economic sanctions and diplomacy more time to work while providing American negotiators with more leverage.

Mr. Graham asserted that diplomatic efforts would fail unless the United States made clear that North Korea’s deployment of an intercontinental missile would cross a “red line” and that military options were available if the talks faltered.

But General Thurman worried that the war of words was fueling tensions and adding to the risk of miscalculation.

“We are playing right into Kim Jong-un’s hands,” General Thurman said. “That is what he wants. He wants to be on the world scene.”

“I really would want to tamp down this rhetoric, maintain armistice conditions, keep the force ready and,” he said, “not get the herd spooked.”

Unspoken Words: Nuclear War Provocations and Plans

During the election campaign there was a brief period of anxiety about Clinton or Trump taking possession of the nuclear code, with the power to eradicate our species at the push of a few buttons.  But where has discussion, let alone mention, of nuclear weapons gone?   An exception is the brief article by Robert Dodge in CounterPunch  about the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists advancing the Doomsday Clock to 2 ½ minutes before the midnight of human extinction caused by nuclear war or climate change:  “Nuclear weapons are not even on the radar of our congress. Their phones are not ringing off the hook about nuclear weapons.”

In a January 30th interview with Sonali Kolhatkar, George Lakoff discussed Trump’s trial balloon about nuclear weapons in which Trump said that if we have them, we should use them.  Lakoff said that there was a very brief reaction and then it’s gone, signaling that the public doesn’t care.  Doesn’t care or doesn’t know? Harvard professor Elaine Scarry has said that some of her students had never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

It is a dangerous time to not know about nuclear weapons.  Trump inherited from Obama the ongoing US/NATO/Israeli escalation and military encirclement against  Iran, China, and Russia, and  the $1tn program to modernize nuclear weapons.   On January 28th the Ron Paul Institute reported that Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-FL) introduced a bill to Congress:    “… it specifically authorizes the president to launch a pre-emptive war on Iran at any time of his choosing and without any further Congressional oversight or input, as the President determines necessary and appropriate in order to achieve the goal of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons.” (Emphasis added).

Among the challengers to Iran’s purported nuclear threat are  Richard Falk (UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Occupied Territories, expert on nuclear weapons and international law):  “What has Iran done to justify this frantic war-mongering … the outright threats emanating from Israel and the U.S. that leaves ‘all options’ on the table”?   Seymour Hersh investigated Israel’s nuclear weapons program in his book The Samson Option.  About Iran, Hersh wrote ofthe repeated inability of the best and the brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran….. with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.”  And perhaps most damning, the U.K. Guardian: “Leaked spy cables show Binyamin Netanyahu’s dramatic declaration to world leaders in 2012 that Iran was about a year away from making a nuclear bomb was contradicted by his own secret service, according to a top-secret Mossad document.”  Robert Fisk in The Independent 2012: “The Israeli President warns us now that Iran is on the cusp of producing a nuclear weapon. Heaven preserve us. Yet we reporters do not mention that Shimon Peres, as Israeli Prime Minister, said exactly the same thing in 1996. That was 16 years ago. And we do not recall that the current Israeli PM, Benjamin Netanyahu, said in 1992 that Iran would have a nuclear bomb by 1999. That would be 13 years ago.  Same old story. We’ve been here before – and it suits Israel that we never forget ‘Nuclear Iran.’”

Noam Chomsky reported that a  nuclear Iran suited the U.S. pre-1979, before the Islamic revolution overthrew the brutal shah regime.  “A secret agreement made between MIT and the Shah of Iran, … pretty much amounted to turning over the Nuclear Engineering Department to the Shah.”  Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kissinger, and Wolfowitz “wanted Iran to develop nuclear facilities and they were allies at the time.”  [1]

Demonizing Iran at this time deflects attention from real nuclear dangers.  According to the 2016 report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the nine nuclear states together possess a total of approximately 15,395 nuclear weapons, with the United States and Russia accounting for more than 93%.   The public likely does not know that shortly after the UN pledged to end the scourge of war, shortly after two atomic bombs killed minimally 140,000 Japanese people, that the U.S. embarked on developing far more lethal hydrogen bombs.   The explosive force of the Hiroshima bomb was 15-16 kilotons, whereas today’s bombs are in the range of 100 Kt to 550Kt of TNT (6 to 34 times the Hiroshima force). “Even a small-scale nuclear war involving one hundred Hiroshima-type (15 Kt) nuclear bombs between two countries such as India and Pakistan, would have a devastating effect on Earth’s climate” and “it is unlikely there would be any survivors.”  “At most, this would involve only 0.3% of the world’s nuclear explosive power” [2]

Nuclear weapons are deployed by intercontinental ballistic missiles, by submarine launched ballistic missiles, and by strategic bombers.   Submarines carrying up to 24 missiles, with each carrying  four to five warheads, possibly as many as 144 warheads per submarine, constantly patrol the oceans.   In a striking example of apparent disregard for the people of this planet,  a CNN newscast from August 2016 shows a smiling Michelle Obama “christening” a General Dynamic Virginia-class submarine manufactured in Connecticut, named after her, and designed to carry nuclear weapons.     According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, even though a Russian first-strike is not a credible risk, the United States still keeps its 450 silo-based nuclear weapons, and hundreds of submarine-based weapons, on hair-trigger alert and ready to launch within ten minutes toward their targets.

The five year UN Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review met in April, 2015, following four years of preparatory meetings.  Given the volatile tension between the U.S. and Russia and China, there was an urgency to take nuclear weapons off high alert status.  Instead, the focus of the month-long meeting was diverted to Iran’s nuclear weapons and to political opposition by the U.S., U.K., and Canada to establishing a nuclear weapons free zone in the Middle East in order to shield Israel’s nuclear program from international laws and oversight.  In violation of the NPT, Germany has provided Israel  with a fleet of advanced submarines equipped to fire long-range nuclear-tipped cruise missiles.  Astonishingly, two of these submarines, which carry weapons of mass destruction, were given to Israel as Holocaust reparation!  According to Netanyahu, the submarines carry nuclear weapons pointed at Iran.  “The Obama administration’s pretense that it knows nothing about any nuclear weapons in Israel makes intelligent discussion about the dangers of nuclear weapons in the Middle East all but impossible.” India provides Israel with a launching site in the Indian Ocean.

During the Cold War, nuclear weapons strategy was based on deterrence, or mutually assured destruction (MAD).  Deterrence necessitated the capacity to retaliate with nuclear weapons, so the strategy in itself required weapons proliferation.  Shortly after 9/11,  G.W. Bush withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM).   Missile defence systems are designed to destroy incoming nuclear missiles shortly after they are launched.   There is a belief within the military that the U.S. could destroy its enemy’s full nuclear arsenal and prevent retaliation.  Nuclear strategy shifted from deterrence to pre-emptive first strike, with the belief that a nuclear war is winnableand acceptable.

Frustrated by the decades-long paralysis in regulating and eliminating these weapons, and fearful that there is even more likelihood of nuclear war than during the Cold War, the UN-formed Open Ended Working Group (OPEG), made up of all nations, is now focusing entirely and explicitly on eliminating nuclear weapons.  The nuclear-armed nations, plus many liberal democracies like Canada, Italy, Germany, Spain and other NATO countries, have voted against the majority.  Iran voted for.

The late Jonathan Schell dedicated his life to the abolition of nuclear weapons.  He wrote that nuclear exterminism did not come from 20thcentury totalitarian regimes, but that “the most radical evil imaginable – the extinction of the human species— [was] first placed in the hands of a liberal republic”.  A graver suspicion was that the United States and its allies did not build these weapons to face extraordinary danger, but because of “an intrinsic element of the dominant liberal civilization itself – an evil that first grew and still grows from within that civilization rather than being imposed from without.” [3]   Entire societies, the human species itself, are merely a pawn.   Schell writes that nuclear strategy is the “very epicenter of banality” and is manufactured in think tanks and academic institutions from the pseudoscience of game theory.

The anti-nuclear and antiwar movements have been relatively silent about Israel and about Obama’s nuclear program.    One current political opening may be women’s timely activism on the ground, with the precedent of women having led the successful opposition to atmospheric nuclear weapons testing in 1961.  Women, in their historical role of caring for the young and old, for growing food and carrying water, are the unseen victims of war and should have the power to veto.

Notes.

[1] Noam Chomsky and Laray Polk (2013). Nuclear war and Environmental Catastrophe. Seven Stories Press), p. 21-22.

[2] Dr. Dale Dewar and Florian Oelck (2014). From Hiroshima to Fukushima to You: A Primer on Radiation and Health. Between the Lines. P. 149-50. Also see Eric Schlosser (2013). Command and Control: Nuclear Weapons, the Damascus Accident, and the Illusion of Safety. Penguin.

[3] Jonathan Schell (2001). The Unfinished Twentieth Century: The Crisis of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Verso.  P. 32-47.

 

Casus belli

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Casus belli is a Latin expression meaning “an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war” (literally, “a case of war”).[1] A casus belli involves direct offenses or threats against the nation declaring the war, whereas a casus foederis involves offenses or threats against its ally—usually one bound by a mutual defense pact.[2][3] Either may be considered an act of war.

The term came into wide use in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries through the writings of Hugo Grotius (1653), Cornelius van Bynkershoek (1707), and Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui (1732), among others, and due to the rise of the political doctrine of jus ad bellum or “just war theory”.[4][5] The term is also used informally to refer to any “just cause” a nation may claim for entering into a conflict. It is used retrospectively to describe situations that arose before the term came into wide use, as well as being used to describe present-day situations—even those in which war has not been formally declared.

In formally articulating a casus belli, a government typically lays out its reasons for going to war, its intended means of prosecuting the war, and the steps that others might take to dissuade it from going to war. It attempts to demonstrate that it is going to war only as a last resort (ultima ratio) and that it has “just cause” for doing so. Modern international law recognizes only three lawful justifications for waging war: self-defense, defense of an ally required by the terms of a treaty, and approval by the United Nations.

Proschema (plural proschemata) is the equivalent Greek term, first popularized by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War. The proschemata are the stated reasons for waging war, which may or may not be the same as the real reasons, which Thucydides called prophasis (πρóφασις). Thucydides argued that the three primary real reasons for waging war are reasonable fear, honor, and interest, while the stated reasons involve appeals to nationalism or fearmongering (as opposed to descriptions of reasonable, empirical causes for fear).

Reasons for use

Countries need a public justification for attacking another country, both to galvanize internal support for the war and to gain the support of potential allies.

In the post-World-War-II era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except: 1) as a means of defending themselves—or an ally where treaty obligations require it—against aggression; 2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation. The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries that embark on wars of aggression.[6]

Historical examples

This section outlines a number of the more famous and/or controversial cases of casus belli which have occurred in modern times.

American Civil War

While slavery was the long term cause of the American Civil War, the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter (April 12–14, 1861) served as casus belli[7] for igniting the deadliest war in American history.

Spanish–American War

In the eyes of the United States, the sinking of the USS Maine provided casus belli for the Spanish–American War. There have been several alternative explanations for the explosion, such as that proposed by Mr. Evans, a senior editor of Newsweek. In his book, he identifies a flaw in the design of the USS Maine whereby the boiler room stood right next to the gunpowder storage room and that a boiler malfunction may have heated the adjacent metal wall and caused the powder to explode.[citation needed]

Second Opium War

Europeans had access to Chinese ports as outlined in the Treaty of Nanking from the First Opium War. France uses the execution of Auguste Chapdelaine as a casus belli for the Second Opium War. On February 29th, 1856, Chapdelaine, a French missionary, was killed in the province of Guangxi, which was not open to foreigners. In response, British and French forces quickly take control of Guangzhou (Canton).

World War I

The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria provided the trigger that led to the outbreak of World War I. In June 1914, the refusal of two points of the July Ultimatum offered to Serbia was used by Austria-Hungary as a casus belli for declaring war on Serbia. The murder at Sarajevo in Bosnia by Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb nationalist, Austrian subject and member of Young Bosnia (a secret society), was the reason why this ultimatum was made.

The Russian Empire started to mobilize its troops in defense of its ally Serbia, which resulted in the German Empire declaring war on Russia in support of its ally Austria-Hungary. Very quickly, after the involvement of France, the Ottoman Empire and the British Empire, five of the six great European powers became involved in the first European general war since the Napoleonic Wars.

In 1917, the German Empire sent the Zimmermann Telegram to Mexico, in which they tried to convince Mexico to join the war and fight against the United States, for which they would be rewarded Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona, all former Mexican territories. This telegram was intercepted by the British, then relayed to the U.S., which led to President Woodrow Wilson then using it to convince Congress to join World War I alongside the Allies. The Mexican president at the time, Venustiano Carranza, had a military commission assess the feasibility, which concluded that this would not be feasible for multiple reasons.

World War II

In his autobiography Mein KampfAdolf Hitler had in the 1920s advocated a policy of lebensraum (“living space”) for the German people, which in practical terms meant German territorial expansion into Eastern Europe.

Alfred Naujocks, who organized and led the Gleiwitz incident on the orders of Heydrich.

In August 1939, to implement the first phase of this policy, Germany‘s Nazi government under Hitler’s leadership staged the Gleiwitz incident, which was used as a casus belli for the invasion of Poland the following September. Nazi forces used concentration camp prisoners posing as Poles on 31 August 1939, to attack the German radio station Sender Gleiwitz in Gleiwitz, Upper Silesia, Germany (since 1945: Gliwice, Poland) on the eve of World War II in Europe. Poland‘s allies, the UK and France, subsequently declared war on Germany in accord their alliance.

In 1941, acting once again in accordance with the policy of lebensraum, Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, using the casus belli of pre-emptive war to justify the act of aggression.

The Soviet Union also employed a manufactured casus belli against Finland during World War II on its part. In November 1939, shortly after the outbreak of hostilities between Germany, Britain and France, the Soviet Union staged the shelling of the Russian village of Mainila, which it blamed on the Finns. This manufactured incident was then used as a casus belli for the Winter War. In 1998, Russian President Boris Yeltsin admitted that the invasion had in fact constituted a Soviet war of aggression.

Six-Day War

casus belli played a prominent role during the Six-Day War of 1967. The Israeli government had a short list of casūs belli, acts that it would consider provocations justifying armed retaliation. The most important was a blockade of the Straits of Tiran leading into Eilat, Israel’s only port to the Red Sea, through which Israel received much of its oil. After several border incidents between Israel and Egypt‘s allies Syria and Jordan, Egypt expelled UNEFpeacekeepers from the Sinai Peninsula, established a military presence at Sharm el-Sheikh, and announced a blockade of the straits, prompting Israel to cite its casus belli in opening hostilities against Egypt.

Vietnam War

Many historians have suggested that the Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a manufactured pretext for the Vietnam War. North Vietnamese Naval officials have publicly stated that the USS Maddox was never fired on by North Vietnamese naval forces.[8][9] In the documentary film “The Fog of War“, then-US Defense Secretary Robert McNamara concedes the attack did not happen, though he says that he and President Johnson believed it did so at the time.[10]

The first Gulf of Tonkin Incident (the 2nd of August) should not be confused with the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident (the 4th of August). The North Vietnamese claimed that on August 2, US destroyer USS Maddox was hit by one torpedo and that one of the American aircraft had been shot down in North Vietnamese territorial waters. The PAVN Museum in Hanoi displays “Part of a torpedo boat… which successfully chased away the USS Maddox August, [sic] 2nd 1964″.

The casus belli for the Vietnam War was the second incident. On August 4, USS Maddox was launched to the North Vietnamese coast to “show the flag” after the first incident. The US authorities claimed that two Vietnamese boats tried to attack USS Maddox and were sunk. The government of North Vietnam denied the second incident completely. Deniability played favorably into the propaganda efforts of North Vietnam throughout the war, and for some years to follow.

1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon

The casus belli cited by Israel for its June 1982 invasion of Lebanon was the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambassador in London, which the Israeli government blamed on the Palestinian Liberation Organization.[11] A possible invasion plan had been prepared in advance by Israel.[12]

War on Terror

The casus belli for the Bush administration‘s conceptual War on Terror, which resulted in the 2001 Afghanistan war, was the September 11 attacks in 2001 on the World Trade Center in New York CityThe Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, and the intended attack on the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C.

2003 Invasion of Iraq

When the United States invaded Iraq in 2003, it cited Iraq’s non-compliance with the terms of cease-fire agreement for the 1990-1991 Gulf War, as well as planning in the 1993 attempted assassination of former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones as its stated casus belli.[13][14]

Cited by the George W. Bush administration was Saddam Hussein‘s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) program. The administration claimed that Iraq had not conformed with its obligation to disarm under past UN Resolutions, and that Saddam Hussein was actively attempting to acquire a nuclear weapons capability as well as enhance an existing arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. Secretary of State Colin Powell addressed a plenary session of the United Nations Security Council on February 5, 2003 citing these reasons as justification for military action.[15]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ The Free Dictionary: casus belli
  2. Jump up^ Bynkershoek, Cornelius van (2007). A Treatise on the Law of War. Lawbook Exchange. ISBN 1-58477-566-1.
  3. Jump up^ Bynkershoek, Cornelius van (1995). On Questions of Public Law. William S. Hein & Company. ISBN 1-57588-258-2.
  4. Jump up^ Russell, Frederick H. (1997). The Just War in the Middle AgesCambridge University PressISBN 0-521-29276-X.
  5. Jump up^ Childress, James F. (1978). “Just-War Theories: The Bases, Interrelations, Priorities, and Functions of Their Criteria”. Theological Studies39: 427–45.
  6. Jump up^ “Chapter VII | United Nations”http://www.un.org. Retrieved 2017-04-02.
  7. Jump up^ Watson, William (1887). Life in the Confederate Army: Being the Observations and Experiences of an Alien in the South During the American Civil War. United States: Chapman & Hall. p. 113. Retrieved August 5, 2014.
  8. Jump up^ McNamara asks Giap: What happened in Tonkin Gulf?Archived 2015-03-06 at the Wayback Machine.”. (November 9, 1995). Associated Press
  9. Jump up^ CNN Cold War – Interviews: Robert McNamara ArchivedJune 14, 2008, at the Wayback Machine., retrieved January 23, 2007
  10. Jump up^ Kaplan, Fred (19 December 2003). “The Evasions of Robert McNamara” – via Slate.
  11. Jump up^ Sachar, Howard M.: A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionism to Our Time, Alfred A. Knopf 1996, ISBN 0-679-76563-8, page 904.
  12. Jump up^ “As early as January 1982, therefore, with Begin‘s approval, Sharon paid a secret visit to Beirut…. By the following month… operational plans for the offensive were well advanced. Israeli liaison officers repeatedly visited Beirut to coordinate strategy with the Phalange. In the end, the Lebanon expedition would be the most thoroughly prepared campaign in Israel’s history.” – Sachar, A History of Israel, p. 903.
  13. Jump up^ “Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq”. Office of the Press Secretary. October 2, 2002.
  14. Jump up^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on 2008-10-17. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  15. Jump up^ “Remarks to the United Nations Security Council”. 4 February 2005. Archived from the

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-944

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 940, August 3, 2017, Breaking News — Story 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller III Impanels Grand Jury for Russian Investigation and Alleged Russia/Trump Collusion Conspiracy Theory — Videos — Story 2: Proposed Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act will Expose Hypocrisy of Democrats and Republicans In Promoting Open Borders with 30-60 Million Illegal Invasion of United States Over The Last 30 Years and  Rising Legal Immigration Instead of Protecting The American Worker and Middle Class — The Betrayal Of American People By The Political Elitist Establishment — Videos

Posted on August 3, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mexico, Monetary Policy, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Privacy, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Uncategorized, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Violence, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939,  August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 902, May 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 901, May 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 900, May 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 899, May 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 898, May 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 897, May 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 896, May 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 895, May 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 894, May 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 893, May 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 892, May 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 891, May 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 890, May 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 889, May 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 888, May 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 887, May 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 886, May 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 885, May 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 884, May 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 883 April 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Image result for cartoon mueller investigate russia trump collusionImage result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states

Image result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states

Image result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states

Image result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states

Legal Immigration

Image result for Reforming American Immigration for a Strong Economy (RAISE) Act. charts on numbers 

Illegal Alien Invasion of United States

For Every 1 Apprehension A Minimum of 3 Get Away

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015

Image result for us border patrol apprehensions 1990-2015Image result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states by illegal aliens

Breaking News — Story 1: Special Counsel Robert Mueller III Impanels Grand Jury for Russian Investigation and Alleged Russia/Trump Collusion Conspiracy Theory — Videos —

TRUMP BREAKING NEWS 8/3/17 WSJ: MUELLER IMPANELS GRAND JURY IN RUSSIA PROBE

Report: Mueller empowers grand jury in Russia investigation

Trump attorney: Grand jury not a surprise, not unusual

Mueller using grand jury as part of Russia investigation

Senators Take Action to Protect Robert Mueller’s Trump Investigation

Mary Clare Jalonick / AP
10:54 AM ET

(WASHINGTON) — Two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are moving to protect Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s job, putting forth new legislation that aims to ensure the integrity of current and future independent investigations.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware plan to introduce the legislation Thursday. The bill would allow any special counsel for the Department of Justice to challenge his or her removal in court, with a review by a three-judge panel within 14 days of the challenge.

The bill would apply retroactively to May 17, 2017 — the day Mueller was appointed by Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein to investigate allegations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties between Russia and Donald Trump’s campaign.

“It is critical that special counsels have the independence and resources they need to lead investigations,” Tillis said in a statement. “A back-end judicial review process to prevent unmerited removals of special counsels not only helps to ensure their investigatory independence, but also reaffirms our nation’s system of check and balances.”

Mueller was appointed as special counsel following Trump’s abrupt firing of FBI Director James Comey. Mueller, who was Comey’s predecessor as FBI director, has assembled a team of prosecutors and lawyers with experience in financial fraud, national security and organized crime to investigate contacts between Moscow and the Trump campaign.

Trump has been critical of Mueller since his appointment, and the president’s legal team is looking into potential conflicts surrounding the team Mueller has hired, including the backgrounds of members and political contributions by some members of his team to Hillary Clinton. He has also publicly warned Mueller that he would be out of bounds if he dug into the Trump family’s finances.

Mueller has strong support on Capitol Hill. Senators in both parties have expressed concerns that Trump may try to fire Mueller and have warned him not to do so.

“Ensuring that the special counsel cannot be removed improperly is critical to the integrity of his investigation,” Coons said.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, another member of the judiciary panel, said last week that he was working on a similar bill that would prevent the firing of a special counsel without judicial review. Graham said then that firing Mueller “would precipitate a firestorm that would be unprecedented in proportions.”

Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey is also working on Graham’s legislation, according to Booker’s office. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, has yet to signal support for either measure.

The Tillis and Coons bill would allow review after the special counsel had been dismissed. If the panel found there was no good cause for the counsel’s removal, the person would be immediately reinstated. The legislation would also codify existing Justice Department regulations that a special counsel can only be removed for misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity, conflict of interest or other good cause, such as a violation of departmental policies.

In addition, only the attorney general or the most senior Justice Department official in charge of the matter could fire the special counsel.

In the case of the current investigation, Rosenstein is charged with Mueller’s fate because Attorney General Jeff Sessions recused himself from all matters having to do with the Trump-Russia investigation.

http://time.com/4885770/robert-mueller-investigation-senate-legislation/

 

Exclusive: top FBI officials could testify against Trump

The acting head of the bureau told top officials to prepare.

Shortly after the appointment of special counsel Robert Mueller in May, acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe told several of the highest-ranking managers of the bureau they should consider themselves possible witnesses in any investigation into whether President Donald Trump engaged in obstruction of justice, according to two senior federal law enforcement officials.

McCabe has told colleagues that he too is a potential witness in the probe of whether Trump broke the law by trying to thwart the FBI’s Russia investigation and the investigation into whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russian government to defeat Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

Two senior federal law enforcement officials have told me that the new revelations illustrate why they believe the potential case against Trump is stronger than outsiders have thought.

“What you are going to have is the potential for a powerful obstruction case,” a senior law enforcement official said. “You are going to have the [former] FBI director testify, and then the acting director, the chief of staff to the FBI director, the FBI’s general counsel, and then others, one right after another. This has never been the word of Trump against what [James Comey] has had to say. This is more like the Federal Bureau of Investigation versus Donald Trump.”

Trump and his supporters have long argued that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the special counsel to bring an obstruction case against Trump. The case would rely on the word of one man versus another, that of the president of the United States versus the FBI director he fired. But this was never the case.

Including Comey, as many as 10, and possibly more, of the nation’s most senior law enforcement officials are likely to be questioned as part of the investigation into whether Trump committed obstruction of justice, according to two government investigators with firsthand knowledge of the matter. Comey’s notes on his conversations could also be used as evidence, according to many reports.

The White House declined to comment. First contacted by email by on July 27, White House spokesperson Kelly Love responded late Wednesday saying, “This would be a question for outside counsel.” Love did not name which of the president’s many lawyers to contact. Marc E. Kasowitz, an attorney for the president, did not respond to a phone message Wednesday evening. The FBI also declined to comment.

FBI agents are experienced witnesses who routinely testify in high-pressure cases. Plus, the FBI itself is a rare public institution that is widely respected and trusted by the American public. The witness list and breadth of possible evidence, including notes Comey and several other senior FBI officials made at the time, could add up to a much stronger obstruction of justice case than Trump ever could have imagined.

Among those who McCabe and other law enforcement officials have privately believed are potential witnesses are six of the highest-ranking officials of the agency: They include McCabe himself; Jim Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff; James Baker, the general counsel of the FBI; David Bowdich, who as the FBI’s associate director is the agency’s third-highest official; and Carl Ghattas, the head of the FBI’s national security division and a legal adviser to McCabe. McCabe was deputy director of the FBI until May, when he became acting director after President Trump fired Comey.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, and a third senior Justice Department official are believed by law enforcement officials to be crucial fact witnesses in the obstruction probe. Their testimony is likely to support Comey and harm Trump, according to investigators and outside experts.

Mueller’s case is looking stronger than Trump surrogates say

In May, Mueller was appointed special counsel to investigate whether Trump colluded with the Russian government to help defeat Hillary Clinton during the 2016 presidential election. A related area of inquiry for the special counsel is whether Trump obstructed justice when he allegedly asked Comey to shut down his inquiry of Trump’s former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn.

Trump made sure he and Comey were alone when he allegedly pressured the then-FBI director to curtail the FBI’s Russia investigation. At a private White House dinner on January 27, Trump allegedly pressed Comey to pledge his personal loyalty. The dinner came right after the president learned Flynn was under criminal investigation.

Later, on February 14, Trump allegedly leaned on Comey privately in an Oval Office meeting to shut down the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. Comey did not drop the investigation or take other steps Trump requested that the then-director of the FBI felt were improper. Trump then fired Comey on May 9.

Mueller is investigating whether Trump’s pressure on Comey to shut down his investigation — combined with other efforts to thwart the investigation, including firing Comey — are an obstruction of justice. As such, Comey is the central witness against Trump in any such obstruction investigation. That Trump was ordinarily alone with Comey when these various incidents occurred has led Trump and his surrogates to argue that it would be difficult for any obstruction of justice case to be brought because it would be based solely on Comey’s word.

“We have to keep in mind that is one person’s record of what happened,” Republican National Committee Chair Ronna Romney McDaniel said on Fox News in one typical comment repeated by White House surrogates. “The only two people who know what happened in these meeting are the president and James Comey.”

But even though Trump took great pains to try to be alone with Comey when they spoke, Comey regularly spoke to the six high-ranking FBI managers, often right after a distressing conversation with Trump about the Russia probe.

Comey spoke to these FBI officials almost always within 24 to 48 hours after such a contact took place, according to two senior federal law enforcement officials. A person familiar with the matter told me they know for certain there were at least eight such conversations — and likely more than a dozen — that Comey had with these high-ranking FBI managers, sometimes one on one, sometimes in groups of several officials. More than one such meeting was longer than an hour.

And in at least one previously unreported instance — that of a phone conversation between the president and Comey, during which Trump pressed Comey to say that Trump wasn’t personally under investigation — Rybicki, Comey’s chief of staff, was present for the entirety of the phone call.

Trump had unexpectedly called Comey while Comey was in a meeting with Rybicki. As Trump and the then-FBI director spoke, Rybicki stayed put and listened to the entirety of Comey’s side of the conversation, according to Comey’s testimony to Congress and a senior federal law enforcement official.

In addition, Comey often emailed Rybicki accounts of his troublesome discussions with Trump about the Russia investigation — if not immediately after, sometimes the same day, according to a senior federal law enforcement official.

Baker, the FBI general counsel, took methodical notes during his discussions with Comey and others in the FBI hierarchy about Trump’s efforts to thwart the FBI’s investigation, according to these same sources.

Law enforcement officials are likely to be questioned

I interviewed current and former law enforcement officials, including some who, though not directly involved in the investigation, have held key positions working for independent counsels or special prosecutors investigating earlier presidents. They told me they agree with McCabe’s assertions that the senior FBI managers are almost certainly to be questioned for any investigation of President Trump for obstruction of justice.

Sam Buell, a Duke University law professor who has previously served as a federal prosecutor in New York, Boston, Washington, DC, and Houston, similarly told me that Mueller will almost certainly interview all six senior FBI officials that Comey confided in, as well as Sessions and Rosenstein: “In any high-stakes matter, you are going to want to talk to anyone in the vicinity of a conversation. It doesn’t mean that they end up as trial witness. But at an investigative stage, you are going to talk to all of these people. You want their stories locked in. You want to know if what they have to say would help you or hurt you.”

John Keker, who during the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations prosecuted retired Lt. Oliver North for the Iran-Contra special prosecutor, explained to me: “Think of any crime. The defense might make the case that the accuser made it up. The questions for the witness are: ‘Did you just make this up?’ ‘Are you just saying this now?’ ‘Why didn’t you say something before?’ ‘Whom did you say something to? Did you write it down?’

“But if they told people when it happens, it makes their story more plausible. It helps their credibility. In this case, the people Comey told were multiple senior FBI officials.”

Other evidence is there too

In addition to the actual testimony of Comey and nine other senior federal law enforcement officials against the president, there is other related corroboratory evidence created as a result of those conversations. And this could bolster any potential obstruction of justice case against Trump.

There are Comey’s now-famous notes, which are careful, meticulous accounts of his meetings with the president. They are powerful not only for their detail but even for the atmospherics that tell a compelling story, according to people who have read portions of them.

Explaining why he took these notes, Comey told Congress: “I knew that there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself but also to defend the FBI and our integrity as an institution and the independence of our investigative function. … [I]t was a combination of circumstances, subject matter, and the particular person.”

FBI agents and managers are inveterate note takers. It is part of the culture of the FBI. Several of the senior FBI managers Comey consulted with are also attorneys, who have similar traditions of memorializing important matters by taking careful and contemporaneous notes.

“That’s the culture of the FBI — you habitually document everything you do,” Lauren C. Anderson, a former senior FBI official who worked for the bureau for 29 years, told the New York Times, explaining why Comey made notes of his crucial conversations with the president. Her comments also would appear to explain why other senior FBI managers might have made similar sets of notes about their conversations with Comey.

Although it is unclear which FBI managers took notes and which did not, at least one person familiar with the matter said that James Baker, the FBI’s general counsel, made detailed notes of virtually every conversation with Comey or others about the Russia probe.

Those notes by Baker are crucial to investigators because Baker was a lively participant in discussions about whether to inform the Justice Department of the president’s pressure on Comey to end the Flynn investigation. During discussions about whether Comey or the Justice Department should give in to Trump’s request to say the investigation had not focused on him, Baker was the primary and strongest proponent that they not do so.

The potential testimony by Comey, McCabe, and so many other FBI witnesses could prove damning to Trump for other reasons. FBI agents and their managers are more than just highly credible witnesses. In the course of a typical FBI agent’s career, he or she works closely with federal prosecutors in making cases based on the testimony of witnesses first interviewed by the agent, and often testifies as a witness in cases, some dozens of times in the course of a career.

While most major governmental institutions have, according to most polls and surveys, faced some of their lowest ratings ever, the American public still retains strong confidence in its FBI. A November 2015 Pew Research national survey found that 68 percent of all Americans viewed the FBI favorably. Only four other federal agencies ranked higher: the US Postal Service, the National Park Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and NASA.

Even Trump allies could hurt Trump

Comey testified to Congress that he shared with senior managers of the FBI the president’s efforts to thwart the bureau’s Russia investigation. But he did not inform the Justice Department of those efforts prior to Trump firing him. A major reason he didn’t do so, Comey said, was because the FBI’s leaders told him, “Look, it’s your word against the president’s. There’s no way to corroborate this.”

But Comey testified that during a private meeting with Sessions about another matter — “the president’s concerns about leaks” — he took the opportunity “to implore the attorney general to prevent any future direct communication between the president and me.” Comey told Sessions that leaving him alone with Trump “was inappropriate and should never happen again.” Comey said that Sessions “did not reply at all, his body language suggesting he was helpless or unwilling to do anything.”

Comey also testified that he expressed similar concerns to Rosenstein: “I explained my serious concern about the way in which the president is interacting, especially with the FBI.”

In his own testimony to Congress, Sessions sharply disputed Comey’s claim that he said or did nothing when Comey raised these concerns, saying he told Comey “that the FBI and Department of Justice needed to follow department policies regarding appropriate contact with the White House.”

But more importantly, while taking issue with that one aspect of the story, Sessions largely corroborated Comey’s account under oath — about how uncomfortable the then-FBI director felt with the president’s interactions with the FBI. Sessions is a Trump loyalist, the first US senator to endorse Trump, and the Trump administration’s attorney general — this only enhances his credibility as a witness whose testimony would harm Trump. (Of course, that relationship is now severely strained.) That Sessions recommended Comey’s firing as FBI director also, ironically, enhances his credibility as a corroboratory witness of Comey’s and against the president.

Rosenstein is yet to be heard from.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/8/3/16084246/mueller-obstruction-case-stronger-trump-surrogates

Story 2: Proposed Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment (RAISE) Act will Expose Hypocrisy of Democrats and Republicans In Promoting Open Borders with 30-60 Million Illegal Invasion of United States Over The Last 20 Years and  Rising Legal Immigration Instead of Protecting The American Worker and Middle Class — The Betrayal Of American People By The Political Elitist Establishment — Videos

Image result for cartoons illegal alien invasion of united states

Trump Endorses Bill That Reduces Legal Immigration

Trump To Cut LEGAL Immigration IN HALF

TUCKER REACTS TO JIM ACOSTA GETTING DESTROYED BY STEPHEN MILLER | TUCKER CARLSON TONIGHT

CNN’s Jim Acosta HUMILIATED by White House Advisor Stephen Miller at Press Briefing

GREG GUTFELD REACTS TO JIM ACOSTA GETTING DESTROYED BY STEPHEN MILLER | THE FIVE

The History of The Statue of Liberty

Statue of Liberty in a Nutshell

Jim Acosta vs Stephen Miller – Immigration – White House Press Briefing 8/2/17

Huckabee Sanders: Stephen Miller put Jim Acosta in his place

Jim Acosta vs Stephen Miller – Immigration – White House Press Briefing 8/2/17

Senator Tom Cotton, Immigration Reform, and the RAISE Act

Senators David Perdue and Tom Cotton RAISE Act Press Conference

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Sen.Barbara Jordan Legal Immigration Recommendations

2015 Barbara Jordan TV ad

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

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

Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 1

Milton Friedman – Illegal Immigration – PT 2

Immigration battle brewing in the GOP

Republicans are barreling toward a fight over immigration policy that could expose deep divisions in the party.

A renewed push by GOP Sens. Tom Cotton (Ark.) and David Perdue (Ga.) to crack down on legal immigration is threatening to pit President Trump, who endorsed their legislation, against GOP senators who want broader reforms.

The bill, which got a White House rollout on Wednesday, would fundamentally overhaul the immigration system. It would curtail the number of legal immigrants admitted into the country, cutting the total roughly in half.

The legislation, supporters say, would help enshrine a shift in Republican Party politics that was prominent in Trump’s campaign rhetoric, where he frequently warned that immigrants were taking American jobs.”As a candidate I campaigned on creating a merit-based immigration system that protects American workers and tax payers,” Trump said at the White House while standing next to Cotton and Perdue.

The measure faces a difficult path to 60 votes in the Senate, which would require the support of at least eight Democrats, not to mention every GOP senator — a scenario that appears highly unlikely.

Pressed Wednesday about how the bill could pass Congress, White House aide Stephen Miller said the legislation represented a “major promise” to Americans.

“This is what President Trump campaigned on. He talked about it throughout the campaign, throughout the transition, and since coming into office,” said Miller, who was formerly a staffer for then-Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), one of the Senate’s most vocal immigration hawks who is now attorney general.

But many in the GOP are opposed to reshaping the party’s immigration policies in Trump’s image

Critics of Trump’s approach fear opposition to immigration reform will damage the party’s long-term electoral chances, given the nation’s growing Latino and Asian populations. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton won 65 percent of the Latino and Asian vote in the 2016 presidential election, according to exit polling.

There are already early signs of pushback from multiple factions within the Senate GOP conference to the legal immigration limits, including members who are worried about the impact on businesses.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said there could be an “awful lot” in the bill that he could support but warned against limiting his state’s labor pool.

“Dairy farmers need migrant labors. … So we really need to take a look at the reality of the situation,” Johnson, who has close ties to the business community, told reporters. “I don’t want to limit what our economy needs.”

Cotton, responding to some of his colleague’s criticism, noted the legislation wouldn’t touch the guest worker program, which allows immigrants to temporarily come into the country.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), part of the “Gang of Eight” that helped craft the 2013 immigration bill, ripped the Cotton–Perdue proposal within hours of its White House rollout.

“If this proposal were to become law, it would be devastating to our state’s economy, which relies on this immigrant workforce,” Graham said.

He added he is worried the legislation “incentivizes more illegal immigration,” saying “after dealing with this issue for more than a decade, I know that when you restrict legal labor to employers it incentivizes cheating.”

Illustrating the wider disagreement in the GOP about immigration policy, Graham has worked on two bills this year with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) that would allow undocumented immigrants brought into country as children to remain here legally, at least temporarily.

GOP Sens. Jeff Flake (Ariz.), Dean Heller (Nev.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) have signed on to at least one of Graham’s bills. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is currently undergoing treatment for brain cancer, also signaled earlier this year that he was opposed to attempts to crack down on legal immigration.

The Cotton–Perdue bill seems likely to rekindle the long-running debate over which section of the party — those who want broader immigration reforms or the protectionist strain that rose to new prominence with Trump — has the public’s support.

The legislation would curb the number of green cards, which give immigrants permanent residence, issued each year and establishes a “merit-based” points system for individuals who want to come into the country.

Cotton and Perdue will have to walk a political tightrope to get their bill enacted. They will be under pressure from moderate GOP senators and Democrats to make fundamental revisions to their bill, but any move to make it more lenient toward or address undocumented immigration could erode conservative support.

Perdue said for the moment he is focused on trying to garner support for the legislation.

“We have had conversations with them. We’ve met with [Senate Judiciary Committee] Chairman [Chuck] Grassley. … We know we’re going to work it through committee and go regular order, obviously. What we’re trying to do right now is garner support inside the Senate,” he said, when asked if he has talked to GOP leadership.

The bill could face its first test in the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Republicans have a two-seat advantage. Graham and Flake are both members of the committee and signaled concern about an earlier version of the legislation rolled out in February.

Meanwhile, Sen. John Cornyn (Texas), the No. 2 Senate Republican, is working on a border security bill that is expected to include some immigration components. That legislation is expected to unveiled on Thursday.

Asked if his legislation could be wrapped in with border security, Perdue said he wants the bill to move on its own.

“What we’ve done in the past with these immigration issues is we keep adding on and adding on and adding on. I think this one stands on its own merit,” he said.

Republican lawmakers have shown little appetite for another big debate on immigration.

But once Trump makes a decision on the 750,000 immigrants who are protected from deportation by former President Barack Obama‘s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, they might not be able to avoid one.

Johnson warned against trying to package the legislation into a broader immigration bill.

“I don’t think we do a very good job at it. … If you demand comprehensive, you pretty well limit what you can accomplish,” he said.

Moderate GOP senators and Democrats will also be under pressure from conservative outside groups, not to mention the White House, to support the Cotton–Perdue bill.

Perdue noted that while it was early, he was hopeful that he would be able to win some Democratic backing for the bill.

“We’re trying to now get coordinated and start moving out to develop Republican and Democratic support,” he said. “I just think that we’ve got an opportunity to get some bipartisan support.”

There are 10 Senate Democrats running for reelection in states Trump won in 2016, and those members could face pressure to support tougher immigration laws.

“Ultimately members of Congress will have a choice to make … and whatever happens as a result of that would be somewhat predictable,” Miller said.

But Democratic senators are showing no immediate signs of being willing to support the bill. The earlier version of the legislation, introduced in February, garnered zero cosponsors.

“Instead of focusing on xenophobic half measures, the Trump administration should support comprehensive immigration reform and help create a pathway to citizenship for the millions of immigrants who are our family members, neighbors, co-workers and friends,” said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

“Still shocking to see senior WH staff misunderstand American values,” Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) said on Twitter. “I just realized I should be more specific. I’m talking about Miller.”

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/345052-immigration-battle-brewing-in-the-gop

RAISE Act

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RAISE Act
Great Seal of the United States
Full title Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment Act
Introduced in 115th United States Congress
Introduced on February 13, 2017
Sponsored by Tom Cotton and David Perdue
Legislative history

The RAISE (Reforming American Immigration for Strong Employment) Act is a bill introduced in the United States Senate in 2017. Co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton and David Perdue, the bill seeks to reduce levels of legal immigration to the United States by 50% by halving the number of green cards issued. The bill would also impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year and would end the visa diversity lottery. The bill received the support of President Donald Trump, who promoted a revised version of the bill in August 2017, but was opposed by Democrats, immigrant rights groups, and some Republicans.

History

The bill is co-sponsored by Republican senators Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, who introduced the bill to the Senate on February 13, 2017, as S. 354.[1][2][3] The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.[2]

On August 2, 2017, Cotton introduced a revised version of the bill, designated S. 1720; this bill was also referred to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.[4] President Donald Trump, along with Cotton and Perdue, announced it at the White House.[5] Within the Trump White House, Trump advisers Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon promoted and helped shape the bill.[6] The odds of the bill being enacted are seen as remote.[3][7][6] The bill has not attracted any additional co-sponsors, and Republican leaders in Congress have no plans to vote on immigration in 2017.[8]

Provisions and analysis

The bill would cut the legal immigration by half, reducing the number of green cards from more than 1 million to about 500,000.[3] The bill would also remove pathways for siblings and adult children of U.S. citizens and legal permanent residents to apply for permanent lawful residency status in the U.S., limiting the family path to spouses and minor children.[7] The bill would also impose a cap of 50,000 refugee admissions a year and would end the visa diversity lottery.[3]

In promoting the legislation, Trump administration officials contend that the bill would increase economic growth and increase wages.[9][10][11] This contention was challenged by economists,[10] who “overwhelmingly predict” that cuts in immigration would have a negative impact on GDP growth.[11] In April 2017, a group of more than 1,400 economists, with views ranging across the political spectrum, sent an open letter to Trump noting the “near universal agreement” on “the broad economic benefit that immigrants to this country bring” and urging him not to seek immigration cuts.[11] Cato Institute immigration policy analyst Alex Nowrasteh said that the legislation “would do nothing to boost skilled immigration and it will only increase the proportion of employment-based green cards by cutting other green cards. Saying otherwise is grossly deceptive marketing.”[3]

The “only evidence that the administration has cited as justifying its proposals” is the work of economist George Borjas,[12] who has defended the bill, arguing that it “makes sense” and that “low-skill immigration, which would likely suffer the largest cuts in the proposed bill, imposes costs on taxpayers and it imposes costs on low-skill workers already here.”[13] Other economists have sharply contested Borjas’s conclusions; economist Giovanni Peri stated that “The average American worker is more likely to lose than to gain from immigration restrictions” and “most studies put the negative impact on low-skilled wages closer to zero,”[12] and Michael Clemens argues that Borjas’s position is based on a study with critical flaws.[14][15]

Support and opposition

The bill and Trump’s support for it was hailed by groups favoring restrictive immigration policies, such as NumbersUSA[3] and the Federation for American Immigration Reform.[16] The bill was also seen as likely to appeal to anti-immigration Republican base voters.[17]

The bill is opposed by Democrats as well as some Republicans.[7] Democratic National Committee chairman Tom Perez said that “Trump wants to tear apart communities and punish immigrant families that are making valuable contributions to our economy.”[7] Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut called the bill “nothing but a series of nativist talking points and regurgitated campaign rhetoric that completely fails to move our nation forward toward real reform.”[3] Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said the proposal would be “devastating” to South Carolina’s economy.[18] The Congressional Hispanic Caucus and immigrant rights groups both condemned the legislation.[3]

The National Immigration Law Center called the bill “cruel and un-American” and issued a statement saying that it would “devastate families, eliminating the traditional and long-accepted means by which family members such as grandparents, mothers, fathers and siblings are able to reunite with their families who have emigrated to the United States.”[16] The technology industry immigration-policy advocacy group FWD.us said the bill, if enacted, “would severely harm the economy and actually depress wages for Americans.”[16] The Association of Public and Land-grant Universities and NAFSA: Association of International Educators also oppose the bill, describing it as flawed and a step backward.[16] The Anti-Defamation League also opposed the legislation, calling it “cruel, anti-family and un-American.”[19]

References

 

 

  1. ADL slams Trump-backed GOP plan on immigration as ‘cruel, un-American’, Times of Israel/Associated Press (August 3, 2017).

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-940

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 )