Banking System

The Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018, Story 1: U.S. Economy Growth Close to 3% With Higher Interest Rates and Federal Reserve Raising Fed Funds Target Rate By 2% Over Next Two Years– Gas and Oil Prices Rapidly Rising Again — Areas of Uncertainty Include Trade Dispute With China and Stopping Nuclear Proliferation in Far East and Middle East (North Korea and Iran) — Diplomacy or War? — Videos — Story 2: Rising Red Tidal Wave of Republican Victories in November 2018 — For High Taxes and Government Spending and Impeach Trump — Vote Democratic — Not A Winning Message — Videos — Story 3: President Trump’s First State Dinner — Videos

Posted on April 28, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, China, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Currencies, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, European History, European Union, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, Great Britain, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Japan, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Middle East, Mike Pompeo, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, Networking, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Russia, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, South Korea, Spying on American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Trump Surveillance/Spying, U.S. Dollar, United Kingdom, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1066, April 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1065, April 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1064, April 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1063, April 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1062, April 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1061, April 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1060, April 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

 See the source image

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Chief Economist, Michael Carey, presents economic perspectives for the US

PETER SCHIFF – The Federal Reserve is Preparing Itself Against the Dismay of Disaster

Crude Oil Prices Hit 3 Year High

Why are oil prices so high?

Gas Prices On The Rise, Distressing Drivers | NBC Nightly News

Oil hits highest level in more than three years on falling supplies

Expect higher gas prices in 2018

Will the market end on a high note in 2018?

Larry Kudlow on tax law impact, China “trade dispute,” Abe summit

Spending growth the biggest risk to the US economy?

How to Enrich a Country: Free Trade or Protectionism?

Tariffs and Protectionism

Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate

Milton Friedman explains why Trump is wrong about Trade

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Milton Friedman on Trade Balance and Tariffs

Murray Rothbard on Balance of Trade “Deficit”

Protectionism Smashed (by Murray Rothbard)

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index Increased in April
24 April, 2018

The Conference Board Consumer Confidence Index® increased in April, following a decline in March. The Index now stands at 128.7 (1985=100), up from 127.0 in March. The Present Situation Index increased from 158.1 to 159.6, while the Expectations Index improved from 106.2 last month to 108.1 this month.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey®, based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen, a leading global provider of information and analytics around what consumers buy and watch. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was April 12.

“Consumer confidence increased moderately in April after a decline in March,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “Consumers’ assessment of current conditions improved somewhat, with consumers rating both business and labor market conditions quite favorably. Consumers’ short-term expectations also improved, with the percent of consumers expecting their incomes to decline over the coming months reaching its lowest level since December 2000 (6.0 percent). Overall, confidence levels remain strong and suggest that the economy will continue expanding at a solid pace in the months ahead.”

Consumers’ appraisal of current conditions improved modestly in April. The percentage saying business conditions are “good” decreased from 37.6 percent to 35.2 percent, however those claiming business conditions are “bad” also decreased, from 13.3 percent to 11.3 percent. Consumers’ assessment of the labor market was also mixed. The percentage of consumers claiming jobs are “plentiful” declined from 39.5 percent to 38.1 percent, while those claiming jobs are “hard to get” also declined, from 15.7 percent to 15.2 percent.

Consumers were moderately more positive about the short-term outlook in April. The percentage of consumers anticipating business conditions will improve over the next six months increased from 23.2 percent to 24.5 percent, while those expecting business conditions will worsen decreased from 10.2 percent to 9.7 percent.

Consumers’ outlook for the labor market was also more positive. The proportion expecting more jobs in the months ahead increased from 18.9 percent to 19.5 percent, while those anticipating fewer jobs remained at 12.5 percent. Regarding their short-term income prospects, the percentage of consumers expecting an improvement was virtually unchanged at 23.1 percent, while the proportion expecting a decrease declined from 7.2 percent to 6.8 percent.

Source: April 2018 Consumer Confidence Survey®

The Conference Board / Release #6013

The Conference Board publishes the Consumer Confidence Index® at 10 a.m. ET on the last Tuesday of every month. Subscription information and the technical notes to this series are available on The Conference Board website: https://www.conference-board.org/data/consumerdata.cfm.

ABOUT THE CONFERENCE BOARD

The Conference Board is a global, independent business membership and research association working in the public interest. Our mission is unique: To provide the world’s leading organizations with the practical knowledge they need to improve their performance and better serve society. Winner of the Consensus Economics 2016 Forecast Accuracy Award (U.S.), The Conference Board is a non-advocacy, not-for-profit entity holding 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt status in the United States. www.conference-board.org

ABOUT NIELSEN

Nielsen Holdings plc (NYSE: NLSN) is a global performance management company that provides a comprehensive understanding of what consumers watch and buy. Nielsen’s Watch segment provides media and advertising clients with Total Audience measurement services for all devices on which content — video, audio and text — is consumed. The Buy segment offers consumer packaged goods manufacturers and retailers the industry’s only global view of retail performance measurement. By integrating information from its Watch and Buy segments and other data sources, Nielsen also provides its clients with analytics that help improve performance. Nielsen, an S&P 500 company, has operations in over 100 countries, covering more than 90 percent of the world’s population. For more information, visit www.nielsen.com.

https://www.conference-board.org/press/pressdetail.cfm?pressid=7414

U.S. consumer confidence, housing data highlight economy’s strength

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. consumer confidence rebounded in April and new home sales increased more than expected in March, pointing to underlying strength in the economy despite signs that growth slowed in the first quarter.

Other data on Tuesday also showed house prices increasing solidly in February. Strong consumer confidence and rising house prices should underpin consumer spending, which appears to have braked sharply at the start of the year.

“Americans appear to think the economy is headed in the right direction and it’s not just all talk because their greater confidence is leading them to buy more new homes,” said Chris Rupkey, chief economist at MUFG in New York.

“Everywhere you look confidence seems to be a rising tide that will lift all the boats.”

The Conference Board said its consumer confidence index increased to a reading of 128.7 this month from a downwardly revised 127.0 in March. The index was previously reported at 127.7 in March. Confidence raced to more than a 17-year high of 130.0 in February.

Consumers’ short-term expectations also improved in April, with the share of those expecting their incomes to decline over the coming months reaching its lowest level since December 2000. But the survey’s so-called labor market differential, derived from data on respondents’ views on whether jobs are plentiful or hard to get, fell to 22.9 from 23.8 in March.

That measure closely correlates to the unemployment rate in the Labor Department’s employment report. The jobless rate has been stuck at 4.1 percent for six straight months.

The economy added 103,000 jobs in March, the fewest in six month. Though economists shrugged off the modest job gains as payback after February’s outsized increase in hiring, they also acknowledged that employment growth was slowing.

“We have now seen two straight months of weakening in the labor market differential since the high for the cycle to date that was reached in February,” said Daniel Silver, an economist at JPMorgan in New York. “Several other labor market indicators have also cooled off over the past month or so.”

Consumer confidence has remained strong despite stock market volatility, which was in part triggered by fears of a trade war between the United States and China, as well as geopolitical worries. In April, confidence was high among households with an annual income below $25,000 and those in the $75,000-$125,000 bracket.

U.S. financial markets were little moved by the data.

Stocks on Wall Street reversed earlier gains as the yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note breached 3 percent for the first time in more than four years.

Prices of U.S. Treasuries were mostly trading lower while the dollar .DXY dipped against a basket of currencies.

Adding to the report’s strength, February’s sales pace was revised up to 667,000 units from the previously reported 618,000 units. Data for January was also revised to show sales unchanged instead of declining 4.7 percent.

New home sales, which account for 11 percent of housing market sales, jumped 8.8 percent from a year ago.

While the bullish new home sales report did little to change economists’ expectations that residential investment fell in the first quarter, it supported the view that an anticipated economic growth slowdown during that period would be temporary.

Gross domestic product estimates for the January-March quarter are below a 2 percent annualized rate, largely reflecting weak consumer spending.

First-quarter GDP also tends to be soft because of a seasonal quirk. The economy grew at a 2.9 percent rate in the fourth quarter. The government will publish its snapshot of first-quarter GDP on Friday.

A third report on Tuesday showed the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller composite index of home prices in 20 metropolitan areas increased 6.8 percent in the 12 months to February after rising 6.4 percent in January. House prices are being driven by an acute shortage of properties available for sale.

“Rising prices are a mixed bag for the housing market,” said Danielle Hale, chief economist for realtor.com. “While homeowners benefit from extra equity, potential buyers can get discouraged as the dream of homeownership becomes more elusive.”

Strong house price inflation was also corroborated by a fourth report from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) that showed its house price index rising a seasonally adjusted 0.6 percent in February after a 0.9 percent increase in January.

Home prices advanced 7.2 percent on a year-on-year basis in February.

Hear Trump’s toast to President Macron

 

‘May our sacred liberty never die’: Trump and Macron conclude their love-in with gushing toasts about ‘unbreakable friendship’ between US and France as First Lady Melania pulls out all the stops for their first ever state dinner

  • President Donald Trump and wife Melania welcomed French President Emmanuel Macron and wife Brigitte to the White House Tuesday night for their first state dinner
  • The Trumps held hands on the steps of the White House before they each exchanged kisses with the Macrons
  • Melania stole the show in a Chanel haute couture silver gown embroidered with crystals and sequins
  • In a toast before Tuesday’s dinner honoring France, Trump described his wife as ‘America’s absolutely incredible first lady’
  • He went on to raise a glass to President Macron saying: ‘May our friendship grow even deeper’  
  • Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner were among the first to arrive with the first daughter wearing a $12,000 pink Rodarte gown 
  • Other notable guests included Rupert Murdoch and wife Jerry Hall, as well as IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde, Apple CEO Tim Cook, DOD head James Mattis and Speaker Paul Ryan 

President Donald Trump and wife Melania welcomed the French president and first lady to the White House for their first state dinner as the two leaders toasted to continued warm relations between their countries.

Trump held hands with Melania on the steps of the White House before they each exchanged hugs and kisses with President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte ahead of the glitzy White House state dinner on Tuesday night.

All eyes were on Melania as she stole the show in a Chanel black Chantilly lace haute couture gown that had been hand-painted with silver and embroidered with crystal and sequins. The First Lady paired her gown with a pair of gunmetal stilettos.

Brigitte Macron opted for a cream full-length gown with long sleeves and gold details.

In a toast before Tuesday’s dinner honoring France, Trump described his wife as ‘America’s absolutely incredible first lady’ before he raised a glass to President Macron.

Scroll down for video

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania held hands outside the White House on Tuesday awaiting the arrival of French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte for the state dinner

President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania held hands outside the White House on Tuesday awaiting the arrival of French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte for the state dinner

During his state dinner toast, President Trump raised a glass to President Macron saying: 'May our friendship grow even deeper'

During his state dinner toast, President Trump raised a glass to President Macron saying: ‘May our friendship grow even deeper’

Donald and Melania Trump greeted French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte ahead of their first White House state dinner on Tuesday evening 

Donald and Melania Trump greeted French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte ahead of their first White House state dinner on Tuesday evening

He thanked her for her efforts on the dinner and said she had created an evening that everyone will always ‘cherish and remember.’ The dinner for 123 guests marked Mrs Trump’s highest-profile hostess gig to date as first lady.

Trump went on to raise a glass to President Macron saying: ‘May our friendship grow even deeper’.

In his toast, Macron, who spoke in French, thanked Trump for making him the first world leader honored with a state visit.

He added that he and Trump had pledged to work together and listen to one another.

‘Thank you for the quality of our exchanges,’ he said before toasting the ‘unbreakable friendship’ of the US and France.

Among the guests were Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner who were among the first to arrive at the White House shortly after 6pm with the first daughter choosing a $13,686 pink tulle Rodarte gown for the occasion.

In a toast before Tuesday's dinner honoring France, Trump described his wife as 'America's absolutely incredible first lady'

In a toast before Tuesday’s dinner honoring France, Trump described his wife as ‘America’s absolutely incredible first lady’

Trump and Macron toasted during the state dinner to continued warm relations between their countries

Trump and Macron toasted during the state dinner to continued warm relations between their countries

French President Emmanuel Macron speaks during a state dinner in his honor at the White House

French President Emmanuel Macron speaks during a state dinner in his honor at the White House

The Trumps held hands as they made their way into the state dinner on Tuesday, which Melania played a central role in planning

The Trumps held hands as they made their way into the state dinner on Tuesday, which Melania played a central role in planning

President Macron, above with his wife Brigette, was honored Tuesday at the first state dinner of the Trump administration

President Macron, above with his wife Brigette, was honored Tuesday at the first state dinner of the Trump administration

Trump and his wife, Melania, exchanged hugs and air kisses with the Macrons before going inside the White House for the festivities

Melania kissed President Emmanuel Macron as she greeted him ahead of the glitzy White House state dinner

Trump kissed France's First Lady Brigitte Macron as he welcome her to the administration’s first state dinner

Trump kissed France’s First Lady Brigitte Macron as he welcome her to the administration’s first state dinner

Macron and his wife Brigitte arrived at the White House as a light rain fell Tuesday evening

Macron and his wife Brigitte arrived at the White House as a light rain fell Tuesday evening

All eyes were on Melania as she stole the show in a Chanel black Chantilly lace haute couture gown that had been hand-painted with silver and embroidered with crystal and sequins

All eyes were on Melania as she stole the show in a Chanel black Chantilly lace haute couture gown that had been hand-painted with silver and embroidered with crystal and sequins

The Macrons and Trump head inside the White House for the festivities soon after they greeted each other

The Macrons and Trump head inside the White House for the festivities soon after they greeted each other

Trump and Macron give toasts during the White House state dinner

They were followed closely by Vice President Mike Pence and wife Karen.

Reporters were left off the invite list but one media mogul made the list: the owner of Fox News Channel Rupert Murdoch. The media mogul held his wife Jerry Hall’s hand as they made their way into the White House.

Other notable guests who made their way into the White House included CEO of Apple Tim Cook and IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde.

Aides had feared that the president would personally dole out invitations to the dinner last week while visiting Mar-a-Lago so they constrained him to adding just four names to the guest list. It’s unclear if Murdoch and Hall were among that group.

The White House released the full guest list of 130 people directly before the dinner. Congressional Democrats and White House reporters were already known to have been left out.

The only Democrat on the list was Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and his wife Donna, as it is custom to invite Louisiana politicians to state dinners with France because of the state’s Cajun-French roots.

Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and his colorful actress wife Louise Linton were also in attendance.

Linton, wearing a champagne and silver gown by Italian designer Roberto Cavalli, told reporters she was looking forward to ‘everything French’ when she stepped into the White House.

First daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner arrived at the White House state dinner on Tuesday night honoring French President Emmanuel Macron. Ivanka wore a $13,686 pink tulle Rodarte gown for the occasion

First daughter Ivanka Trump and husband Jared Kushner arrived at the White House state dinner on Tuesday night honoring French President Emmanuel Macron. Ivanka wore a $13,686 pink tulle Rodarte gown for the occasion

Ivanka, wearing a $13,686 pink tulle Rodarte gown, laughed with her husband as they made their way to the state dinner

Vice President Mike Pence waved to the cameras as he held his wife Karen’s hand in the Booksellers Area of the White House

Reporters were left off the invite list but one media mogul made the list: the owner of Fox News Channel Rupert Murdoch. He is pictured above entering the White House with wife Jerry Hall

Reporters were left off the invite list but one media mogul made the list: the owner of Fox News Channel Rupert Murdoch. He is pictured above entering the White House with wife Jerry Hall

US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and his colorful actress wife Louise Linton were also in attendance. Linton wore a champagne and silver gown by Italian designer Roberto Cavalli

Guests arrive at the White House for Trump’s first state dinner

The White House showed off the finishing touches of first lady Melania Trump’s decor on Monday night, from the place-setting to the giant flower arrangements greeting guests.

WHAT’S ON THE STATE DINNER MENU?

First course: Goat cheese gateau, tomato jam, buttermilk biscuit crumbles and young variegated lettuces.

Second course: Rack of spring lamb, burnt cipollini soubise and Carolina gold Rice Jambalaya

Dessert: Nectarine tart and crème fraîche ice cream.

Two wines from Oregon will be served and a demi-sec champagne.

Reporters were briefly allowed into the White House and were greeted by gold table settings, gold silverware, gold candlesticks, gold wine glasses, gold chairs – situated elegantly around puffs of green and white flowers – in the candlelit state dining room.

At each of the place settings there was a menu, with the White House seal and the fleur-de-lis, which were also in gold.

Just outside the state dining room, the first lady went with a different theme, using some 1,200 cherry blossoms in giant black vases that would greet guests as they came in.

Earlier on Monday, the White House had released some details about the dinner, including the menu.

Goat cheese gateau, tomato jam, buttermilk biscuit crumbles, young variegated lettuces would be served, along with a rack of spring lamb, burnt cipollini soubise and Carolina gold Rice Jambalaya, with a nectarine tart and crème fraîche ice cream for dessert.

Two wines from Oregon will be served and a demi-sec champagne.

The meal was being prepared by White House Executive Chef Christeta Comerford, who was hired during President George W. Bush’s administration, and stayed through the Obama years.

CEO of Apple Tim Cook

Marillyn A. Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin

CEO of Apple Tim Cook (left), IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde (center) and Marillyn A. Hewson, CEO of Lockheed Martin (right), arrive at the White House state dinner

The only Democrat on the list was Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and his wife Donna, as it is custom to invite Louisiana politicians to state dinners with France because of the state's Cajun-French roots

The only Democrat on the list was Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards and his wife Donna, as it is custom to invite Louisiana politicians to state dinners with France because of the state’s Cajun-French roots

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross arrives with his wife

Chief of Staff John Kelly

Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross (left) arrives with his wife shortly before Chief of Staff John Kelly and his wife Karen (right)

Chief Executive Officer of LVMH Bernard Arnault and his wife Helene Mercier arrive at the White House

Chief Executive Officer of LVMH Bernard Arnault and his wife Helene Mercier arrive at the White House

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his wife

Trump's pick for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his wife (left) arrive in the Booksellers Area of the White House shortly after Trump’s pick for secretary of state, Mike Pompeo (right)

US Defense Secretary James Mattis

US Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA)

Paul Ryan and his wife

US Defense Secretary James Mattis (left) and US Rep. Kevin McCarthy (right) were among the first to arrive at the White House for the state dinner on Tuesday. Paul Ryan and his wife were also in attendance

The first lady spent last Saturday in bipartisan company, attending the funeral of former first lady Barbara Bush alongside the Clintons and Obamas – all Democrats – and former Presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, with his wife Laura.

During the state dinner, she’ll be showcasing china from the administrations of President Bill Clinton and President George H.W. Bush.

The first lady’s office said that selected pieces from the Vermeil and American Silver collections, as well as Tiffany & Co. and S. Kirk & Sons, would also be included.

‘Remember, she has a design background,’ the first lady’s spokeswoman, Stephanie Grisham told the Washington Post.

Social secretary Rickie Niceta told the publication that the first lady, a former model, ‘has amazing taste, which makes things very, very easy.’

Reporters were briefly allowed into the White House's state dining room Monday night to take in the first lady's designs for the Trump administration's first state dinner 

Reporters were briefly allowed into the White House’s state dining room Monday night to take in the first lady’s designs for the Trump administration’s first state dinner

Earlier in the day, the first lady tweeted pictures of herself huddling with her social secretary Rickie Niceta (right) as the two women went over last minute details for Tuesday's state dinner with France

Earlier in the day, the first lady tweeted pictures of herself huddling with her social secretary Rickie Niceta (right) as the two women went over last minute details for Tuesday’s state dinner with France

Melania Trump's vision for her first state dinner included golden place settings, puffs of white and light green flowers and dinner by candlelight 

Melania Trump’s vision for her first state dinner included golden place settings, puffs of white and light green flowers and dinner by candlelight

The first lady used china from two administrations - Bill Clinton's and George H.W. Bush's - to create a golden look for the tables, which glowed under the candlelight 

The first lady used china from two administrations – Bill Clinton’s and George H.W. Bush’s – to create a golden look for the tables, which glowed under the candlelight

Touches of gold were used on the menu too, including a golden presidential seal, and a golden fleur-de-lis 

Touches of gold were used on the menu too, including a golden presidential seal, and a golden fleur-de-lis

Mrs. Trump chose Clinton china services to coordinate with the dinner’s cream and gold color scheme, and Bush china with a green color palette to “compliment the spring garden and white flowers that will be featured in the State Dining Room”

Mrs. Trump chose Clinton china services to coordinate with the dinner’s cream and gold color scheme, and Bush china with a green color palette to ‘compliment the spring garden and white flowers that will be featured in the State Dining Room’

The Office of the First Lady has prepared the following details, all carefully selected by First Lady Melania Trump, to complement and pay homage to the long-standing friendship between the United States and France

The Office of the First Lady has prepared the following details, all carefully selected by First Lady Melania Trump, to complement and pay homage to the long-standing friendship between the United States and France

The Trumps, the Macrons and their guests will dine on food that showcases “the best of America’s cuisines and traditions” with some French influence: the main course is a rack of spring lamb and Carolina Gold rice jambalaya cooked with celery, peppers, onions, and herbs from the South Lawn

The Trumps, the Macrons and their guests will dine on food that showcases ‘the best of America’s cuisines and traditions’ with some French influence: the main course is a rack of spring lamb and Carolina Gold rice jambalaya cooked with celery, peppers, onions, and herbs from the South Lawn

Mrs. Trump 'carefully selected' all of the details for the state visit and paid particular attention to how the dining room looked

Mrs. Trump ‘carefully selected’ all of the details for the state visit and paid particular attention to how the dining room looked

Melania Trump chose 1,200 cheery blossoms to line the Cross Hall, which state dinner guests will walk through to get to the state dining room 

Melania Trump chose 1,200 cheery blossoms to line the Cross Hall, which state dinner guests will walk through to get to the state dining room

Mrs. Trump has also been doing some homework, educating herself about the protocol and history of these sorts of White House events. This is to ensure her selections for the Macrons' visit have meaning behind them, down to the china, flowers, color scheme and menu, which, while American, will highlight the influence France has had on American cuisine

Mrs. Trump has also been doing some homework, educating herself about the protocol and history of these sorts of White House events. This is to ensure her selections for the Macrons’ visit have meaning behind them, down to the china, flowers, color scheme and menu, which, while American, will highlight the influence France has had on American cuisine

The giant vases of cherry blossoms are seen Monday night in the Cross Hall as reporters were briefly allowed into the White House to see the set-up for Tuesday night's state dinner with France 

The giant vases of cherry blossoms are seen Monday night in the Cross Hall as reporters were briefly allowed into the White House to see the set-up for Tuesday night’s state dinner with France

The White House's Cross Hall was decorated with giant vases of cherry blossoms, in preparation for tomorrow's state dinner with France 

The White House’s Cross Hall was decorated with giant vases of cherry blossoms, in preparation for tomorrow’s state dinner with France

President Bill Clinton's portrait hangs next to one of Melania Trump's giant vases of cherry blossoms. Despite their political differences, the first lady used the Clinton china as part of her first state dinner's place settings 

President Bill Clinton’s portrait hangs next to one of Melania Trump’s giant vases of cherry blossoms. Despite their political differences, the first lady used the Clinton china as part of her first state dinner’s place settings

During the Obama years, the White House tried to invite several A and B-listers out of Hollywood to each dinner, along with a number of television personalities and White House reporters.

Obama would also try to invite several Republicans in an effort to break bread across the aisle.

The Washington National Opera will provide the evening’s entertainment.

The Trump administration’s first state dinner comes later than the inaugural dinner of the White House’s two immediate predecessors, with President Obama hosting his first state dinner in November 2009.

That dinner made headlines when two reality television stars – Tareq and Michaele Salahi – crashed the cocktail hour, which led to several security probes.

President George W. Bush hosted his first state dinner on September 5, 2001, six days before the 9/11 terror attacks.

France is getting its turn earlier under Trump than it did under either previous American president, with the last two coming in 2007 and 2014.

Melania Trump highlighted the work her office had done in a Monday morning tweet that said: ‘After months of preparations, @POTUS and I are looking forward to hosting our first State Dinner with France! Thank you to everyone who has worked so hard to make this visit a success.’

She later tweeted several pictures of her ‘checking on the final details,’ which included a look at the cherry blossoms – 1,200 which were used – to decorate the Cross Hall.

On Monday, first lady Melania Trump tweeted out several photos of the preparations she was making for her first state dinner, which will be held Tuesday with the French president and first lady 

On Monday, first lady Melania Trump tweeted out several photos of the preparations she was making for her first state dinner, which will be held Tuesday with the French president and first lady

First lady Melania Trump (center) and social secretary Rickie Niceta (right) go over details for Tuesday's state dinner with France 

First lady Melania Trump (center) and social secretary Rickie Niceta (right) go over details for Tuesday’s state dinner with France

First lady Melania Trump gestures toward the large displays of cherry blossoms that were installed for Tuesday's state dinner with France 

First lady Melania Trump gestures toward the large displays of cherry blossoms that were installed for Tuesday’s state dinner with France

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5653611/Trump-state-dinner-President-Melania-host-French-leader-Macron-White-House.html#ixzz5DeT5i0Ek

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018, Story 1: When Will President Trump Ask Congress For A Declaration of War Against Syria Required By The Constitution of The United States? — Congress Is Abdicating Their Responsibility To Declare War! — The Big Loophole Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973 or War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) — From Constitutional Representative Republic of Peace and Propensity to Two Party Tyranny American Empire Warfare and Welfare State — No More Presidential Undeclared Wars! — Videos –Story 2: Trump Wants 4,000 National Guard Force Assisting U.S. Border Patrol — Zero Miles of Wall Built — Videos — Story 3: House Speaker Paul Ryan Retiring January 2018 — Videos

Posted on April 12, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Chemical Explosion, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, James Comey, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, MIssiles, National Interest, National Security Agency, Nerve Gas, News, Nuclear, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Privacy, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Networking, Syria, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Uncategorized, United Kingdom, United States of America, Vietnam, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare Spending, Wisdom, Yemen | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1059, April 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1058, April 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1057, April 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1056, April 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1055, April 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1054, March 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: When Will President Trump Ask Congress For A Declaration of War Against Syria Required By The Constitution of The United States? — Congress Is Abdicating Their Responsibility To Declare War! — The Big Loophole Is The War Powers Resolution of 1973 or War Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548) — From Constitutional Representative Republic of Peace and Propensity to Two Party Tyranny American Empire Warfare and Welfare State — No More Presidential Undeclared Wars! — Videos —

Tucker Carlson Debates Pro Syrian War Commentator Noah Rothman

Tucker Carlson and Glenn Greenwald Discuss Authoritarian Behavior of American Media Clamoring For War

Tucker: How does Syrian regime change help the U.S.?

War In Syria: What You Need To Know!

War In Syria: This Could Be The End

What Was the War Powers Resolution of 1973? | History

Ron Paul on The Unconstitutional War Powers Act and an Agitated James Baker

Mark Levin: Lesson on the 1973 War Powers Resolution

 

America Declares War on Japan – President Roosevelt Speech

Sept. 20, 2001 – Bush Declares War on Terror

Breaking News – Five Destroyers And Cruisers Head To Middle East

Breaking News – Five Destroyers And Cruisers Head To Middle East USS Normandy, USS Bulkeley, USS Forrest Sherman, USS Farragut, USS Arleigh Burke

Donald Trump warns Putin his missiles are coming after Russia vowed to Shoot them down

US-UK readying attack ships and jets off the coast of Syria: Russia armed forces on heightened alert

U.S. Navy destroyer heads towards Syria as Trump mulls options over suspected chemical attack

White House: All options are on the table for Syria response

Syria’s war: Who is fighting and why

Why Russia Is So Involved With The Syrian Civil War

The Middle East’s cold war, explained

5 Most Likely Causes Of World War 3

10 Empires That Came Close To World Domination

DECLINE of EMPIRES: The Signs of Decay

Chalmers Johnson on American Hegemony

The Sorrows of Empire – Chalmers Johnson

The Parallels between Rome and the United States

The Truth About The Fall of Rome: Modern Parallels

Tucker Carlson Goes on Epic Rant Against War in Syria

Tucker Carlson Gets into Heated Debate with Sen Wicker After He Implied Tucker’s Stance on Syria war

John Stossel – War Powers

Which Countries Has The U.S. Invaded?

Is The USA Starting World War 3?

How will John Bolton help President Trump deal with issues like Syria?

Tucker Carlson’s awkward interview with John Bolton

Rand Paul: I’m an ‘Automatic No’ on John Bolton

Constitutional War Power: The Founders’ Framework

The Constitution and the Power to “Declare War”

What Was the War Powers Resolution of 1973? | History

Actually, We Don’t Know If Assad Is Behind This’ – Tucker Carlson Ridicules Clueless Democrat

What is a neocon? Neoconservatism explained in 5 minutes

What is a Neoconservative?

The Danger of Neoconservatism – Ron Paul

War Party : Documentary on the Neoconservative War Party

National Review’s Neoconservative Agenda

The Neoconservative Agenda | John F. McMan

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 1 Baby Its Cold Outside (2004)

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 2 The Phantom Victory (2004)

The Power Of Nightmares: Part 3 The Shadows In The Cave (2004)

Neocon Ann Coulter Calls Libertarians ‘Pussies’ & Gets Booed By Room Full Of Students

G. Edward Griffin – The Grand Design: The Hidden Plan That Shapes US Foreign Policy

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

Why the United States doesn’t declare war anymore

Why the United States doesn’t declare war anymore

By Sara Jerving Apr 7, 2017

President Trump justified the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a Syrian air base Thursday night as being in the “vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.” He did not ask for Congress’ authorization to carry out the strikes.

Ordered in retaliation for a horrific Syrian sarin gas attack on civilians Tuesday, the strikes came on the 100th anniversary of the day the U.S. declared war on Germany and entered World War I. The U.S. has formally declared war 11 timesin its history, but the last time was during World War II.

Trump ordered the Syria strike under the War Powers Resolution, which says a president has to report to Congress within 48 hours if the U.S. armed forces are introduced into a conflict. It’s a law that was enacted in 1973 to restore Congress’ role in authorizing force in response to the lack of a formal war declaration in the Korean and Vietnam wars. Under the law, troops cannot stay for more than 90 days unless Congress approves.

Today, American forces are still operating under the authorization for the use of military force that President George W. Bush requested after the September 11 attacks in order to fight countries or groups connected to the attacks.

Regarding the Syria strikes, the White House said that about two dozen members of Congress were notified and briefed while the strikes were underway, but some want Trump to seek congressional approval. “Assad is a brutal dictator who must be held accountable for his actions,” said Sen. Tim Kaine, Democrat from Virginia. “But President Trump has launched a military strike against Syria without a vote of Congress. The Constitution says war must be declared by Congress.”

“The United States was not attacked. The president needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate,” said Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky.

A true declaration of war would give the president broad legal authority, such as the ability to stop exports of agricultural products, control transportation systems, and order manufacturing plants to produce weapons — and even seize the plants if they refuse. President Truman skirted Congress when he sent troops to Korea in 1950 without seeking a declaration of war, eventually numbering 1.8 million U.S. service members. In the early days, he referred to the troop introduction as a “police action.” This set a precedent for future conflicts.

But since 9/11, the definition of “war” has become more vague and lacks the geographical restrictions it used to. Before a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001, President Bush said, “Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.”

In August 2013, President Obama drafted legislation for Congress to grant authorization of military force in Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack. It was not approved. Again, in February 2015, five months after the U.S. began launching airstrikes in Syria, Obama asked Congress to authorize force against the Islamic State group. It didn’t approve the authorization. In 2014, Rand Paul introduced a formal declaration of war against ISIS. It was not passed. For the 2011 strikes in Libya, the Obama administration argued it didn’t need authorization because the air campaign was part of an international coalition.

Rep. Barbara Lee, the only member of Congress who voted against the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, tweeted in response to the strikes inSyria: “This is an act of war. Congress needs to come back into session & hold a debate. Anything less is an abdication of our responsibility.” She also saidthat the strikes were beyond the scope of the 2001 authorization that Congress granted Bush. Lee has previously introduced legislation to repeal the Bush-era authorization of force.

Even Trump himself used to be on board with this line of thought. In 2013, hetweeted about the need for President Obama to get permission from Congress, “What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict? Obama needs congressional approval.”

https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/kzg9dx/why-the-united-states-doesnt-declare-war-anymore

 

War Powers Resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
War Powers Resolution
Great Seal of the United States
Long title Joint resolution concerning the war powers of Congress and the President.
Enacted by the 93rd United States Congress
Effective November 7, 1973
Citations
Public law 93-148
Statutes at Large 87 Stat.555
Legislative history
  • Introduced in the HouseasH.J.Res. 542byClement J. Zablocki (DWIon May 3, 1973
  • Committee consideration byHouse Foreign Affairs
  • Passed the House on July 10, 1973 (244–170)
  • Passed the Senate on July 20, 1973 (75-20)
  • Reported by the joint conference committee onOctober 4, 1973; agreed to by the Senate on October 10, 1973 (75–20and by the House on October 12, 1973 (238–122)
  • Vetoed by PresidentRichard Nixonon October 24, 1973
  • Overridden by the House on November 7, 1973 (284–135)
  • Overridden by the Senate and became law onNovember 7, 1973 (75–18)
wars and interventions

United States1812 North AmericaHouse Federalists’ Address1847 Mexican–American WarSpot Resolutions1917 World War IFilibuster of the Armed Ship Bill1935–1939Neutrality Acts1935–1940Ludlow Amendment1970 VietnamMcGovern–Hatfield Amendment1970 Southeast AsiaCooper–Church Amendment1971 VietnamRepeal of Tonkin Gulf Resolution1973 Southeast AsiaCase–Church Amendment1973War Powers Resolution1974Hughes–Ryan Amendment1976 AngolaClark Amendment1982 NicaraguaBoland Amendment2007 IraqHouse Concurrent Resolution 63

 

The War Powers Resolution (also known as the War Powers Resolution of 1973 or the War Powers Act) (50 U.S.C. 1541–1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the president‘s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the U.S. Congress. The Resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution. It provides that the U.S. President can send U.S. Armed Forces into action abroad only by declaration of war by Congress, “statutory authorization,” or in case of “a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30-day withdrawal period, without a Congressional authorization for use of military force (AUMF) or a declaration of war by the United States. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding the vetoof the bill from President Nixon.

It has been alleged that the War Powers Resolution has been violated in the past – for example, by President Bill Clinton in 1999, during the bombing campaign in Kosovo. Congress has disapproved all such incidents, but none has resulted in any successful legal actions being taken against the president for alleged violations.[2]

Background

Under the United States Constitution, war powers are divided. Congress has the power to raise and support the armed forces, control the war funding (Article I, Section 8), and has the “Power … to declare war”, while the President is commander-in-chief of the military, and the militia (armed citizenry) “when called into the actual Service of the United States” (Article II, Section 2). It is generally agreed that the commander-in-chief role gives the President power to repel attacks against the United States[3][4] and makes the President responsible for leading the armed forces. In addition and as with all acts of the Congress, the President has the right to sign or veto congressional acts, such as a declaration of war. However, the war power was intentionally split between Congress and the Executive to prevent unilateral executive action counter to the nation’s direct interests.

History

Background and passage

During the Korean and Vietnam wars, the United States found itself involved for many years in situations of intense conflict without a declaration of war. Many members of Congress became concerned with the erosion of congressional authority to decide when the United States should become involved in a war or the use of armed forces that might lead to war. It was prompted by news leaking out that President Nixon conducted secret bombings of Cambodia during the Vietnam War without notifying Congress.

The War Powers Resolution was passed by both the House of Representatives and Senate but was vetoed by President Richard Nixon. By a two-thirds vote in each house, Congress overrode the veto and enacted the joint resolution into law on November 7, 1973.

Implementation, 1993–2002

Presidents have submitted 130[5] reports to Congress as a result of the War Powers Resolution, although only one (the Mayagüez incident) cited Section 4(a)(1) and specifically stated that forces had been introduced into hostilities or imminent danger.

Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution in the Multinational Force in Lebanon Act (P.L. 98-119), which authorized the Marines to remain in Lebanon for 18 months during 1982 and 1983. In addition, the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 1991 (Pub.L. 102–1) which authorized United States combat operations against Iraqi forces during the 1991 Gulf War, stated that it constituted specific statutory authorization within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution.

On November 9, 1994, the House used a section of the War Powers Resolution to state that U.S. forces should be withdrawn from Somalia by March 31, 1994; Congress had already taken this action in appropriations legislation. More recently under President Clinton, war powers were at issue in former YugoslaviaBosniaKosovoIraq, and Haiti, and under President George W. Bush in responding to terrorist attacks against the U.S. after September 11, 2001. “[I]n 1999, President Clinton kept the bombing campaign in Kosovo going for more than two weeks after the 60-day deadline had passed. Even then, however, the Clinton legal team opined that its actions were consistent with the War Powers Resolution because Congress had approved a bill funding the operation, which they argued constituted implicit authorization. That theory was controversial because the War Powers Resolution specifically says that such funding does not constitute authorization.”[6] Clinton’s actions in Kosovo were challenged by a member of Congress as a violation of the War Powers Resolution in the D.C. Circuit case Campbell v. Clinton, but the court found the issue was a non-justiciablepolitical question.[7] It was also accepted that because Clinton had withdrawn from the region 12 days prior the 90-day required deadline, he had managed to comply with the act.[8]

After the 1991 Gulf War, the use of force to obtain Iraqi compliance with United Nations resolutions, particularly through enforcement of Iraqi no-fly zones, remained a war powers issue. In October 2002 Congress enacted the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against IraqPub.L. 107–243 which authorized President George W. Bush to use force as necessary to defend the United States against Iraq and enforce relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions.[9] This was in addition to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists enacted in 2001.

Libya intervention in 2011

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton testified to Congress in March 2011 that the administration did not need congressional authorization for its military intervention in Libya or for further decisions about it, despite congressional objections from members of both parties that the administration was violating the War Powers Resolution.[10][11] During that classified briefing, she reportedly indicated that the administration would sidestep the Resolution’s provision regarding a 60-day limit on unauthorized military actions.[12] Months later, she stated that, with respect to the military operation in Libya, the United States was still flying a quarter of the sorties, and the New York Times reported that, while many presidents had bypassed other sections of the War Powers Resolution, there was little precedent for exceeding the 60-day statutory limit on unauthorized military actions – a limit which the Justice Department had said in 1980 was constitutional.[13][14] The State Department publicly took the position in June 2011 that there was no “hostility” in Libya within the meaning of the War Powers Resolution, contrary to legal interpretations in 2011 by the Department of Defense and the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel.[15][16][17]

May 20, 2011, marked the 60th day of US combat in Libya (as part of the UN resolution) but the deadline arrived without President Obama seeking specific authorization from the US Congress.[18] President Obama notified Congress that no authorization was needed,[19]since the US leadership had been transferred to NATO,[20] and since US involvement was somewhat “limited”. In fact, as of April 28, 2011, the US had conducted 75 percent of all aerial refueling sorties, supplied 70 percent of the operation’s intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, and contributed 24 percent of the total aircraft used in the operation.[21] By September, the US had conducted 26 percent of all military sorties, contributing more resources to Operation Unified Protector than any other NATO country.[22] The State Department requested (but never received) express congressional authorization.[16][23]

On Friday, June 3, 2011, the US House of Representatives voted to rebuke President Obama for maintaining an American presence in the NATO operations in Libya, which they considered a violation of the War Powers Resolution.[24][25] In The New York Times, an opinion piece by Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman stated that Obama’s position “lacks a solid legal foundation. And by adopting it, the White House has shattered the traditional legal process the executive branch has developed to sustain the rule of law over the past 75 years.”[26]

Syrian Military Action in 2017

On April 6, 2017, the United States launched 59 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles at Shayrat airbase in Syria in response to Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons. Constitutional scholar and law professor Stephen Vladeck has noted that the strike potentially violates the War Powers Resolution.[27]

Questions regarding constitutionality

The War Powers Resolution has been controversial since it was passed.[28] In passing the resolution, Congress specifically cites the Necessary and Proper Clause for its authority.[29] Under the Necessary and Proper Clause, it is specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

Because the Constitution limits the President’s authority in the use of force without a declaration of war by Congress, there is controversy as to whether the provisions of the resolution are consistent with the Constitution. Presidents have therefore drafted reports to Congress required of the President to state that they are “consistent with” the War Powers Resolution rather than “pursuant to” so as to take into account the presidential position that the resolution is unconstitutional.

One argument for the unconstitutionality of the War Powers Resolution by Philip Bobbitt[30] argues “The power to make war is not an enumerated power” and the notion that to “declare” war is to “commence” war is a “contemporary textual preconception”. Bobbitt contends that the Framers of the Constitution believed that statutory authorization was the route by which the United States would be committed to war, and that ‘declaration’ was meant for only total wars, as shown by the history of the Quasi-War with France (1798–1800). In general, constitutional powers are not so much separated as “linked and sequenced”; Congress’s control over the armed forces is “structured” by appropriation, while the President commands; thus the act of declaring war should not be fetishized.[clarification needed] Bobbitt also argues that “A democracy cannot … tolerate secret policies” because they undermine the legitimacy of governmental action.

A second argument concerns a possible breach of the ‘separation of powers’ doctrine, and whether the resolution changes the balance between the Legislative and Executive functions. This type of constitutional controversy is similar to one that occurred under President Andrew Johnson with the Tenure of Office Act (1867). In that prior instance, the Congress passed a law (over the veto of the then-President) that required the President to secure Congressional approval for the removal of Cabinet members and other executive branch officers. The Act was not declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the United States until 1926.[31] When Andrew Johnson violated the Act, the House of Representativesimpeached him; action in the Senate to remove him failed by one vote.

Here, the separation of powers issue is whether the War Powers Resolution requirements for Congressional approval and presidential reporting to Congress change the constitutional balance established in Articles I and II, namely that Congress is explicitly granted the sole authority to “declare war”, “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces” (Article 1, Section 8), and to control the funding of those same forces, while the Executive has inherent authority as Commander in Chief. This argument does not address the other reporting requirements imposed on other executive officials and agencies by other statutes, nor does it address the provisions of Article I, Section 8 that explicitly gives Congress the authority to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.

The constitution specifically states that Congress is authorized “to provide and maintain a Navy” (Article 1 Section 8). The idea of “maintenance” of a Navy implies that Naval Forces would be a permanent fixture of national defense. Two types of Land Forces are described by the Constitution (Article 1 Section 8): the Militia (armed citizenry organized into local defense forces and state volunteer regiments) which Congress can “call forth” and prescribe the “organizing, arming, and disciplining [training]” of, as Congress did in the Militia acts of 1792; and the Army, which Congress can “raise and support”, through regular appropriation acts limited to no more than two years. This division matches how the Revolutionary War was fought, by the Continental Army, raised and supported by the Continental Congress, and local Militias and Volunteer Regiments, raised by the separate Colonies. After the war, under the Articles of Confederation, a small standing Army, the First American Regiment was raised and gradually increased in size over time by Congress before, following the Constitution’s ratification, being transformed into the Regular Army. The availability of a standing Army, and the President of the United States being authorized as “Commander in Chief”, implies his ability as a military commander to employ forces necessary to fulfill his oath to defend the constitution.

There is also an unresolved legal question, discussed by Justice White in INS v. Chadha of whether a “key provision of the War Powers Resolution”, namely 50 U.S.C. 1544(c), constitutes an improper legislative veto. (See Chadha462 U.S. 919, 971.) That section 1544(c) states “such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs by concurrent resolution”. Justice White argues in his dissent in Chadha that, under the Chadha ruling, 1544(c) would be a violation of the Presentment Clause. The majority in Chadha does not resolve the issue. Justice White does not address or evaluate in his dissent whether that section would fall within the inherent Congressional authority under Article I Section 8 to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces”.[citation needed]

Footnotes

  1. Jump up^ “50 U.S. Code Chapter 33 – WAR POWERS RESOLUTION”.
  2. Jump up^ “War Powers – Law Library of Congress – Library of Congress”.
  3. Jump up^ The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 318-19 (Max Farrand ed., rev. ed. 1966)(1911)
  4. Jump up^ [1] Archived December 15, 2008, at the Wayback Machine.
  5. Jump up^ U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. War Powers Resolution: Presidential Compliance. Washington: The Service, 2011 (RL33532), Summary.
  6. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (2011-04-01) Clock Ticking on War Powers ResolutionThe New York Times The Caucus Blog
  7. Jump up^ Campbell v. Clinton203, February 18, 2000, p. 19, retrieved 2017-02-23
  8. Jump up^ How War Powers, Congressional Action have Intersected Over Time The Wall Street Journal (2013-09-02)
  9. Jump up^ 107th Congress (October 10, 2002). “Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002” (text). United States Government Printing Office. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
  10. Jump up^ “Congress members grill administration officials on Libya mission”. CNN. March 31, 2011.
  11. Jump up^ Lillis, Mike; et al. (March 30, 2011). “White House briefing changes few minds on Libya involvement”The Hill.
  12. Jump up^ Crabtree, Susan (March 30, 2011). “Clinton To Congress: Obama Would Ignore Your War Resolutions”. Talking Points Memo.
  13. Jump up^ Charlie Savage (May 26, 2011). “Libya Effort Is Called Violation of War Act”The New York Times. p. A8.
  14. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). “2 Top Lawyers Lost to Obama in Libya War Policy Debate”The New York Times. p. A1.
  15. Jump up^ Savage, Charlie (June 18, 2011). “President overruled 2 key lawyers on debate over Libya war policy”The Seattle Times.
  16. Jump up to:a b Cosgrove, Maureen. “State Department legal adviser: Obama acting lawfully in Libya”JURIST (June 28, 2011).
  17. Jump up^ “War Powers Act of 1973”The New York Times (June 29, 2011).
  18. Jump up^ Libya War Deadline Arrives Fox News
  19. Jump up^ “White House on War Powers Deadline: ‘Limited’ US Role in Libya Means No Need to Get Congressional Authorization”, ABC News, May 20, 2011
  20. Jump up^ “Libya: Nato assumes control of military operation”. BBC News. March 27, 2011.
  21. Jump up^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on October 5, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
  22. Jump up^ “Archived copy”. Archived from the original on October 16, 2015. Retrieved October 4, 2015.
  23. Jump up^ Owen, Robert (2015). “The U.S. Experience: National Strategy and Campaign Support”. In Karl Mueller. Precision and Purpose: Airpower in the Libyan Civil War. Rand Corporation. p. 105.
  24. Jump up^ Dinan, Stephen, “Bipartisan Congress rebuffs Obama on Libya mission”The Washington Times, Saturday, June 4, 2011
  25. Jump up^ Steinhauer, Jennifer (June 3, 2011). “House Rebukes Obama for Continuing Libyan Mission Without Its Consent”The New York Times.
  26. Jump up^ Ackerman, Bruce. “Legal Acrobatics, Illegal War”The New York Times (June 21, 2011). Page A27.
  27. Jump up^ “Was Trump’s Syria Strike Legal? An Expert Weighs In”. Retrieved 7 April 2017.
  28. Jump up^ “The war powers resolution”. US Department of State Bulletin. 1988-09-15. Retrieved 2008-07-09. “The War Powers Resolution has been controversial from the day it was adopted over President Nixon’s veto. Since 1973, executive officials and many Members of Congress have criticized various aspects of the law repeatedly.”
  29. Jump up^ War Powers Joint Resolution, §2(b).
  30. Jump up^ “War Powers: An Essay on John Hart Ely‘s War and Responsibility: Constitutional Lessons of Vietnam and Its Aftermath,” Michigan Law Quarterly 92, no. 6 (May 1994): 1364–1400.
  31. Jump up^ “Myers v. United States, 272 U. S. 52 (1926)”.

References

External links

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

Declaration of war by the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Franklin D. Roosevelt signs the declaration of war against Japan on December 8, 1941

declaration of war is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation and another. The document Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications gives an extensive listing and summary of statutes which are automatically engaged upon the US declaring war.

For the United States, Article One, Section Eight of the Constitution says “Congress shall have power to … declare War”. However, that passage provides no specific format for what form legislation must have in order to be considered a “declaration of war” nor does the Constitution itself use this term. In the courts, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, in Doe v. Bush, said: “[T]he text of the October Resolution itself spells out justifications for a war and frames itself as an ‘authorization’ of such a war.”[1] in effect saying an authorization suffices for declaration and what some may view as a formal Congressional “Declaration of War” was not required by the Constitution.

This article will use the term “formal declaration of war” to mean Congressional legislation that uses the phrase “declaration of war” in the title. Elsewhere, this article will use the terms “authorized by Congress”, “funded by Congress” or “undeclared war” to describe other such conflicts.

History

The United States has formally declared war against foreign nations five separate times, each upon prior request by the President of the United States. Four of those five declarations came after hostilities had begun.[2] James Madison reported that in the Federal Convention of 1787, the phrase “make war” was changed to “declare war” in order to leave to the Executive the power to repel sudden attacks but not to commence war without the explicit approval of Congress.[3] Debate continues as to the legal extent of the President’s authority in this regard. Public opposition to American involvement in foreign wars, particularly during the 1930s, was expressed as support for a Constitutional Amendment that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war.[4] Several Constitutional Amendments, such as the Ludlow Amendment, have been proposed that would require a national referendum on a declaration of war.

After Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in January 1971 and President Richard Nixon continued to wage war in Vietnam, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution (Pub.L. 93–148) over the veto of Nixon in an attempt to rein in some of the president’s claimed powers. The War Powers Resolution proscribes the only power of the president to wage war which is recognized by Congress.[5]

Declarations of war

Formal

The table below lists the five wars in which the United States has formally declared war against eleven foreign nations.[6] The only country against which the United States has declared war more than once is Germany, against which the United States has declared war twice (though a case could be made for Hungary as a successor state to Austria-Hungary).

In World War II, the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. Germany and Italy, led respectively by Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini, declared war on the United States, and the U.S. Congress responded in kind.[7][8]

War Declaration Opponent(s) Date of declaration Votes President Result
Senate House
War of 1812 Declaration of War upon the U.K.  United Kingdom June 18, 1812 19–13 79–49 James Madison Treaty of Ghent (December 24, 1814)
Mexican–American War “An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico.”[9]  Mexico May 13, 1846 40–2 173–14 James K. Polk Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (February 2, 1848)
Spanish–American War Declaration of War upon Spain  Spain April 25, 1898 42–35 310–6 William McKinley Treaty of Paris (December 10, 1898)
World War I Declaration of War upon Germany  Germany April 6, 1917 82–6 373–50 Woodrow Wilson Treaty of Berlin (August 25, 1921)
Declaration of War upon Austria-Hungary[10][11]  Austria-Hungary December 7, 1917 74–0 365–1 1921 U.S.–Austrian Peace Treaty (August 24, 1921), 1921 U.S.-Hungarian Peace Treaty(August 29, 1921)
World War II Declaration of War upon Japan  Japan December 8, 1941 82–0 388–1 Franklin D. Roosevelt V-J DayJapanese Instrument of Surrender (September 2, 1945), Treaty of San Francisco(September 8, 1951)
Declaration of War upon Germany  Germany December 11, 1941 88–0 393–0 V-E DayGerman Instrument of Surrender (May 8, 1945), Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany (September 12, 1990), Treaty of Vienna with Austria (May 15, 1955)
Declaration of War upon Italy  Italy 90–0 399–0 Paris Peace Treaty (February 10, 1947)
Declaration of War upon Bulgaria  Bulgaria June 5, 1942 73–0 357–0
Declaration of War upon Hungary[10]  Hungary 360–0
Declaration of War upon Romania[10]  Romania 361–0

Undeclared wars

Military engagements authorized by Congress

In other instances, the United States has engaged in extended military combat that was authorized by Congress.

War or conflict Opponent(s) Initial authorization Votes President Result
Senate House
Quasi-War  France An Act further to protect the commerce of the United States
July 9, 1798
18–4 John Adams Treaty of Mortefontaine
First Barbary War Morocco Morocco
 Tripolitania
February 6, 1802[12] Thomas Jefferson War ended 1805
Second Barbary War Fictitious Ottoman flag 2.svg Algiers May 10, 1815[13] James Madison War ended 1816
Enforcing 1808 slave trade ban; naval squadron sent to African waters to apprehend illegal slave traders  Slave traders and pirates “Act in addition to the acts prohibiting the Slave Trade” 1819 James Monroe 1822 first African-American settlement founded in Liberia, 1823 U.S. Navy stops anti-trafficking patrols
Redress for attack on U.S. Navy‘s USS Water Witch  Paraguay 1858.[14] James Buchanan
Mexican Revolution

 Mexico H.J.R. 251, 38 Stat. 770
April 22, 1914
337–37 Woodrow Wilson Force withdrawn after six months. However, the Joint Resolution was likely used to authorize the Pancho Villa Expedition. In the Senate, “when word reached the Senate that the invasion had gone forward before the use-of-force resolution had been approved, Republicans reacted angrily” saying it was a violation of the Constitution, but eventually after the action had already started, a resolution was passed after the action to “justify” it since Senators did not think it was a declaration of war.[15][16]
Russian Civil War

 Commune of Estonia
 Far Eastern Republic
 Latvia
 Mongolian People’s Party
 Russia
 Ukraine
1918[17] Woodrow Wilson
Lebanon crisis of 1958 Lebanon Lebanese Opposition

H.J. Res. 117, Public Law 85-7, Joint Resolution “To promote peace and stability in the Middle East”, March 9, 1957[18] 72–19 355–61 Dwight D. Eisenhower U.S. forces withdrawn, October 25, 1958
Vietnam War


Laotian Civil War


Cambodian Civil War

China China
National United Front of Kampuchea

 North Korea
 North Vietnam
Laos Pathet Lao
 South Vietnam

Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, August 7, 196488–2416–0Lyndon B. JohnsonU.S. forces withdrawn under terms of the Paris Peace Accords signed January 27, 1973Multinational Force in LebanonShia and Druze militias; SyriaS.J.Res. 159
Pub.L. 98–119
September 29, 198354–46253–156Ronald W. ReaganForces withdrawn in 1984Persian Gulf War IraqH.J.Res. 77
January 12, 1991.52–47250–183George H.W. BushThe United Nations Security Council drew up terms for the cease-fire, April 3, 1991

War in Afghanistan


al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen


Somali Civil War


War in North-West Pakistan


Moro conflict


Iraqi Civil War


Syrian Civil War


Second Libyan Civil War

Afghanistan Afghanistan

 al-Qaeda

 Harakat Ahrar al-Sham al-Islamiyya
 Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin
 Islamic Jihad Union
Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Jamaat-ul-Ahrar
Jundallah
Lashkar-e-Islam
 Lashkar-e-Jhangvi
 Tehreek-e-Nafaz-e-Shariat-e-Mohammadi
 Turkistan Islamic Party
 Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan


Afghanistan High Council of the Islamic Emirate
 Fidai Mahaz


 al-Itihaad al-Islamiya
 Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia
 Harakat al-Shabaab Mujahedeen
 Hizbul Islam
 Islamic Courts Union
 Jabhatul Islamiya
 Mu’askar Anole
 Ras Kamboni Brigades


Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Abu Sayyaf
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters
 Islamic State
 Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Maute group
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant Khalifa Islamiyah Mindanao

S.J. Res. 23
September 14, 200198–0420–1George W. Bush Iraq War[19] IraqH.J. Res. 114,
March 3, 200377–23296–132George W. BushBa’athist Iraqi government deposed April 2003. U.S. combat operations ended August 31, 2010. War ended December 15, 2011. Destabilization of Iraq and emergence of ISIL in the region 2011–present.[20]

 

Military engagements authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by Congress[edit]

In many instances, the United States has engaged in extended military engagements that were authorized by United Nations Security Council Resolutions and funded by appropriations from Congress.

Military engagement Opponent(s) Initial authorization President Result
Korean War  China
 North Korea
 Soviet Union
UNSCR 84, 1950 Harry S. Truman Korean Armistice Agreement,[21] 1953
Multinational Force in Lebanon Shia militias, Druze militias, Syria UNSCR 425, 1978UNSCR 426, 1978 Jimmy CarterRonald Reagan U.S. forces withdrew in 1984
Persian Gulf War  Iraq UNSCR 678, 1990 George H. W. Bush UNSCR 689, 1991
Bosnian War  Republika Srpska UNSCR 770, 1992
UNSCR 776, 1992
UNSCR 836, 1993
Bill Clinton Reflagged as IFOR in 1995, Reflagged as SFOR in 1996, Completed in 2004
Second Liberian Civil War Peacekeeping UNSCR 1497, 2003 George W. Bush U.S. forces are withdrawn in 2003 after the UNMIL is established.
Haitian coup d’état UNSCR 1529, 2004UNSCR 1542, 2004 2004
First Libyan Civil War

 Libya UNSCR 1973, 2011 Barack Obama Debellation of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, October 31, 2011

Other undeclared wars[edit]

Military engagement Opponent(s) President Result
American Revolutionary War Kingdom of Great Britain Great Britain

German auxiliaries

Native Americans[22]

None Peace of Paris

On at least 125 occasions, the President has acted without prior express military authorization from Congress.[23] These include instances in which the United States fought in the Philippine–American War from 1898–1903, in Nicaragua in 1927, as well as the NATO bombing campaign of Yugoslavia in 1999, and the 2017 missile strikes on Syria.

The United States’ longest war was fought between approximately 1840 and 1886 against the Apache Nation. During that entire 46-year period, there was never more than 90 days of peace.[citation needed]

The Indian Wars comprise at least 28 conflicts and engagements. These localized conflicts, with Native Americans, began with European colonists coming to North America, long before the establishment of the United States. For the purpose of this discussion, the Indian Wars are defined as conflicts with the United States of America. They begin as one front in the American Revolutionary War in 1775 and had concluded by 1918. The United States Army still maintains a campaign streamer for Pine Ridge 1890–1891 despite opposition from certain Native American groups.[24]

The American Civil War was not an international conflict under the laws of war, because the Confederate States of America was not a government that had been granted full diplomatic recognition as a sovereign nation by other sovereign states.[25][26] The CSA was recognized by the United States government as a belligerent power, a different status of recognition that authorized Confederate warships to visit non-U.S. ports. This recognition of the CSA’s status as a belligerent power did not impose any duty upon the United States to recognize the sovereignty of the Confederacy, and the United States never did so.

The War Powers Resolution

In 1973, following the withdrawal of most American troops from the Vietnam War, a debate emerged about the extent of presidential power in deploying troops without a declaration of war. A compromise in the debate was reached with the War Powers Resolution. This act clearly defined how many soldiers could be deployed by the President of the United States and for how long. It also required formal reports by the President to Congress regarding the status of such deployments, and limited the total amount of time that American forces could be deployed without a formal declaration of war.

Although the constitutionality of the act has never been tested, it is usually followed, most notably during the Grenada Conflict, the Panamanian Conflict, the Somalia Conflict, the Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq War[clarification needed]. The only exception was President Clinton’s use of U.S. troops in the 78-day NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia during the Kosovo War.[citation needed] In all other cases, the President asserted the constitutional authority to commit troops without the necessity of Congressional approval, but in each case the President received Congressional authorization that satisfied the provisions of the War Powers Act.

On March 21, 2011, a number of lawmakers expressed concern that the decision of President Barack Obama to order the U.S. military to join in attacks of Libyan air defenses and government forces exceeded his constitutional authority because the decision to authorize the attack was made without Congressional permission.[27] Obama explained his rationale in a two-page letter, stating that as commander in chief, he had constitutional authority to authorize the strikes, which would be limited in scope and duration, and necessary to prevent a humanitarian disaster in Libya.

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Doe v. Bush, 03-1266, (March 13, 2003)”FindLaw. Retrieved 20 June 2013.
  2. Jump up^ Henderson, Phillip G. (2000). The presidency then and now. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 51ISBN 978-0-8476-9739-7.
  3. Jump up^ The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 reported by James Madison : August 17,The Avalon Project, Yale Law School, retrieved Feb 13, 2008
  4. Jump up^ “Petition for a Constitutional Amendment to Hold National Referendums on Declarations of War from Danville, Ohio”. The National Archives of the United States. 1938. Retrieved July 29,2016.
  5. Jump up^ Shindler, Michael (1 March 2018). “War Powers: Return to Congress”. RealClearDefense. RealClear Media Group. Retrieved 2 March 2018.
  6. Jump up^ Official Declarations of War by Congress
  7. Jump up^ BBC News, On This Day
  8. Jump up^ Whereas the Government of Germany has formally declared war against the government and the people of the United States of America… the state of war between the United States and the Government of Germany which has thus been thrust upon the United States is hereby formally declared. The War Resolution
  9. Jump up^ United States Congress (May 13, 1846). “An Act providing for the Prosecution of the existing War between the United States and the Republic of Mexico” (PDF). Government of the United States of America. Government of the United States of America. Archived from the original (PDF) on August 10, 2006. Retrieved August 10, 2006.
  10. Jump up to:a b c Declarations of War and Authorizations for the Use of Military Force: Historical Background and Legal Implications
  11. Jump up^ H.J.Res.169: Declaration of War with Austria-Hungary, WWI, United States Senate
  12. Jump up^ Key Events in the Presidency of Thomas JeffersonMiller Center of Public AffairsUniversity of Virginia, (retrieved on August 10, 2010).
  13. Jump up^ Key Events in the Presidency of James MadisonMiller Center of Public AffairsUniversity of Virginia, (retrieved on August 10, 2010).
  14. Jump up^ Expenses – Paraguay Expedition, House of Representatives, 36th Congress, 1st Session, Mis. Doc. No. 86 (May 11, 1860), p. 142
  15. Jump up^ Cyrulik, John M., A Strategic Examination of the Punitive Expedition into Mexico, 1916-1917. Fort Leavenworth, KS, 2003. (Master’s thesis)
  16. Jump up^ Wolfensberger, Don. Congress and Woodrow Wilson’s Introductory Forays into Mexico, an Introductory Essay. Congress Project Seminar On Congress and U.S. Military Interventions Abroad. Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars. Monday, May 17, 2004
  17. Jump up^ A History of Russia, 7th Edition, Nichlas V. Riasanovsky & Mark D. Steinberg, Oxford University Press, 2005.
  18. Jump up^ http://www.shafr.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/U.S.-Congress-Approval-of-the-Eisenhower-Doctrine-1957.pdf
  19. Jump up^ Obama’s full speech: Operation Iraqi Freedom is Over, MSNBC
  20. Jump up^ Londoño, Ernesto (August 19, 2010). “Operation Iraqi Freedom ends as last combat soldiers leave Baghdad”The Washington Post.
  21. Jump up^ s:Korean Armistice Agreement
  22. Jump up^ OnondagaMohawkCayugaSenecaMi’kmaq (from 1779)CherokeeOdawaMuscogeeSusquehannockShawnee
  23. Jump up^ The President’s Constitutional Authority To Conduct Military Operations Against Terrorists and Nations Supporting Them
  24. Jump up^ Army Continues to Parade Wounded Knee Battle StreamerNational Congress of American Indians.
  25. Jump up^ “Preventing Diplomatic Recognition of the Confederacy, 1861–1865”. U.S. Department of State. Archived from the originalon August 28, 2013.
  26. Jump up^ McPherson, James M. (2007). This Mighty Scourge: Perspectives on the Civil War. Oxford University Press US. p. 65. ISBN 978-0-19-531366-6.
  27. Jump up^ Obama Attacked for No Congressional Consent on LibyaNew York Times.

Further reading

External links

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

Story 2: Trump Wants 4,000 National Guard Force Assisting U.S. Border Patrol — Zero Miles of Wall Built — Videos

California’s governor agrees to deploy 400 National Guard troops at Trump’s request

Trump wants to send National Guard troops to the border to help fight illegal immigration

Arizona, Texas to deploy National Guard troops to border

Pentagon: National Guard Will Support Border Patrol – Full News Conference

 

California’s governor agrees to deploy 400 National Guard troops at Trump’s request

SOURCE: CNN

California Gov. Jerry Brown responded to President Donald Trump’s request to add more troops for border security, saying he’ll add about 400 troops but also saying they won’t be used for “enforcing federal immigration laws.”

The location of the troops and the number working along the border, the coast and other places in the state will be determined by the needs on the ground, the governor’s press office said.

This supplements the 250 troops already working statewide, including 55 Guard members already at the border.

Trump said last week he wants to send 2,000 to 4,000 National Guard members to the border, issuing a proclamation citing “the lawlessness that continues at our southern border.”

Arizona, New Mexico and Texas all made new pledges that add up to almost half of the up to 4,000 troops Trump requested. Some Guard members started arriving at the border as states and the federal government officials continued to discuss what they will do.

Read Gov. Brown’s full letter below.

Dear Secretary Nielsen and Secretary Mattis:

Pursuant to your request, the California National Guard will accept federal funding to add approximately 400 Guard members statewide to supplement the staffing of its ongoing program to combat transnational crime. This program is currently staffed by 250 personnel statewide, including 55 at the California border.

Your funding for new staffing will allow the Guard to do what it does best: support operations targeting transnational criminal gangs, human traffickers and illegal firearm and drug smugglers along the border, the coast and throughout the state. Combating these criminal threats are priorities for all Americans – Republicans and Democrats. That’s why the state and the Guard have long supported this important work and agreed to similar targeted assistance in 2006 under President Bush and in 2010 under President Obama.

But let’s be crystal clear on the scope of this mission. This will not be a mission to build a new wall. It will not be a mission to round up women and children or detain people escaping violence and seeking a better life. And the California National Guard will not be enforcing federal immigration laws.

Here are the facts: there is no massive wave of migrants pouring into California. Overall immigrant apprehensions on the border last year were as low as they’ve been in nearly 50 years (and 85 percent of the apprehensions occurred outside of California).

I agree with the Catholic Bishops who have said that local, state and federal officials should “work collaboratively and prudently in the implementation of this deployment, ensuring that the presence of the National Guard is measured and not disruptive to community life.”

I look forward to working with you on this important effort.

Sincerely,

Edmund G. Brown Jr.

http://www.kcra.com/article/californias-governor-agrees-to-deploy-400-national-guard-troops-at-trumps-request/19747526

Story 3: House Speaker Paul Ryan Retiring January 2018 — Good Day For Limited Government Conservatives — Videos

See the source image

Tucker: House Speaker Paul Ryan leaves a party in shambles

Laura Ingraham: What Paul Ryan’s departure means

Paul Ryan’s retirement could have ripple effect

Where does Paul Ryan’s departure leave the GOP?

Paul Ryan retiring over trouble with Trump?

Paul Ryan Exits | The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 515

Mark Levin: The real reason behind Paul Ryan’s decision to retire (April 11 2018)

Phony Conservative  Big Government Republicans

Senator
Mitch McConnell (KY)
KY
F 36%

Representative
Paul Ryan (WI)
WI
F 34%

Representative
Kevin McCarthy (CA)
CA
F 36%

Real Conservative Limited Government Republicans

Download PDF

Representative
Warren Davidson (OH)
OH
A 100%

Representative
Andy Biggs (AZ)
AZ
A 100%

Senator
Mike Lee (UT)
UT
A 100%

Representative
Thomas Garrett (VA)
VA
A 100%

Representative
Thomas Massie (KY)
KY
A 98%

Representative
David Brat (VA)
VA
A 97%

Representative
Jim Jordan (OH)
OH
A 96%

Representative
Mark Meadows (NC)
NC
A 95%

Representative
Louie Gohmert (TX)
TX
A 94%

Representative
Ted Budd (NC)
NC
A 94%

Representative
Jeff Duncan (SC)
SC
A 94%

Representative
Jim Bridenstine (OK)
OK
A 94%

Representative
Gary Palmer (AL)
AL
A 94%

Representative
Paul Gosar (AZ)
AZ
A 93%

Representative
Mark Sanford (SC)
SC
A 93%

Senator
Benjamin Sasse (NE)
NE
A 92%

Representative
David Schweikert (AZ)
AZ
A 92%

Senator
Rand Paul (KY)
KY
A 92%

Representative
Ken Buck (CO)
CO
A 91%

Representative
Raul Labrador (ID)
ID
A 91%

Representative
Jody Hice (GA)
GA
A 91%

Senator
Ted Cruz (TX)
TX
A 90%

Representative
Justin Amash (MI)
MI
A 90%

Representative
Jason Lewis (MN)
MN
B 89%

Representative
Mo Brooks (AL)
AL
B 88%

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1059

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

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

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

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1053, March 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1052, March 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1051, March 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1050, March 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

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

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

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

The Libertarian Angle: Consumer Sovereignty and the Free Market

Monopoly, Competition, and Antitrust | Thomas J. DiLorenzo

Monopoly and Competition (by Murray N. Rothbard)

Entrepreneurship, Austrian Economics, and the Cryptorevolution | Patrick Byrne

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

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

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

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

Milton Friedman – Monopoly

Milton Friedman – Solutions to Market Failures

Milton Friedman – The Proper Role of Government

Milton Friedman explains how to deal with monopolies

Milton Friedman – Morality & Capitalism

Why I’m Against Antitrust Laws

Chicago School vs. Austrian School: Four Types of Libertarianism

How Does Amazon Make Money?

Scott Galloway – How Amazon is Dismantling Retail

50 Alexa Voice Commands (Amazon Echo)

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

Amazon Echo & Alexa 10 Everyday Uses

Google Home vs Amazon Alexa

Introducing Echo Plus

What Brands Should Do in 2018

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

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

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

Jeff Bezos, The Post and the Future of Print

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

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

Why I REALLY Became a Millionaire

How To Be A Successful Entrepreneur

How To Go From Zero to $10 Million on Amazon

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

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

How To Create A Million Dollar Business

How to Find Products That Sell

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

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

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

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

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

The Day I Became an Entrepreneur for Life

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

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

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

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

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

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

My Amazon FAILURES! (that you can avoid…)

Amazon Cancelled my $35,000 Black Friday Deal

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

CRAZIEST THING IN 3 YEARS OF AMAZON SELLING!

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

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

Donald Trump Attacks Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Bezos shoots back at Trump

Trump vs Bezos

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

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

Jeff Bezos in 90 Seconds

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

What Is Amazon Prime and Is It Worth It?

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

Ex-Amazon workers talk of ‘horrendous’ conditions

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

Exposé reveals Amazon’s punishing workplace culture

The ‘Enormous Pressue’ Of Working At Amazon

Amazon: How Bruising a Workplace Is It?

Amazon fires back after scathing workplace critique

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

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

Behind the scenes of an Amazon warehouse

Bezos defends working conditions at Amazon

The Power of Jeff Bezos – Interview Oct 2016

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

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

Jeff Bezos’ Fortune Crosses $113 Billion | Forbes

Jeff Bezos: The $100 Billion Dollar Man | CNBC

Jeff Bezos’ wife blasts book on Amazon founder

Interview: Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos

Amazing Amazon Story – Jeff Bezos Full Speech

Jeff Bezos interview on Starting Amazon (2001)

Trump hates Amazon, not Facebook

Photos: Mark Wilson / Getty Images; The Washington Post

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Antitrust Case Against Facebook, Google and Amazon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Write to Greg Ip at greg.ip@wsj.com

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

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

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

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

See the source image

See the source image

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

Consumer Spending Helped U.S. Economy Grow

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

Top 10 Biggest Economies in the world of 2018

Ten Fastest Economic Growth Countries In The World 2018

US economy grew at a faster pace in fourth quarter 2017

Douglas Gillison

,

AFP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

– Corporate profits slide –

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1053

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

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

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

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1049, March 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1048, March 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1047, March 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1046, March 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

See the source image

See the source image

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

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

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

U.S. Debt Clock

Big Spender

Shirley Bassey

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

WATCH: White House holds news briefing on omnibus spending bill

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

Rush Limbaugh Thinks Trump Should Veto The Omnibus Spending Bill

Omnibus Bill: The Democrats Have Won

What This Is: The Spending Bill Omnibus

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

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

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

‘Nuclear option’ for federal nominations inflames debate

Raw: Senate Votes to Change Filibuster Rules

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

Crashing The Tea Party (Political Documentary) – Real Stories

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

Rep. Meadows: Not many conservative wins in budget deal

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

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

Rep. Louis Gohmert on Congress’ omnibus spending bill

Speaker Ryan Defends Omnibus Spending Bill

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

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

US House of Representatives approves $1.3 trillion spending bill

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

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

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

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

US Tea Party Movement Rallies in Washington

All eyes on Paul with shutdown looming

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spending Bill Goes to Senate Ahead of Shutdown Deadline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Phenomenal Job’

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

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

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

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

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

Hudson River Tunnel

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

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

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

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

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

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

 March 22 at 1:33 AM 

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

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

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

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

ADVERTISING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

(Screen Capture)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 President Trump inspects prototypes of border wall in California

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Filibuster in the United States Senate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

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

History

Constitutional design: simple majority voting

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

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

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

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

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

Accidental creation and early use of the filibuster

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

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

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

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

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

The emergence of cloture (1917–1969)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent efforts to limit filibusters

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

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

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

Minor 2013 changes

During the 113th Congress, two packages of amendments were adopted on January 25, 2013.[48] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[48] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[48][49]

The changes removed the 60-vote requirement to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[50][51] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[51] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[51] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[52][50]

Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the “silent filibuster”—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[52][50]

Abolition for nominations: 2013 and 2017

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called “nuclear option,” voting 52–48 — with all Republicans and three Democrats opposed — to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[53]

The Democrats’ stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[54][55] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[53] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[56] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[57][58] Senate Democrats who supported the “nuclear option” also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[54]

In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[59] Finally, on April 6, 2017, the Senate eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the “nuclear option” for Supreme Court nominees. This was done in order to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 along party lines.[60]

Exceptions

The only bills that are not currently subject to effective 60-vote requirements are those considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[61] These limits on debate allow the Senate to hold a simple-majority vote on final passage without obtaining the 60 votes normally needed to close debate. As a result, many major legislative actions in recent decades have been adopted through one of these methods.

Reconciliation is a procedure created in 1974 as part of the congressional budget process. In brief, the annual budget process begins with adoption of a budget resolution (passed by simple majority in each house, not signed by President, does not carry force of law) that sets overall funding levels for the government. The Senate may then consider a budget reconciliation bill, not subject to filibuster, that reconciles funding amounts in any annual appropriations bills with the amounts specified in the budget resolution. However, under the Byrd rule no non-budgetary “extraneous matter” may be considered in a reconciliation bill. The presiding officer, relying always (as of 2017) on the opinion of the Senate parliamentarian, determines whether an item is extraneous, and a 60-vote majority is required to include such material in a reconciliation bill.

The Congressional Review Act, adopted in 1995, allows Congress to review and repeal administrative regulations adopted by the Executive Branch within 60 legislative days. This procedure will most typically be used successfully shortly after a party change in the presidency. It was used once in 2001 to repeal an ergonomics rule promulgated under Bill Clinton), was not used in 2009, and was used 14 times in 2017 to repeal various regulations adopted in the final year of the Barack Obama presidency.

Policy and political effects

The modern-era filibuster — and the effective 60-vote supermajority requirement it has led to — have had very major policy and political effects, both institutionally and on specific major policy initiatives from Presidents of both parties.

Institutional effects

Congress. The supermajority rule has made it very difficult, often impossible, for Congress to pass any but the most non-controversial legislation in recent decades. During times of unified party control, majorities have attempted (with varying levels of success) to enact their major policy priorities through the budget reconciliation process, resulting in legislation constrained by budget rules. Meanwhile, public approval for Congress as an institution has fallen to its lowest levels ever, with large segments of the public seeing the institution as ineffective.[citation needed] Shifting majorities of both parties — and their supporters — have often been frustrated as major policy priorities articulated in political campaigns are unable to obtain passage following an election.

The Presidency. Presidents of both parties have increasingly filled the policymaking vacuum with expanded use of executive power, including executive orders in areas that had traditionally been handled through legislation. For example, Barack Obama effected major changes in immigration policy by issuing work permits to some undocumented workers,[citation needed] while Donald Trump has issued several significant executive orders since taking office in 2017 along with undoing many of Obama’s initiatives.[citation needed] As a result, policy in these areas is increasingly determined by executive preference, and is more easily changed after elections, rather than through more permanent legislative policy.

Judiciary. The Supreme Court’s caseload has declined significantly, with various commenters suggesting that the decline in major legislation has been a major cause.[62] Meanwhile, more policy issues are resolved judicially without action by Congress — despite the existence of potential simple majority support in the Senate — on topics such as the legalization of same-sex marriage.[citation needed]

Major presidential policy initiatives

The implied threat of a filibuster — and the resulting 60-vote requirement in the modern era — have had major impacts on the ability of recent Presidents to enact their top legislative priorities into law. The effects of the 60-vote requirement are most apparent in periods where the President and both Houses of Congress are controlled by the same political party, typically early in a presidential term.

Bill Clinton

In 1993-94, President Bill Clinton enjoyed Democratic majorities in both chambers of the 103rd Congress, including a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Yet the Clinton health care plan of 1993, formulated by a task force led by First Lady Hillary Clinton, was unable to pass in part due to the filibuster. As early as April 1993, a memo to the task force noted that “While the substance is obviously controversial, there is apparently great disquiet in the Capitol over whether we understand the interactivity between reconciliation and health, procedurally, and in terms of timing and counting votes for both measures….”[63]

George W. Bush

In 2001, President George W. Bush was unable to obtain any Democratic support for his tax cut proposals. As a result, the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003 were each passed using reconciliation, which required that the tax cuts expire within the 10-year budget window to avoid violating the Byrd rule in the Senate. The status of the tax cuts would remain unresolved until the late 2012 ” fiscal cliff,” with a significant portion of the cuts being made permanent by the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by President Barack Obama.

Barack Obama

In 2009-10, President Barack Obama briefly enjoyed an effective 60-vote Democratic majority (including independents) in the Senate during the 111th Congress. During that time period, the Senate passed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly known as the ACA or “Obamacare,” on Dec. 24, 2009 by a vote of 60-39 (after invoking cloture by the same 60-39 margin). However, Obama’s proposal to create a public health insurance option was removed from the health care legislation because it could not command 60-vote support.

House Democrats did not approve of all aspects of the Senate bill, but after 60-vote Senate control was permanently lost in February 2010 due to the election of Scott Brown to fill the seat of the late Ted Kennedy, House Democrats decided to pass the Senate bill intact and it became law. Several House-desired modifications to the Senate bill — those sufficient to pass scrutiny under the Byrd rule — were then made under reconciliation via the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, which was enacted days later following a 56-43 vote in the Senate.

The near-60-vote Senate majority that Democrats held throughout the 111th Congress was also critical to passage of other major Obama initiatives, including the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (passed 60-38, two Republicans voting yes)[citation needed]and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (passed 60-39, three Republicans voting yes, one Democrat voting no).[citation needed] However, the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act, which would have created a cap-and-trade system and established a national renewable electricity standard to combat climate change, never received a Senate floor vote with Majority Leader Harry Reid saying “it’s easy to count to 60.”[64]

Donald Trump

In 2017, President Donald Trump and the 115th Congress pursued a strategy to use an FY17 reconciliation bill to repeal Obamacare, followed by an FY18 reconciliation bill to pass tax reform. A budget reconciliation strategy was pursued since nearly all Democrats were expected to oppose these policies, making a filibuster threat insurmountable due to the 60-vote requirement.

An FY17 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for health care reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-48 vote on January 12, 2017,[65] and by the House on a 227-198 vote the following day.[66] The House later passed the American Health Care Act of 2017 as the FY17 budget reconciliation bill by a vote of 217-213 on May 4, 2017. In July, the Senate Parliamentarian ruled that certain provisions of the House bill must be stricken (as “extraneous” non-budgetary matter) under the Byrd rule before proceeding under reconciliation.[67] The Parliamentarian later ruled that an FY17 reconciliation bill must be adopted by end of FY17, establishing a September 30th deadline.[68] Senate Republicans were unable to obtain 51 votes for any health care reconciliation bill before the deadline, and the FY17 budget resolution expired.

An FY18 budget resolution that included reconciliation instructions for tax reform was passed by the Senate by a 51-49 vote on October 19, 2017,[69] and by the House on a 216-212 vote on October 26, 2017.[70] It permitted raising the deficit by $1.5 trillion over ten years and opening drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the latter to help secure the eventual vote of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski who voted against FY17 health care reconciliation legislation. The Senate later passed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (unofficial title) as the FY18 reconciliation bill by a 51-48 vote on December 20, 2017,[71] with final passage by the House on a 224-201 vote later that day.[72] Due to the budget resolution’s cap of $1.5 trillion in additional deficits over 10 years, plus Byrd rule limits on adding deficits beyond 10 years, the corporate tax cut provisions were made permanent while many of the individual tax cuts expire after 2025.

Process for limiting or eliminating the filibuster

According to the Supreme Court‘s ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]

However, despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed and overturned by a simple majority of Senators. This happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that “the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote.” Although there is no simple majority vote provision in the text of rule XXII,[73] Reid’s point of order was sustained by a 52-48 vote, and that ruling established a Senate precedent that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires only a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[74][75]

Other forms of filibuster

While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[76] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[77]

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

  • Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House’s amendments
  • Request, or agree to, a conference
  • Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee

If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[76] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[78] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Longest filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[79][80]
Senator Date (began) Measure Hours & minutes
1 Strom Thurmond (DSC) August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 24:18
2 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
3 Wayne Morse (IOR) April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
4 Ted Cruz (RTX) September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) 21:18
5 Robert M. La Follette, Sr. (RWI) May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
6 William Proxmire (DWI) September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
7 Huey Long (DLA) June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
8 Jeff Merkley (DOR) April 4, 2017 Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation 15:28
9 Alfonse D’Amato (RNY) October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
10 Chris Murphy (DCT) June 15, 2016 Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures 14:50

See also

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

In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat or an independent?
Trend since 2004
Republicans Independents Democrats
% % %
2018 Feb 1-10 28 42 27
2018 Jan 2-7 22 44 32
2017 Dec 4-11 25 46 27
2017 Nov 2-8 25 42 30
2017 Oct 5-11 24 42 31
2017 Sep 6-10 29 40 30
2017 Aug 2-6 28 41 28
2017 Jul 5-9 25 45 28
2017 Jun 7-11 26 42 30
2017 May 3-7 29 40 28
2017 Apr 5-9 25 44 28
2017 Mar 1-5 26 42 30
2017 Feb 1-5 31 37 31
2017 Jan 4-8 28 44 25
2016 Dec 7-11 28 39 29
2016 Nov 9-13 27 40 30
2016 Nov 1-6 27 36 31
2016 Oct 5-9 27 36 32
2016 Sep 14-18 27 40 32
2016 Sep 7-11 29 38 31
2016 Aug 3-7 27 38 31
2016 Jul 13-17 28 42 28
2016 Jun 14-23 28 39 31
2016 Jun 1-5 27 41 30
2016 May 18-22 27 45 28
2016 May 4-8 31 37 30
2016 Apr 6-10 25 44 31
2016 Mar 2-6 26 38 32
2016 Feb 3-7 30 37 30
2016 Jan 21-25 29 39 31
2016 Jan 6-10 26 44 29
2015 Dec 2-6 27 40 30
2015 Nov 4-8 28 39 30
2015 Oct 7-11 25 42 29
2015 Sep 9-13 27 43 27
2015 Aug 5-9 27 41 31
2015 Jul 8-12 23 46 28
2015 Jun 2-7 25 41 31
2015 May 6-10 26 41 30
2015 Apr 9-12 24 42 31
2015 Mar 6-9 27 44 28
2015 Feb 8-11 25 43 29
2015 Jan 5-8 29 42 28
2014 Dec 8-11 27 40 31
2014 Nov 6-9 28 41 28
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 26 39 32
2014 Oct 12-15 33 35 29
2014 Sep 25-30 26 42 30
2014 Sep 4-7 25 47 26
2014 Aug 7-10 26 40 31
2014 Jul 7-10 23 45 29
2014 Jun 5-8 24 46 28
2014 May 8-11 24 43 31
2014 Apr 24-30 23 43 32
2014 Apr 3-6 25 42 29
2014 Mar 6-9 25 42 30
2014 Feb 6-9 23 45 30
2014 Jan 5-8 24 45 29
2013 Dec 5-8 24 44 30
2013 Nov 7-10 23 46 28
2013 Oct 3-6 20 47 30
2013 Sep 5-8 22 45 31
2013 Aug 7-11 24 43 31
2013 Jul 10-14 25 42 31
2013 Jun 20-24 26 41 31
2013 Jun 1-4 26 41 31
2013 May 2-7 28 39 32
2013 Apr 4-14 26 40 33
2013 Mar 7-10 27 36 35
2013 Feb 7-10 28 38 32
2013 Jan 7-10 27 38 33
2012 Dec 27-30 27 36 34
2012 Dec 19-22 25 35 38
2012 Dec 14-17 25 39 34
2012 Nov 26-29 29 37 31
2012 Nov 15-18 27 38 32
2012 Nov 9-12 28 38 33
2012 Nov 1-4 30 33 35
2012 Sep 24-27 28 38 32
2012 Sep 6-9 27 36 35
2012 Aug 20-22 28 41 31
2012 Aug 9-12 26 42 29
2012 Jul 19-22 28 41 30
2012 Jul 9-12 27 41 30
2012 Jun 7-10 30 39 30
2012 May 10-13 27 44 29
2012 May 3-5 28 38 32
2012 Apr 9-12 29 41 29
2012 Mar 8-11 27 42 30
2012 Feb 16-19 27 43 29
2012 Feb 2-5 27 43 29
2012 Jan 5-8 27 42 30
2011 Dec 15-18 30 42 27
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 25 45 28
2011 Nov 3-6 27 35 36
2011 Oct 6-9 26 41 31
2011 Sep 15-18 21 46 32
2011 Sep 8-11 25 44 30
2011 Aug 11-14 28 44 26
2011 Aug 4-7 24 42 34
2011 Jul 12-15 25 42 30
2011 Jul 7-10 29 39 30
2011 Jun 9-12 30 38 29
2011 May 5-8 29 37 32
2011 Apr 20-23 31 36 32
2011 Apr 7-11 26 42 30
2011 Mar 25-27 25 40 32
2011 Mar 3-6 29 39 29
2011 Feb 2-5 28 40 31
2011 Jan 14-16 28 42 28
2011 Jan 7-9 29 37 31
2010 Dec 10-12 33 34 32
2010 Nov 19-21 29 40 29
2010 Nov 4-7 26 41 31
2010 Oct 28-31 29 36 32
2010 Oct 21-24 29 34 33
2010 Oct 14-17 30 36 30
2010 Oct 7-10 30 34 33
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 29 37 30
2010 Sep 23-26 30 34 32
2010 Sep 13-16 30 41 28
2010 Aug 27-30 28 41 30
2010 Aug 5-8 29 40 30
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 30 37 31
2010 Jul 8-11 26 40 30
2010 Jun 11-13 28 33 36
2010 May 24-25 28 40 30
2010 May 3-6 30 36 32
2010 Apr 8-11 26 42 29
2010 Mar 26-28 28 40 31
2010 Mar 4-7 29 39 30
2010 Feb 1-3 27 40 33
2010 Jan 8-10 28 36 34
2009 Dec 11-13 29 36 33
2009 Oct 16-19 25 41 32
2009 Oct 1-4 27 38 33
2009 Sep 11-13 26 40 33
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 28 36 35
2009 Aug 6-9 28 35 35
2009 Jul 17-19 26 39 33
2009 Jul 10-12 29 33 37
2009 Jun 14-17 29 37 32
2009 May 29-31 26 37 35
2009 May 7-10 32 34 32
2009 Apr 20-21 27 36 36
2009 Apr 6-9 24 40 35
2009 Mar 27-29 28 35 35
2009 Mar 5-8 25 35 38
2009 Feb 20-22 27 36 34
2009 Feb 9-12 29 36 33
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 27 35 36
2009 Jan 9-11 30 33 36
2008 Dec 12-14 26 35 37
2008 Dec 4-7 27 33 37
2008 Nov 13-16 26 35 39
2008 Nov 7-9 28 37 33
2008 Oct 23-26 33 32 34
2008 Oct 10-12 30 33 35
2008 Oct 3-5 27 38 33
2008 Sep 26-27 28 35 35
2008 Sep 8-11 32 31 35
2008 Sep 5-7 30 34 35
2008 Aug 21-23 27 37 36
2008 Aug 7-10 31 32 35
2008 Jul 25-27 29 33 36
2008 Jul 10-13 27 35 35
2008 Jun 15-19 30 35 34
2008 Jun 9-12 29 36 33
2008 May 30-Jun1 26 36 37
2008 May 8-11 27 35 37
2008 May 1-3 27 37 36
2008 Apr 18-20 25 38 36
2008 Apr 6-9 26 35 37
2008 Mar 14-16 29 33 38
2008 Mar 6-9 28 37 34
2008 Feb 21-24 29 34 36
2008 Feb 11-14 26 34 40
2008 Feb 8-10 28 34 37
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 29 36 35
2008 Jan 10-13 28 38 34
2008 Jan 4-6 30 35 34
2007 Dec 14-16 27 39 33
2007 Dec 6-9 30 36 32
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 28 41 31
2007 Nov 11-14 27 38 33
2007 Nov 2-4 25 41 34
2007 Oct 12-14 24 43 31
2007 Oct 4-7 28 38 32
2007 Sep 14-16 28 38 33
2007 Sep 7-8 26 41 32
2007 Aug 13-16 28 40 30
2007 Aug 3-5 27 43 30
2007 Jul 12-15 29 37 32
2007 Jul 6-8 25 43 31
2007 Jun 11-14 27 38 34
2007 Jun 1-3 31 36 31
2007 May 10-13 27 38 34
2007 May 4-6 27 40 33
2007 Apr 13-15 29 36 34
2007 Apr 2-5 30 36 34
2007 Mar 23-25 29 36 33
2007 Mar 11-14 31 35 32
2007 Mar 2-4 27 37 35
2007 Feb 9-11 26 41 32
2007 Feb 1-4 26 37 35
2007 Jan 15-18 30 32 36
2007 Jan 12-14 28 40 32
2007 Jan 5-7 27 42 31
2006 Dec 11-14 30 34 35
2006 Dec 8-10 29 36 34
2006 Nov 9-12 24 40 35
2006 Nov 2-5 31 32 34
2006 Oct 20-22 29 34 35
2006 Oct 9-12 28 35 34
2006 Oct 6-8 29 31 38
2006 Sep 15-17 31 34 34
2006 Sep 7-10 30 33 35
2006 Aug 18-20 33 32 34
2006 Aug 7-10 31 31 36
2006 Jul 28-30 32 29 38
2006 Jul 21-23 29 37 33
2006 Jul 6-9 31 33 34
2006 Jun 23-26 26 36 37
2006 Jun 9-11 35 27 37
2006 Jun 1-4 30 35 34
2006 May 12-13 30 36 34
2006 May 8-11 29 35 34
2006 May 5-7 29 37 32
2006 Apr 28-30 30 35 34
2006 Apr 10-13 31 33 35
2006 Apr 7-9 31 33 35
2006 Mar 13-16 28 36 33
2006 Mar 10-12 32 33 34
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 32 31 35
2006 Feb 9-12 30 39 31
2006 Feb 6-9 33 34 30
2006 Jan 20-22 32 32 34
2006 Jan 9-12 34 34 31
2006 Jan 6-8 34 33 32
2005 Dec 19-22 29 36 32
2005 Dec 16-18 31 36 32
2005 Dec 9-11 30 38 31
2005 Dec 5-8 36 31 31
2005 Nov 17-20 33 30 34
2005 Nov 11-13 31 34 34
2005 Nov 7-10 32 33 33
2005 Oct 28-30 32 37 30
2005 Oct 24-26 33 30 35
2005 Oct 21-23 34 33 33
2005 Oct 13-16 30 33 36
2005 Sep 26-28 32 34 33
2005 Sep 16-18 30 33 36
2005 Sep 12-15 30 37 31
2005 Sep 8-11 33 34 32
2005 Aug 28-30 32 32 35
2005 Aug 22-25 29 34 35
2005 Aug 8-11 33 30 35
2005 Aug 5-7 33 35 31
2005 Jul 25-28 28 37 33
2005 Jul 22-24 32 31 36
2005 Jul 7-10 30 33 35
2005 Jun 29-30 29 31 38
2005 Jun 24-26 33 32 34
2005 Jun 16-19 33 31 34
2005 Jun 6-8 33 34 31
2005 May 23-26 33 34 31
2005 May 20-22 29 33 36
2005 May 2-5 35 30 34
2005 Apr 29-May 1 34 34 31
2005 Apr 18-21 35 29 35
2005 Apr 1-2 35 33 31
2005 Mar 21-23 32 29 37
2005 Mar 18-20 35 31 32
2005 Mar 7-10 35 31 32
2005 Feb 25-27 38 27 34
2005 Feb 21-24 37 31 29
2005 Feb 7-10 34 30 35
2005 Feb 4-6 37 35 28
2005 Jan 14-16 33 36 30
2005 Jan 7-9 35 29 36
2005 Jan 3-5 37 27 35
2004 Dec 17-19 33 30 35
2004 Dec 5-8 37 29 32
2004 Nov 19-21 38 31 30
2004 Nov 7-10 38 27 35
2004 Oct 29-31 34 27 37
2004 Oct 22-24 35 29 36
2004 Oct 14-16 38 29 33
2004 Oct 11-14 33 32 35
2004 Oct 9-10 35 30 34
2004 Oct 1-3 36 27 37
2004 Sep 24-26 39 28 31
2004 Sep 13-15 37 29 33
2004 Sep 3-5 37 29 34
2004 Aug 23-25 35 32 32
2004 Aug 9-11 36 29 34
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 35 28 36
2004 Jul 19-21 37 28 34
2004 Jul 8-11 35 27 36
2004 Jun 21-23 32 33 34
2004 Jun 3-6 33 31 35
2004 May 21-23 33 31 34
2004 May 7-9 32 32 33
2004 May 2-4 32 31 36
2004 Apr 16-18 32 32 34
2004 Apr 5-8 34 30 34
2004 Mar 26-28 36 30 32
2004 Mar 8-11 31 35 33
2004 Mar 5-7 33 31 35
2004 Feb 16-17 30 39 31
2004 Feb 9-12 32 35 32
2004 Feb 6-8 33 36 30
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 31 35 33
2004 Jan 12-15 32 33 34
2004 Jan 9-11 33 35 31
2004 Jan 2-5 32 40 28
GALLUP
(Asked of independents) As of today, do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?
Figures are combined party identifiers + leaners
Republicans + Republican leaners Democrats + Democratic leaners
% %
2018 Feb 1-10 46 44
2018 Jan 2-7 35 50
2017 Dec 4-11 41 45
2017 Nov 2-8 39 46
2017 Oct 5-11 39 46
2017 Sep 6-10 45 47
2017 Aug 2-6 43 46
2017 Jul 5-9 40 48
2017 Jun 7-11 43 49
2017 May 3-7 45 44
2017 Apr 5-9 41 48
2017 Mar 9-29 38 47
2017 Mar 1-5 41 49
2017 Feb 1-5 43 48
2017 Jan 4-8 44 43
2016 Dec 7-11 41 42
2016 Nov 9-13 43 48
2016 Nov 1-6 43 46
2016 Oct 5-9 40 44
2016 Sep 14-18 44 49
2016 Sep 7-11 44 45
2016 Aug 3-7 41 48
2016 Jul 13-17 43 43
2016 Jun 14-23 42 48
2016 Jun 1-5 41 48
2016 May 18-22 47 46
2016 May 4-8 43 47
2016 Apr 6-10 41 49
2016 Mar 2-6 40 48
2016 Feb 3-7 43 46
2016 Jan 21-25 42 48
2016 Jan 6-10 44 45
2015 Dec 2-6 41 46
2015 Nov 4-8 42 44
2015 Oct 7-11 43 44
2015 Sep 9-13 45 44
2015 Aug 5-9 43 45
2015 Jul 8-12 41 47
2015 Jun 2-7 43 45
2015 May 6-10 42 45
2015 Apr 9-12 38 47
2015 Mar 6-9 44 42
2015 Feb 8-11 43 44
2015 Jan 5-8 44 43
2014 Dec 8-11 41 45
2014 Nov 6-9 47 41
2014 Oct 29-Nov 2 41 46
2014 Oct 12-15 47 41
2014 Sep 25-30 44 48
2014 Sep 4-7 47 42
2014 Aug 7-10 42 46
2014 Jul 7-10 40 42
2014 Jun 5-8 44 44
2014 May 8-11 40 47
2014 Apr 24-30 41 48
2014 Apr 3-6 41 43
2014 Mar 6-9 42 47
2014 Feb 6-9 40 47
2014 Jan 5-8 40 45
2013 Dec 5-8 42 44
2013 Nov 7-10 39 45
2013 Oct 3-6 38 48
2013 Sep 5-8 41 47
2013 Aug 7-11 41 44
2013 Jul 10-14 40 46
2013 Jun 20-24 43 46
2013 Jun 1-4 43 46
2013 May 2-7 41 48
2013 Apr 4-14 40 49
2013 Mar 7-10 41 48
2013 Feb 7-10 42 48
2013 Jan 7-10 40 49
2012 Dec 27-30 39 47
2012 Dec 19-22 36 53
2012 Dec 14-17 41 49
2012 Nov 26-29 44 46
2012 Nov 15-18 39 50
2012 Nov 9-12 40 50
2012 Nov 1-4 42 50
2012 Sep 24-27 43 50
2012 Sep 6-9 42 51
2012 Aug 20-22 46 49
2012 Aug 9-12 41 44
2012 Jul 19-22 47 45
2012 Jul 9-12 41 46
2012 Jun 7-10 42 44
2012 May 10-13 45 46
2012 May 3-5 41 47
2012 Apr 9-12 43 47
2012 Mar 8-11 41 46
2012 Feb 16-19 45 45
2012 Feb 2-5 44 45
2012 Jan 5-8 44 47
2011 Dec 15-18 45 45
2011 Nov 28-Dec 1 43 43
2011 Nov 3-6 41 50
2011 Oct 6-9 45 43
2011 Sep 15-18 40 49
2011 Sep 8-11 48 44
2011 Aug 11-14 47 40
2011 Aug 4-7 44 50
2011 Jul 12-15 42 47
2011 Jul 7-10 47 44
2011 Jun 9-12 47 42
2011 May 5-8 43 46
2011 Apr 20-23 46 46
2011 Apr 7-11 46 43
2011 Mar 25-27 42 46
2011 Mar 3-6 45 43
2011 Feb 2-5 44 49
2011 Jan 14-16 47 43
2011 Jan 7-9 45 44
2010 Dec 10-12 48 44
2010 Nov 19-21 49 42
2010 Nov 4-7 44 47
2010 Oct 28-31 43 44
2010 Oct 21-24 43 45
2010 Oct 14-17 45 43
2010 Oct 7-10 43 44
2010 Sep 30-Oct 3 43 44
2010 Sep 23-26 44 43
2010 Sep 13-16 48 42
2010 Aug 27-30 47 45
2010 Aug 5-8 43 44
2010 Jul 27-Aug 1 44 42
2010 Jul 8-11 41 46
2010 Jun 11-13 42 47
2010 May 24-25 43 48
2010 May 3-6 45 44
2010 Apr 8-11 42 46
2010 Mar 26-28 46 46
2010 Mar 4-7 44 45
2010 Feb 1-3 45 46
2010 Jan 8-10 43 48
2009 Dec 11-13 43 49
2009 Oct 16-19 41 47
2009 Oct 1-4 43 46
2009 Sep 11-13 43 47
2009 Aug 31-Sep 2 43 49
2009 Aug 6-9 43 47
2009 Jul 17-19 41 48
2009 Jul 10-12 42 50
2009 Jun 14-17 41 48
2009 May 29-31 39 48
2009 May 7-10 45 45
2009 Apr 20-21 39 50
2009 Apr 6-9 34 53
2009 Mar 27-29 40 51
2009 Mar 5-8 35 53
2009 Feb 20-22 39 51
2009 Feb 9-12 39 51
2009 Jan 30-Feb 1 38 53
2009 Jan 9-11 41 51
2008 Dec 12-14 35 52
2008 Dec 4-7 39 51
2008 Nov 13-16 37 55
2008 Nov 7-9 40 51
2008 Oct 23-26 45 48
2008 Oct 10-12 41 52
2008 Oct 3-5 40 50
2008 Sep 26-27 40 50
2008 Sep 8-11 43 50
2008 Sep 5-7 47 48
2008 Aug 21-23 40 53
2008 Aug 7-10 40 50
2008 Jul 25-27 41 48
2008 Jul 10-13 37 47
2008 Jun 15-19 40 51
2008 Jun 9-12 41 49
2008 May 30-Jun1 39 53
2008 May 8-11 40 52
2008 May 1-3 42 53
2008 Apr 18-20 39 56
2008 Apr 6-9 36 55
2008 Mar 14-16 41 53
2008 Mar 6-9 38 53
2008 Feb 21-24 38 53
2008 Feb 11-14 38 54
2008 Feb 8-10 39 54
2008 Jan 30-Feb 2 40 51
2008 Jan 10-13 39 52
2008 Jan 4-6 39 51
2007 Dec 14-16 38 52
2007 Dec 6-9 41 44
2007 Nov 30-Dec 2 42 48
2007 Nov 11-14 35 49
2007 Nov 2-4 38 54
2007 Oct 12-14 39 52
2007 Oct 4-7 40 48
2007 Sep 14-16 39 54
2007 Sep 7-8 38 52
2007 Aug 13-16 41 47
2007 Aug 3-5 40 48
2007 Jul 12-15 40 49
2007 Jul 6-8 37 53
2007 Jun 11-14 37 53
2007 Jun 1-3 42 48
2007 May 10-13 39 52
2007 May 4-6 41 49
2007 Apr 13-15 42 52
2007 Apr 2-5 42 49
2007 Mar 23-25 41 51
2007 Mar 11-14 41 48
2007 Mar 2-4 39 52
2007 Feb 9-11 40 52
2007 Feb 1-4 37 54
2007 Jan 15-18 38 52
2007 Jan 12-14 41 53
2007 Jan 5-7 40 53
2006 Dec 11-14 40 53
2006 Dec 8-10 40 50
2006 Nov 9-12 34 56
2006 Nov 2-5 39 49
2006 Oct 20-22 39 54
2006 Oct 9-12 38 48
2006 Oct 6-8 37 56
2006 Sep 15-17 42 50
2006 Sep 7-10 40 51
2006 Aug 18-20 43 48
2006 Aug 7-10 39 51
2006 Jul 28-30 40 52
2006 Jul 21-23 39 49
2006 Jul 6-9 40 49
2006 Jun 23-26 38 55
2006 Jun 9-11 42 50
2006 Jun 1-4 43 50
2006 May 12-13 39 48
2006 May 8-11 40 48
2006 May 5-7 38 49
2006 Apr 28-30 40 54
2006 Apr 10-13 39 50
2006 Apr 7-9 41 53
2006 Mar 13-16 38 48
2006 Mar 10-12 41 52
2006 Feb 28-Mar 1 41 50
2006 Feb 9-12 42 49
2006 Feb 6-9 44 45
2006 Jan 20-22 42 51
2006 Jan 9-12 44 46
2006 Jan 6-8 45 48
2005 Dec 19-22 39 47
2005 Dec 16-18 43 48
2005 Dec 9-11 43 48
2005 Dec 5-8 44 46
2005 Nov 17-20 41 48
2005 Nov 11-13 41 52
2005 Nov 7-10 44 46
2005 Oct 28-30 42 47
2005 Oct 24-26 41 50
2005 Oct 21-23 45 49
2005 Oct 13-16 39 52
2005 Sep 26-28 43 47
2005 Sep 16-18 38 53
2005 Sep 12-15 44 48
2005 Sep 8-11 44 47
2005 Aug 28-30 42 50
2005 Aug 22-25 38 50
2005 Aug 8-11 44 45
2005 Aug 5-7 44 46
2005 Jul 25-28 39 51
2005 Jul 22-24 43 49
2005 Jul 7-10 41 50
2005 Jun 29-30 37 51
2005 Jun 24-26 42 49
2005 Jun 16-19 43 47
2005 Jun 6-8 45 45
2005 May 23-26 43 43
2005 May 20-22 40 51
2005 May 2-5 45 48
2005 Apr 29-May 1 44 47
2005 Apr 18-21 43 49
2005 Apr 1-2 46 46
2005 Mar 21-23 42 50
2005 Mar 18-20 48 43
2005 Mar 7-10 46 46
2005 Feb 25-27 48 45
2005 Feb 21-24 46 43
2005 Feb 7-10 44 50
2005 Feb 4-6 52 41
2005 Jan 14-16 45 46
2005 Jan 7-9 43 49
2005 Jan 3-5 45 48
2004 Dec 17-19 45 48
2004 Dec 5-8 48 45
2004 Nov 19-21 50 43
2004 Nov 7-10 48 48
2004 Oct 29-31 44 49
2004 Oct 22-24 46 49
2004 Oct 14-16 50 46
2004 Oct 11-14 46 48
2004 Oct 9-10 46 48
2004 Oct 1-3 45 49
2004 Sep 24-26 50 44
2004 Sep 13-15 47 47
2004 Sep 3-5 49 46
2004 Aug 23-25 46 46
2004 Aug 9-11 47 47
2004 Jul 30-Aug 1 46 49
2004 Jul 19-21 46 47
2004 Jul 8-11 43 49
2004 Jun 21-23 43 50
2004 Jun 3-6 43 49
2004 May 21-23 42 49
2004 May 7-9 42 50
2004 May 2-4 44 50
2004 Apr 16-18 44 48
2004 Apr 5-8 44 48
2004 Mar 26-28 46 45
2004 Mar 8-11 42 49
2004 Mar 5-7 44 50
2004 Feb 16-17 43 50
2004 Feb 9-12 45 48
2004 Feb 6-8 46 47
2004 Jan 29-Feb 1 44 51
2004 Jan 12-15 43 49
2004 Jan 9-11 45 46
2004 Jan 2-5 48 46
GALLUP

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1049

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops 1045, March 9, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Will Meet With North Korea Dictator Kim Jong Un in May — Date and Place To Be Determined — Kim Agrees To Denuclearize and Stop Testing Meeting United States Conditions — Show Us With Concrete Actions — Videos –Story 2: Trump Signs Tariff Order on Steel of 25% and Aluminum 10% To Stop Dumping, Protect American Jobs and Defend National Security — Buy American and Invest In Steel and Aluminum Plants in America To Avoid Tariff/Tax — New Tax On American Consumers As They Buy Goods With Steel and Aluminum — Videos — Story 3: Attorney General Jeff Sessions Finally Promises To Consider A Second Special Counsel — Videos

Posted on March 9, 2018. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, China, Coal, College, Comedy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Monetary Policy, Movies, National Interest, Natural Gas, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Sports, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1045, March 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1044, March 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1043, March 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1042, March 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1041, February 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1040, February 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1039, February 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1038, February 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1037, February 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1036, February 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1035, February 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1034, February 15, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1033, February 14, 2018  

Pronk Pops Show 1032, February 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1031, February 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1030, February 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1028, February 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1027, February 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1026, February 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1025, January 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1024, January 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1023, January 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1022, January 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1021, January 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1020, January 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1019, January 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1018, January 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1017, January 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1016, January 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1015, January 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1014, January 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1013, December 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1012, December 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1011, December 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1010, December 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1009, December 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 1008, December 1, 2017

Stiff punishing actions on North Korea will continue, despite the overture, the U.S. stressed

See the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: President Trump Will Meet With North Korea Dictator Kim Jong Un in May — Kim Agrees To Denuclearize and Stop Testing Meeting United States Conditions — Show Us With Concrete Actions — Videos —

See the source image

Trump agrees to meet Kim Jong Un by May, South Korea says

China SECRETLY ‘wary’ Donald Trump could ‘cut them out’ of North Korea deal in Kim talks

Trump accepting North Korea invitation is step in right direction: Gen. Keane

Analyzing South Korea’s “major announcement” about North Korea

How Can President Donald Trump Prepare For A Meeting With Kim Jong Un? | MSNBC

Shields and Parker on Trump’s possible North Korea meeting, Stormy Daniels’ lawsuit

Trump-Kim meeting: is this really a moment?

BREAKING: President Trump Accepts Kim Jong Un Invitation to Meet on May

Why does North Korea want to meet with Trump?

Secretary Rex Tillerson Explains How North Korean ‘Talks’ Differ From ‘Negotiations’ | NBC News

Why North Korea wants to meet with President Trump

North Korea’s broken promises with the US: A timeline

Trump surprised his staff with Kim Jong Un meeting

White House: No Meeting With North Korea Until We See ‘Concrete Actions’ | NBC News

Sarah Sanders GRILLED on Details of President Trump – Kim Jong Un Meeting

North Korea hasn’t figured Trump out: Gordon Chang

World leaders praising Trump for UN speech

Talking to North Korea is a waste of time: John Bolton

Amb. Bolton: We’re down to two options with North Korea

No more chit-chat with North Korea: Amb. Bolton

UN unaccustomed to aggression in Trump’s speech: Stuart Holliday

Why Trump’s UN speech was so impactful

Trump U.N. speech was vintage Trump: Nigel Farage

US hasn’t had a serious, qualified president in 25 years: Lt. Col. Ralph Peters

‘Grossly irresponsible’ for Trump not to warn North Korea: Oliver North

Washington in shock after Trump ACCEPTS stunning invitation to meet North Korean despot by May after rogue nation agrees to suspend nuclear and missile tests

  • Trump accept Kim Jong-un’s invitation to meet in May says a South Korea official
  • White House confirmed that talks would take place but did not specify time 
  • Neither South Korea’s Chung nor the White House said where a meeting would take place
  • Trump tweeted after announcement that ‘great progress being made’ 
  • Kim has promised to freeze nuclear and ballistic missile tests until after talk 
  • U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham warned Kim on Thursday that ‘it will be the end’ of him if he tried to take advantage of Trump 
  • Announcement welcomed by leaders in Russia, China, UK and Australia 

President Donald Trump has accepted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un‘s dramatic offer to meet, the White House has confirmed.

South Korea‘s national security adviser Chung Eui-yong first announced the face-to-face and claimed it was due to take place by May.

However, a statement from the White House did not confirm the two-month timeframe and said the place and time of the meeting was still being worked out.

Governments around the world welcomed the announcement, with praise coming from the UK, Russia and Australia.

South Korea's national security adviser Chung Eui-yong (C-L) meeting US President Donald J. Trump (C) at the White House in Washington, DC, USA, 08 March 2018

South Korea's national security adviser Chung Eui-yong (L) meeting US President Donald J. Trump (R) at the White House in Washington, DC, USA

‘We look forward to the denuclearization of North Korea. In the meantime, all sanctions and maximum pressure must remain.’

Chung, who made the announcement on behalf of South Korea, led the delegation visiting North Korea earlier this week. The invitation to meet Trump was made to him directly by Kim.

The foreign official said that Kim understands and accepts the fact that joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises will continue and that he also made promises to halt nuclear and ballistic tests until the meeting with Trump takes place.

President Donald Trump has accepted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un's dramatic offer to meet, and he'll do it by May, a South Korean official said Thursday evening

President Donald Trump has accepted North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un’s dramatic offer to meet, and he’ll do it by May, a South Korean official said Thursday evening

Trump popped into the White House press briefing room on Thursday evening and told a small contingent of reporters who just happened to be present that an announcement was coming this evening

Trump popped into the White House press briefing room on Thursday evening and told a small contingent of reporters who just happened to be present that an announcement was coming this evening

A U.S. official later said the meeting would take place in ‘a matter of a couple of months’ but did not commit the president to a face-to-face with Kim this spring.

‘He conveyed that he wants to meet with President Trump as quickly as possible,’ the senior official stated.

The official said the stiff punishing actions on North Korea would also stay in place.

‘At this point we’re not even talking about negotiations,’ the U.S. official said of a plan to hold North Korea to its word that it would freeze its illicit nuclear and ballistic missile development programs.

President Trump reiterated the point in a tweet that followed.

‘Kim Jong Un talked about denuclearization with the South Korean Representatives, not just a freeze. Also, no missile testing by North Korea during this period of time. Great progress being made but sanctions will remain until an agreement is reached. Meeting being planned!’ the U.S. president said.

South Korea's national security adviser Chung Eui-yong told U.S. press that the goal of the face-to-face talk is to achieve permanent denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula

The planned meeting drew immediate praise from other nations.

A spokesperson for the British government said, ‘The UK welcomes the South Korean announcement that Kim Jong Un has made a renewed commitment to denuclearise and will refrain from further nuclear missile tests while dialogue continues.

‘We welcome the announcement of direct talks with President Trump by May and (South Korean) President Moon Jae-in in April.

‘We have always been clear that we want Kim Jong Un to change path and put the welfare of his people ahead of the illegal pursuit of nuclear weapons.

‘We will continue to work closely with the US, South Korea and the international community to ensure that pressure on North Korea continues and sanctions are strictly enforced until Kim Jong Un matches his words with concrete actions. We will continue to monitor developments closely.’

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also welcomed the news, saying that Russia considers the move ‘a step in the right direction.’

He went on to express hope that an agreement would be implemented because it is ‘necessary for normalizing the situation around the Korean peninsula.’

Australia’s former prime minister expressed surprise at how ‘surprisingly good’ Trump has been at foreign policy compared to his predecessors.

Paul John Keating said the United States was directionless under the previous three administrations and Barack Obama blew an opportunity to reshape the world.

On Friday Keating said he had not expected Trump to have ‘such a pragmatic’ foreign policy on China and Russia, and he urged the U.S. president to continue down the path he was on.

Meanwhile, the foreign ministry in China – North Korea’s key ally – said it hopes all parties to the will ‘show their political courage’ in restarting negotiations, and pledged its support in working toward that goal.

Spokesman Geng Shuang on Friday said China welcomes and supports the ‘positive inter-Korean and U.S.-North Korea interactions.’

Geng told reporters at a regularly scheduled press briefing that China hope that all parties ‘will continue to strive for the political resolution and lasting peace and stability on the peninsula.’

Moving on: President Trump, pictured on Thursday, later tweeted about his decision

Stiff punishing actions on North Korea will continue, despite the overture, the U.S. stressed

Stiff punishing actions on North Korea will continue, despite the overture, the U.S. stressed

News that Trump had agreed to meet the North Korean leader Kim Jong Un sent Asian stock markets surging and the yen tumbling.

It provided a springboard for Asian markets, with Seoul jumping 1.1 percent and Tokyo ending 0.5 percent higher.

Hong Kong added more than one percent, Sydney and Singapore each rose 0.3 percent, and Shanghai jumped 0.6 percent. Taipei, Manila, Wellington and Mumbai were also higher.

Hopes that the two men could reach some sort of agreement also led to a plunge in the yen, which is considered a go-to safe currency in times of volatility and uncertainty. The dollar jumped to its highest level in a week.

‘It’s a big deal – there’s no question this is a positive move,’ Ian Bremmer, president of Eurasia Group, a political-risk research and consulting firm in New York, told Bloomberg TV.

‘But also there is the possibility that it could go badly, that Trump could be embarrassed that they make an agreement that Kim Jong-un could backslide on.’

Bruce Klingner, former head of the CIA division for the Koreas, also warned Trump to beware of Kim’s siren song.

‘Washington has fretted that Seoul’s acquiescence to North Korea’s Olympic charm offensive conveyed legitimacy to the regime and risked undermining international resolve to maintain pressure. The U.S. counseled its ally to exercise caution and move forward cautiously and only after lengthy preparations,’ said Klingner, a research fellow now at the Trump-aligned Heritage Foundation.

‘The Trump administration should take its own advice before it is seduced by the same sirens’ song,’ he said in a statement.

Market effect: A South Korean dealer works in front of monitors at the KEB Hana Bank in Seoul, South Korea

Going up: The benchmark South Korea Composite Stock Price Index (KOSPI) rose 26.37 points to 2,459.45, after the announcement that the leaders of the US and North Korea will meet

The announcement on the White House lawn came hours after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. was ‘a long way from negotiations’ with the North.

Speaking to reporters during a visit to the African nation of Djibouti, Tillerson said the turnaround was down to the president.

‘That is a decision the president took himself. I spoke to him very early this morning about that decision and we had a very good conversation,’ Tillerson said Friday. ‘President Trump has said for some time that he was open to talks and he would willingly meet with Kim when conditions were right.

‘And I think in the president’s judgment that time has arrived now,’ the top U.S. diplomat said.

Tillerson said the United States was surprised at how ‘forward-leaning’ Kim was in his conversations with a visiting South Korean delegation. He said it was the strongest indication to date of Kim’s ‘not just willingness but really his desire for talks.’

Peace move: Kim Jong Un held face to face talks with South Korea's delegation this week - and has passed a message to Trump offering to meet

Chung had met Kim earlier in the week in Pyongyang, the dictator’s capital. After relaying parts of his conversation to reporters in Seoul and appraising South Korean President Moon Jae-in of the situation, Chung flew to Washington.

At the White House on Thursday, Chung and other South Korean officials briefed the president and his national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, as well as Trump’s chief of staff, John Kelly, his secretary of defense, James Mattis, the director of national intelligence, Dan Coats, and Vice President Mike Pence.

WHERE WILL THE SUMMIT BE?

All that has been confirmed so far is that the meeting will take place by May.

If it happens in Pyongyang, Kim is sure to put on a spectacular show for his visitor, but for America it would run the risk of appearing that Trump is coming to pay his respects.

The Demilitarized Zone that divides the two Koreas – where Kim and South Korean President Moon Jae-in are to meet in late April – is probably the favorite at this stage, offering ease of access for both sides, a controlled environment, and facilities already in place.

It would also appeal to the two men’s sense of drama.

A more neutral location with less weight of symbolism such as Beijing or Geneva – Kim was educated in Switzerland – would mean the key players would have to plan events with another host nation.

Furthermore, it would involve a journey on both sides, and Kim has not left the North since inheriting power from his father in 2011.

Seoul would most likely be unthinkable to Pyongyang. On the other hand, no one would have predicted three months ago that Kim’s sister would visit the South Korean capital within weeks.

United Nations headquarters in New York – Trump’s home town – would mean Kim stepping on American soil, but it has a long history of hosting a rogue gallery of world leaders.

Events have moved so far, so quickly and in such unforeseen ways that no option can immediately be ruled out.

‘I explained to President Trump that his leadership and his maximum pressure policy, together with international solidarity, brought us to this juncture. I expressed President Moon Jae-in’s personal gratitude for President Trump’s leadership,’ Chung said at an outdoor briefing position that’s typically used by lawmakers and organization heads who want to speak to the press after White House meetings.

Chung says he relayed Kim’s commitment to denuclearization.

‘Kim pledged that North Korea will refrain from any further nuclear or missile tests. He understands that the routine joint military exercises between the Republic of Korea and the United States must continue. And he expressed his eagerness to meet President Trump as soon as possible,’ the South Korean official said.

‘President Trump appreciated the briefing and said he would meet Kim Jong-un by May to achieve permanent denuclearization,’ Chung said.

Trump had pre-empted Chung by saying that South Korea would making a major announcement this evening at 7pm EDT on North Korea.

The president popped into the White House press briefing room on Thursday evening at close of business and told a small contingent of reporters who just happened to be present that an announcement was coming.

The U.S. president gave no indication of what would be declared but suggested with the surprise appearance that the news would be positive.

According to CNN, an excited president turned to Jon Karl of ABC News saying, ‘Hopefully, you will give me credit.’

White House press officers scrambled to make good on Trump’s pledge, waiting until just 30 minutes before the time of the announcement to say where it would take place and that the update from would come from Chung.

Moon in a statement read out by his spokesman on Friday also complimented Trump for accepting Kim’s invitation for a summit, saying the American president’s leadership will be praised ‘not only by the residents of South and North Korea but every peace-loving person around the world.’

Moon is also preparing for a summit with Kim at a border village between the Koreas in April.

Talks are a 180 from Trump’s complaint last fall that Tillerson, his secretary of state, was ‘wasting his time’ with diplomacy.

Tillerson had suggested that officials from the U.S. and North Korea sit down for talks without preconditions only to have the White House assert that a conversation would only take place if Kim agreed to abandon his nuclear weapons program.

Tensions began to thaw as the Winter Olympics approached. The games, held just across the border from Pyongyang in South Korea, provided an opportunity for the two Koreas to renew ties.

Earlier this week, Chung spent two days in the neighboring country that ended with a proffer to the U.S. to halt nuclear and missile testings and take up talks.

Trump said Tuesday that a ‘very good dialogue’ had opened up with North Korea as he cautiously approached Pyongyang’s proposition.

He told reporters in the Oval Office that the conversations had yielded progress, striking an optimistic tone.

‘We’re gonna see. We’re gonna see,’ he told a journalist asking about North Korea’s commitment to ending its nuclear weapons program if it no longer felt threatened. ‘They seem to be acting positively, but we’re gonna see.’

President Donald Trump cautiously approached North Korea’s offer to freeze its nuclear program while it holds a ‘candid dialogue’ with the United States on Tuesday

First, Trump sent out a tweet on Tuesday morning that said, 'We will see what happens!'

First, Trump sent out a tweet on Tuesday morning that said, ‘We will see what happens!’

The U.S. president said he wants to take the ‘proper’ pathway, which he suggested was diplomatic talks, ‘But we are prepared to go either way.’

‘And as I said, hopefully we’ll go in the very, very peaceful, beautiful path. We’re prepared to go whichever path is necessary,’ he added. ‘I think we’re having very good dialogue, and you’re gonna certainly find out very soon what’s happening, but we have, we have made progress, there’s no question about it.’

That morning, Trump warned Kim, ‘The U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction!’

The U.S. president said then that ‘possible progress’ toward talks had been made, but it could also be a ‘false hope.’

On Saturday evening, Trump said that the North Koreans had reached out and his administration would be meeting with Kim’s government.

‘They, by the way, called up a couple of days ago and said, ‘We would like to talk.’ And I said, ‘So would we, but you have to de-nuke, you have to de-nuke.’ So, let’s see what happens,’ the president stated. ‘But we will be meeting and we’ll see if anything positive happens.’

A National Security Council spokesman did not respond to DailyMail.com’s request for clarification, and a senior official would not tell reporters during a call on Tuesday afternoon if talks were already under way.

Then he said that talks were 'possible' -- but they could also be a 'false hope' -- and the 'U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction'

Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Löfven offered Tuesday during a joint press conference with Trump at the White House to mediate talks with the North Koreans, if that is what Trump wants.

His country maintains an embassy in Pyongyang and serves at the United States’ protectorate there.

Löfven said it’s not up to Sweden to solve the dispute, however, he believes that the North Koreans trust his nation to act as arbiter.

‘If the president decides, the key actors decide, if they want us to help out,’ he said, ‘we’ll be there.’

Other potential meeting places were the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, between North and South Korea, in addition to Seoul, Beijing and Tokyo.

A senior U.S. official said Thursday evening that Trump had spoke to Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The official did not say if a call to China’s Xi Jinping was also underway.

Complicating a conversation between Trump and Xi was the U.S. president’s announcement on Thursday afternoon that he was slapping a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent penalty on imported aluminum in an aggressive bid to prevent Chinese dumping and boost American metal workers.

Big step: Kim Jong Un,pictured meeting South Korean National Security Director Chung Eui-yong, in Pyongyang, has said he is ready to discuss de-nuclearization with the U.S.

A week ago, Trump signaled his openness to a talk with Kim  — if it took place ‘under the right conditions.’

‘Otherwise, we’re not talking,’ Trump told United States governors.

He commented that Kim ‘wants to talk, as of last night’ and said ‘we want to talk also.’

Trump went on to make a familiar complaint about his predecessors, blasting former President Bill Clinton and others for failing to keep North Korea in check.

‘The Clinton administration spent billions and billions of dollars. They gave them billions. They built things for them. They went out of their way, and the day after the agreement was signed, they continued with nuclear research. It was horrible.’

Continuing, Trump said, ‘The Bush administration did nothing — both. The Obama administration wanted to do something. He told me it’s the single biggest problem that this country has. But they didn’t do anything.

‘And it would have been much easier, in those days, than it is now. I think most people understand that. But we’ve been very tough with them.’

Trump’s administration has led an international charge to cripple North Korea’s economy and bring Kim to his knees. The advance will not cease, the U.S. has said, until the rogue dictator abandons his nuclear ambitions.

At his White House news conference on Tuesday, Trump said he believes that the North Koreans are sincere in their offer to halt nuclear and missile tests if the United States sits down for talks.

‘But I think they’re sincere also because the sanctions,’ he assessed. ‘The sanctions have been very, very strong and very biting. And we don’t want that to happen. So I really believe they are sincere. I hope they’re sincere. We’re going to soon find out.’

The Pyeongchang Games provided a long-awaited opening for the kind of detente that could lead to substantive talks between North Korea and South Korea, along with the United States and its allies.

The two Koreas marched under one flag at the opening ceremony of the games, and Kim sent his sister, Kim Yo Jong, to the South to head the North’s delegation.

A South Korean envoy lead by Chung returned Tuesday to Seoul from a meeting with Kim in Pyongyang where the North Koreans are said to have offered to halt nuclear tests for the time being if the United States agrees to talks.

Televisions being sold at an Onoden Co. electronics store display a broadcast of a news report on North Korea's Nov. 29 missile launch, showing footage captioned as the launch of the Hwasong-12 missile in September, in Tokyo, Japan

North Korea also expressed its willingness during the two-day summit to put a total moratorium on its nuclear program if the South backs off from military behavior it perceives to be a threat. 

Chung said said that Kim promised not to use nuclear or conventional weapons against South Korea in the conversation where the two countries also agreed to open a hotline between their leaders ‘to ease military tension and have close coordination’ and meet for another round of talks in April.

The next summit is expected to take place in Panmunjom. It will be only the third inter-Korean set of talks ever held and the first in more than a decade.

The last time the rival countries held high-level talks was in 2007, when the North was under Kim’s father’s command. A summit in 2000 also took place while Kim Jong Il controlled the North. The elder Kim passed away in 2011, giving rise to Kim Jong-un’s reign.

Chung said Tuesday that the younger Kim, 34, said he wants to ‘write a new history of national reunification’ during a four-hour dinner this week in Pyongyang.

Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, hailed the announced talks as a ‘glimmer of hope.’

‘It would of course be wonderful if we could see an easing of tensions because… the nuclearization in North Korea has been a source of great concern for all of us,’ she said.

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman, who has traveled several times to North Korea and is one of the few Americans to have met its leader, also praised Trump for his decision to hold talks.

Rodman told The Associated Press he looks forward to returning to the pariah nation for ‘basketball diplomacy’ in the coming months.

‘Well done, President Trump. You’re on the way to a historical meeting no U.S. president has ever done,’ Rodman said.

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham said in a statement on Thursday that he beckons peace. He also told Kim that ‘it will be the end’ of him if he tried to take advantage of Trump.

Other senior US politicians were also skeptical, with Republican Cory Gardner of Colorado saying the ‘price of admission’ for Trump and Kim’s meeting must be ‘complete, verifiable, and irreversible de-nuclerization of the Korean peninsula.’

Democrat Ed Markey of Massachusetts said Trump should treat it ‘as the beginning of a long diplomatic process,’ avoiding ‘unscripted’ remarks that could derail it.

Meanwhile, Republican Rep. Ed Royce of California, the House Foreign Affairs Committee chairman, credited Trump and said that North Korea’s desire to talk shows that sanctions are ‘starting to work.’

Special guests: Kim Jong Un sits next to his wife Ri Sol-Ju, with his sister Kim Yo-Jong sat to the right of  one of the South Korean diplomats during a meal hosted by North Korea 

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un meets members of the special delegation of South Korea's President in this photo released by North Korea's Korean Central News Agency

As the Olympics unfolded in South Korea, it was the United States that had loudly warned the world that Kim was putting on a charm offensive.

Pence, who led the U.S. delegation to the opening ceremony, urged the international community, and South Korea, not let up on the North until Kim fully capitulates when it comes to his building of nuclear weapons.

‘The policy of the U.S. is the denuclearization of North Korea. The maximum pressure campaign is going to continue and intensify. All options are on the table,’ a senior official said of Pence’s message to Moon as he departed the peninsula.

The vice president announced during the trip, and the United States followed up with, a rigorous set of sanctions that the Trump administration described as the largest and most aggressive to date.

Treasury blacklisted one person, 27 companies and 28 ships with the action it says was ‘aimed at shutting down North Korea’s illicit maritime smuggling activities to obtain oil and sell coal.’ The sanctions hit entities in Taiwan, Hong Kong, China and Singapore and others.

Steve Mnuchin, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, said that nearly all of North Korea’s shipping sector had now been targeted. The total number of sanctions steps since 2005 has now hit 45 – with almost half of the actions coming since Trump took office.

At a press conference later in the day, Trump said he’d make preparations for ‘phase two’ if the punishing actions are not successful, the outcome of which could be ‘very, very unfortunate for the world.’

‘But hopefully the sanctions will work,’ he said during remarks at a joint White House press conference with the Australian prime minister.

The North Korean dictator shakes hands with South Korea's national security director Chung Eui-yong as his sister looks on

No insight: Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image distributed by the North Korean government 

No insight: Independent journalists were not given access to cover the event depicted in this image distributed by the North Korean government

Envoys for South Korea led by President Moon's national security director, Chung Eui-yong, are on a rare two-day visit to Pyongyang that's expected to focus on how to ease a standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions and restart talks between Pyongyang and Washington

North Korea leader Kim Jong Un meets with South Korean delegation
 A senior administration official told reporters then, ‘The president is clearly frustrated and rightly so over the efforts that have failed in the past and also over the uptick in testing and the advances we’ve seen in the North Korean program.’

In his Tuesday morning tweets on North Korea, Trump said, ‘Possible progress being made in talks with North Korea. For the first time in many years, a serious effort is being made by all parties concerned.

‘The World is watching and waiting!’ he added. ‘May be false hope, but the U.S. is ready to go hard in either direction!’

His comment suggested that military action against North Korea is still in his back pocket, despite the decreased likelihood of a confrontation.

President Trump said Saturday evening during a roast at a dinner in Washington that’s held off camera that he ‘won’t rule out direct talks’ with Kim.

‘As far as the risk of dealing with a madman is concerned, that’s his problem, not mine,’ he joked.

Trump went on to say that Kim ‘must be a fine man’ and that his hardline against North Korea saved the Winter Olympics.

‘Without President Trump and his strong attitude they would have never called up and said, ‘Hey, we’d love to be in the Olympics together,’ ‘ he recalled South Korea’s Moon as saying. ‘It was heading for disaster and now we’re talking.’

Diving off script in the 35-minute speech that was supposed to stay light and last approximately 10 minutes, Trump said, ‘Maybe positive things are happening. I hope that’s true, and I say that in all seriousness.

‘But we will be meeting, and we’ll see if anything positive happens. It’s been a long time,’ he said. ‘It’s a problem that should have been fixed a long time ago.’

The insults Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un have hurled at each other:

President Donald Trump accepting an offer to meet with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is a stunning turn of events after a year of heated verbal warfare that included crude insults and mutual threats of nuclear attacks.

While the move to hold a summit appears to be an effort to ease decades of animosity between the US and North Korea, it comes after months of the two leaders trading insults and Trump threatening to ‘totally destroy’ the country.

From Trump calling Kim a ‘rocket man’ and ‘short and fat’ to the US President being labeled ‘mentally deranged’ there has been no shortage of nasty insults between the leaders.

So ahead of the summit – for which a time and place is yet to be determined – here is a look at some of the more notable war of words between Trump and Kim so far.

Short and fat:

Back in November last year, Trump hurled an insult at Kim during a trip to Vietnam calling him ‘short and fat’.

‘Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me ‘old,’ when I would NEVER call him ‘short and fat?’ Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend – and maybe someday that will happen!’ he tweeted.

He was retaliating after North Korean media had labeled Trump as an ‘old lunatic’.

During his address to the UN General Assembly back in September, Trump said the US would ‘totally destroy North Korea’ if forced to defend itself or its allies.

He also referred to Kim as ‘Rocket Man’ during his speech.

‘The United States has great strength and patience, but if it is forced to defend itself or its allies, we will have no choice but to totally destroy North Korea,’ Trump said.

‘Rocket man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.’

Mentally deranged:

Kim hit back to the Rocket Man comments accusing Trump of ‘mentally deranged behavior.’

He said he would ‘surely and definitely tame the mentally deranged US dotard with fire’.

Trump responded on Twitter the following morning: ‘Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is obviously a madman who doesn’t mind starving or killing his people, will be tested like never before!’

Big button:

Kim said that he has a nuclear button on his desk in his New Year’s address this year.

In the same speech, he also called for improved relations with South Korea and suggested sending a delegation to the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang.

Trump quickly responded saying that he has a bigger and more powerful nuclear button.

‘North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the ‘Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.’ Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!’ he tweeted.

Fire and fury:

Ever since Trump was elected, the two leaders have traded barbs about threats of potential nuclear attacks.

After North Korea announced they had tested a series of missiles, Trump said the country had best not make more threats or ‘they will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.’

North Korea hours later announces a plan to launch a salvo of missiles toward the US territory of Guam, a major military hub in the Pacific.

Other threats of nuclear attacks:

Kim said in his New Year’s address in 2017 that preparations for launching an intercontinental ballistic missile had ‘reached the final stage.’

A day later Trump, who was then president-elect, tweeted: ‘North Korea just stated that it is in the final stages of developing a nuclear weapon capable of reaching parts of the US It won’t happen!’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5480127/Kim-Jong-offered-meet-Trump-suspend-nuclear-program.html#ixzz59IC13PPl

 

Story 2: Trump Signs Tariff Order on Steel of 25% and Aluminum 10% To Stop Dumping, Protect American Jobs and Defend National Security — Buy American and Invest In Steel and Aluminum Plants in America To Avoid Tariff/Tax — New Tax On American Consumers As They Buy Goods With Steel and Aluminum — Videos

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

See the source image

Trump signs off on steel and aluminum tariffs, despite GOP opposition

President Trump Signs the Section 232 Proclamations on Steel and Aluminum Imports

Trump signs off on steel and aluminum tariffs, despite GOP opposition

Trump’s tariffs are unlikely to start trade war: Ben Stein

Trump’s tariffs will cost jobs, run up prices: Mitch Daniels

Lara Trump on tariffs: I don’t think Donald Trump bluffs

Trump’s pressure brought North Korea to the negotiating table: Rep. Duffy

Century Aluminum employee talks impact of Trump’s tariffs

Media praises Trump after agreeing to meet with Kim Jong Un

Debate: What countries are the most affected by Trump’s tariffs?

Bill O’Reilly Reacts to Trump’s Steel and Aluminum Tariffs

his CEO Brilliantly DESTR0YS Trump For lNSANE Tariffs, “It’s the DU*MBEST Thing I’ve Ever Seen”

Larry Kudlow: Why I Told President Donald Trump Not To Do Tariffs | CNBC

How Trump’s tariffs could backfire on the U.S. economy

President Donald Trump’s Tariff Is About China, Says Jim Cramer | CNBC

China Is Looking Past Tariffs To A.I. And Beyond, Says Pro Richard Kang | CNBC

Meet the Trump trade adviser whose tariff policy is about to be tested

Peter Navarro: Steel and aluminum industries are ‘on life support’

National Trade Council’s Navarro on U.S. Trade Deficits

 

Trump signs aluminum and steel tariff order that will take effect this month – but EVERY country on earth will be invited to negotiate exemptions from ‘flexible’ policy

  • New tariffs of 25 per cent on imported steel and 10 per cent on aluminum will go into effect in 15 days, but Canada and Mexico will be spared from the start
  • Every other nation that has a ‘security relationship’ with the U.S. will be able to petition for individual exemptions
  • Senior official said earlier in the day that talk of retail price hikes because of  raw material costs is just ‘fake news’
  • Confusion reigned overnight in Washington with competing news outlets reporting that Thursday tariff signing was on, then off – or perhaps a maybe
  • Trump tweeted cryptically about a ‘meeting’ on Thursday, not a signing event, but the White House held the ceremony on schedule
  • Republicans in Congress had warned the president about economic consequences of a trade war, leaving him unsure about following through

Donald Trump signed an order on Thursday imposing steep tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, after days of guessing games and internal White House battles over whether daring China to enter a trade war is sound policy.

The president appeared in the Oval Office, flanked by senior officials on one side and a group of steelworkers on the other.

‘You are truly the backbone of America, you know that? You are very special people,’ he told the blue collar contingent.

‘We want a lot of steel coming into our country, but we want it to be fair and we want our workers to be protected.’

The president said his promises to factory workers were a big reason for his 2016 victory, complaining that American steel and aluminum workers have been betrayed – but ‘that betrayal is now over.’

Far from being the ironclad, no-compromises national security measures Trump has telegraphed in the past week, the Associated Press reported that every nation in the world will be able to petition the United States for exemptions.

Scroll down for videos

Donald Trump signed a proclamation on Thursday imposing new tariffs of 25 per cent on imported steel and 10 per cent on aluminum, a move that will take effect in 15 days

The president greeted foundry and mill workers in the Oval Office, promising that his brand of protectionism will result in better jobs and higher production levels in their communities

Trump invited the workers to take photos of the Oval Office, forgetting to actually sign the proclamation until Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (3rd from right) reminded him to

Trump invited the workers to take photos of the Oval Office, forgetting to actually sign the proclamation until Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (3rd from right) reminded him to

 A senior administration official said the national security underpinnings of the new policy were ‘unassailable,’ and clarified that the offer of loopholes would be somewhat limited

Trump will ‘allow any country with which we have a security relationship to discuss with the United States and the president alternate ways’ of protecting America’s interests, the official said, while cautioning that petitioning countries would have to prove that their steel and aluminum exports aren’t harming America’s national security capabilities.

And ‘it doesn’t just refer to national defense. It’s national security, broadly defined,’ the official added.

That measuring stick could encompass anything from protecting domestic steel mills and foundries to guaranteeing the availability of affordable materials for the automotive and aerospace industries.

Rapid responses from Trump critics in Congress were forceful and unyielding.

‘These so-called “flexible tariffs” are a marriage of two lethal poisons to economic growth – protectionism and uncertainty. Trade wars are not won, they are only lost,’ said Arizona Republican Sen. Jeff Flake, a persistent thorn in Trump’s side who will retire in less than a year.

‘Congress cannot be complicit as the administration courts disaster. I will immediately draft and introduce legislation to nullify these tariffs,’ Flake said in a statement.

Utah Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch, a close Trump ally, was equally sour on the new policy.

The new tariffs will go into effect on March 23 – except for Canadians and Mexicans, who will get a carve-out exemption

‘This is a tax hike on American manufacturers, workers and consumers. Slapping aluminum and steel imports with tariffs of this magnitude is misguided,’ Hatch said. ‘It undermines the benefits that the new tax law provides and runs counter to our goal of advancing pro-growth trade policies that will keep America competitive.’

Hatch said he would ‘continue to work with the administration to revisit this decision and hopefully mitigate the damage it will cause to our nation’s economic growth.’

In a conference call with reporters, the senior Trump administration official downplayed the production cost increases that will likely come along with hikes in the net price of raw materials, saying it would add just a few cents to the cost of food cans, and $25,000 to the price of steel to build a Boeing jet that costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

The official waved off mounting evidence that steel and aluminum tariffs will raise retail prices, declaring: ‘This is simply fake news.’

Trump invited his guests to take photos in the Oval Office, forgetting to sign the proclamation itself on Thursday, and heading toward a small table only when Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin reminded him to.

‘Yes, I’m going to do that,’ Trump told him, changing course.

President Donald Trump used a cabinet meeting Thursday to announce that Mexico and Canada will be exempted from new steel and aluminum tariffs,and Australia may also get a carve-out – but it later emerged that nearly every nation on earth would be allowed to petition for special treatment

‘We’re going to cancel NAFTA’ if negotiations fail, he said Thursday.

During a Cabinet meeting, Trump raised the possibility that Australia, too, could be exempt from the new tariffs covered under his proclamation.

‘We’re going to be very flexible,’ the president said, while pledging to ‘protect the American worker.’

Trump insisted, however, that countries forced to pay the import duties would be charged a 25 per cent premium on steel and 10 per cent on aluminum.

His tariffs will go into effect on March 23.

A senior administration official called the plan both ‘a wonderfully flexible document’ and a vehicle to ‘ensure an ironclad way that we preserve our aluminum and steel industry.’

On Thursday morning it wasn’t clear whether the president would have anything to sign by day’s end.

The White House had punted Wednesday on the timetable, with Press Secretary Sarah Sanders telling reporters that he was expected to ‘sign something by the end of the week.’

Trump tweeted a non-committal message early on Thursday, writing that he was ‘[l]ooking forward to [a] 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House.’

‘We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military.’

He also told reporters late in the morning: ‘I call it an economic meeting.’

‘We’re going to be very fair. We’re going to be very flexible, but we’re going to protect the American worker,’ he pledged.

Presidential counselor Kellyanne Conway said Thursday on the Fox News Channel that ‘the president has called a meeting today at 3:30. He has invited in steel an aluminum workers.’

But she didn’t say if he would sign anything.

Confusion reigned in Washington overnight, with contradictory reports sparking a ‘will he or won’t he’ guessing game as Trump’s leanings seemed to change by the hour.

CNN reported at dinnertime that the Thursday signing was definitely on.

An MSNBC anchor tweeted late into the evening that the it was ‘not going to happen’ because the president was ‘undecided after a day of heavy pushback from Republicans.’

The Wall Street Journal reported nearly two hours later that Trump was still expected to sign his tariff order, but only sometime ‘this week.’

 On Thursday morning an NBC reporter tweeted that details were ‘still being finalized’ and ‘if a proclamation is signed it will be largely “symbolic”.’

Sanders said Wednesday that there might be ‘carve-outs’ – exemptions – ‘for Mexico and Canada based on national security, and possibly other countries as well.’

The prospect of across-the-board tariffs that would affect both America’s allies and nations with massive U.S. trade surpluses made some in the White House uneasy, especially chief economic adviser Gary Cohn, who announced his resignation this week.

Other top officials, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, also made last-minute appeals for flexibility, saying that overly broad tariffs would damage key security ties with U.S. allies.

One possible plan would give Canada and Mexico 30-day exemptions, officials said Wednesday, a status whose continuation would depend on progress in renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.

On Wednesday, Sanders told reporters that exemptions to the 25 per cent steel tariffs and 10 per cent aluminum tariffs would be made on a ‘case by case’ and ‘country by country’ basis.

   Business leaders in the steel and aluminum sectors were reportedly flying to Washington Wednesday night in anticipation of a tariff signing designed to protect them against foreign competition.

But despite industry support, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce raised the specter of a global trade war.

That scenario, Tom Donohue said, would endanger the economic momentum from the GOP tax cuts and Trump’s rollback of regulations.

‘We urge the administration to take this risk seriously,’ Donohue said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5479393/Trump-ready-sign-steel-aluminum-tariff-order-loopholes.html

Peter Navarro

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Peter Navarro
White House National Trade Council Director Peter Navarro in Orval Office in January 2017.jpg

Peter Navarro in the White HouseOval Officein January 2017
Director of the National Trade Council
Assumed office
January 20, 2017
President Donald Trump
Preceded by Position established
Personal details
Born July 15, 1949 (age 68)
Political party Democratic
Education Tufts University (BA)
Harvard University (MPAPhD)

Peter Kent Navarro (born July 15, 1949) is an American heterodox economist, who currently serves as the Assistant to the President, Director of Trade and Industrial Policy, and the Director of the White House National Trade Council, a newly created entity in the executive branch of the U.S. federal government.[1] A professor emeritus of economics and public policy at the Paul Merage School of BusinessUniversity of California, Irvine, Navarro is the author of over a dozen books, including Death by China. A liberal and environmental activist,[2][3] he is a member of the Democratic Party.[4][5][6][7][8]

Navarro is well-known as a staunch critic of Germany and China, and is a strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits. He has accused Germany and China of currency manipulation. He has called for increasing the size of the American manufacturing sector, setting high tariffs, and repatriating global supply chains. He is also a strong opponent of the North American Free Trade Agreement and Trans-Pacific Partnership.

His views on trade are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists. In explaining his role in the Trump administration, Navarro said that he is there “provide the underlying analytics that confirm [Trump’s] intuition [on trade]. And his intuition is always right in these matters.”[9]

Early life and education

Navarro was born on July 15, 1949. Navarro’s father, Alfred “Al” Navarro, a saxophonist and clarinetist, led a house band, which played summers in New Hampshire and winters in Florida.[10][11] His parents divorced when he was 9 or 10.[10] Subsequently, he lived with his mother, Evelyn Littlejohn, a Saks Fifth Avenue secretary, in Palm Beach, Florida.[10][12] He lived in Bethesda, Maryland, during his teenage years.[10]

Navarro graduated from Tufts University in 1972 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. He earned a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University‘s John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1979, and a PhD in Economics from Harvard under supervision of Richard E. Caves in 1986.[13] Shortly after graduation from Tufts, Navarro spent three years in the U.S. Peace Corps, serving in Thailand.[13]

Career

Policy analysis

In the 1970s, Navarro served as a policy analyst for the Urban Services Group, the Massachusetts Energy Office, and the United States Department of Energy.[13]

 Professor Peter Navarro discusses his work, Death by China, arguing China cheats in the world trade system at University of Michigan in 2012

Navarro’s work has appeared in Barron’sBloomberg BusinessweekLos Angeles TimesThe Boston Globe, the Chicago Tribune, the International Herald TribuneThe New York TimesThe Wall Street JournalHarvard Business ReviewMIT Sloan Management Review and The Journal of Business.[14] He has appeared on Bloomberg TV and radio, BBCCNNNPR, and Marketplace. He is a contributor to CNBC and has appeared on 60 Minutes.[14] He also writes investment articles for thestreet.com.[15] In 2012, Navarro directed and produced a poorly received[16]documentary film based on his book, Death by China.[17] The film was released under the same title and narrated by Martin Sheen.

Navarro’s policy prescriptions include that “U.S. should be tough on trade, crack down on intellectual property theft, tax Chinese exports, combat Chinese mercantilism, [and] bring jobs home.”[18]

Academics

A professor of economics and public policy at University of California, Irvine for over 20 years, Navarro has worked on energy issues and the relationship between the United States and Asia.[19] He has received multiple teaching awards for MBA courses he has taught.[20] Before joining the UC Irvine faculty, Navarro worked as a research associate in Harvard University’s Energy and Environmental Policy Center from 1981 to 1985.

As a doctoral student in 1984 Nararro wrote a book titled, The Policy Game: How Special Interests and Ideologues are Stealing America, which discussed that special interest groups had led the United States to “a point in its history where it cannot grow and prosper.” In the book he also called for greater worker’s compensation by those that had lost jobs to trade and foreign competition. His doctoral thesis on why corporations donate to charity is one of his highest cited works. He has also done research in the topic of wind energy with Frank Harris, a former student of his.[21]

He then lectured at the University of California, San Diego, where he also served as an assistant professor, teaching courses in business and government.[13] Prior to teaching, Navarro worked in Washington, D.C. as an energy and environmental policy analyst.[22]Navarro has published peer-reviewed economics research on energy policy, charity, deregulation and the economics of trash collection.[18][23][24] According to the Economist, Navarro “is a prolific writer, but has no publications in top-tier academic journals.”[25]

Academic and research authorship

Navarro is a prolific author with nearly a dozen books written on various topics in economics and specializing in issues of balance of trade. The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought, How They Can Be Won is a book by published by FT Press in (2006). Navarro examines China as an emerging world power confronting challenges at home and abroad as it struggles to exert itself in the global market. He also investigates how China’s role in international commerce is creating conflicts with nations around the world over energy, natural resources, the environment, intellectual property, and other issues. A review in Publishers Weekly describes the book as “comprehensive” and “contemporary” and concludes that it “will teach readers to understand the dragon, just not how to vanquish it”.[26]

Death by China: Confronting the Dragon – A Global Call to Action (2011) is a non-fiction book by Navarro and Greg Autry[27] that chronicles “from currency manipulation and abusive trade policies, to deadly consumer products,” the alleged threats to America’s economic dominance in the 21st century posed by China’s Communist Party. Navarro argues that China violates fair trade by “illegal export subsidies and currency manipulation, effectively flooding the U.S. markets” and unfairly making it “virtually impossible” for American companies to compete.[28] It is a critique of “global capitalism” including foreign labor practices and environmental protection.[29] Currency manipulation and subsidies are stated as reasons that “American companies cannot compete because they’re not competing with Chinese companies, they’re competing with the Chinese government.”[30] Ronnie Scheib, from Variety, says “One need not fully subscribe to Peter Navarro’s demonization to appreciate his lucid wake-up call to the imminent dangers of the huge U.S.–China trade imbalance and its disastrous impact on the American economy.”[28]

Politics

Navarro ran for office in San Diego, California three times as a Democrat. In 1992, he ran for mayor as an Independent, finishing first (38.2%) in the all-party primary, but losing (48.0%) to RepublicanSusan Golding in the runoff.[31] In 1996, he ran for the 49th Congressional District as the Democratic Party nominee (41.9%), but lost to Republican Brian Bilbray (52.7%).[32] In 2001, Navarro ran in a special election to fill the District 6 San Diego city council seat, but lost in the primary.[33]

Considered an economic interventionist and environmentalist,[2][3] Navarro supports President Barack Obama‘s phase-out of incandescent light bulbs, the adoption of wind energy, and carbon taxes in order to stop global warming.[34] He has also advocated an isolationist[35] and protectionist[35] American foreign policy.

President Trump’s chief trade advisor

 Director Peter Navarro addresses President Donald Trump‘s promises to American people, workers, and domestic manufacturers (Declaring American Economic Independence on 6/28/2016) in the Oval Office with Vice PresidentMike Pence and Secretary of CommerceWilbur Ross before President Trump signs Executive Orders regarding trade in March 2017[36][37]

In 2016, Navarro served as a policy adviser to Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.[1] Navarro and the international private equity investor Wilbur Ross authored an economic plan for the Donald Trump presidential campaign in September 2016.[38] Navarro was invited to be an adviser after Jared Kushner saw on Amazon that he co-wrote Death by China, while he was researching China for Trump.[39] When told that the Tax Policy Center assessment of Trump’s economic plan would reduce federal revenues by $6 trillion and reduce economic growth in the long term, Navarro said that the analysis demonstrated “a high degree of analytical and political malfeasance”.[40] When the Peterson Institute for International Affairs estimated that Trump’s economic plan would cost millions of Americans their jobs, Navarro said that writers at the Peterson Institute “weave a false narrative and they come up with some phony numbers.”[41] According to MIT economist Simon Johnson, the economic plan essay authored by Navarro and Wilbur Ross for Donald Trump during the campaign had projections “based on assumptions so unrealistic that they seem to have come from a different planet. If the United States really did adopt Trump’s plan, the result would be an immediate and unmitigated disaster.”[42] When 370 economists, including nineteen Nobel laureates, signed a letter warning against Donald Trump’s stated economic policies in November 2016, Navarro said that the letter was “an embarrassment to the corporate offshoring wing of the economist profession who continues to insist bad trade deals are good for America.”[43][44]

In October 2016, with Wilbur Ross and Andy Puzder, Navarro coauthored the essay titled “Economic Analysis of Donald Trump’s Contract with the American Voter”.[45] On December 21, 2016, Navarro was selected by President-elect Trump to head a newly created position, as director of the White House National Trade Council.[46] He outlines President Trump’s trade policy as aiming to create jobs, revive the manufacturing sector, and improve the country’s trade balance. He warned that trade deficits could jeopardize U.S. national security by allowing unfriendly nations to encroach on American supply chains. One of his main missions is to focus on behaviors by other countries that he considers abusive, cheating, illegal, and unfair against the U.S.[47][48][49]

By July 2017, Politico reported that Navarro’s influence within the White House was weak.[50]Axios reported the same in November 2017.[51] By July 2017, Navarro only had two staffers, and the National Trade Council had essentially become part of the Office of Trade and Manufacturing policy.[50] By September 2017, the Office of Trade and Manufacturing policy had been folded into the National Economic Council, which meant that Navarro would have to report to NEC Director Gary Cohn.[52] However, in February 2018, several media outlets reported that Navarro’s influence in the administration was rising again and that he would likely be promoted shortly.[53][54]Josh Rogin, writing for The Washington Post, reported that Navarro had used his time of lowered influence to lead several low-profile policy items, such as working to increase military funding, drafting Executive Order 13806, and leading the effort to solve a dispute between the United States and Qatar over the Open Skies Agreement between the two countries.[55]

Opinions and assessment of trade policy

Navarro has been a staunch critic of trade with China and strong proponent of reducing U.S. trade deficits. He has attacked Germany, Japan and China for currency manipulation. He has called for increasing the size of the American manufacturing sector, setting high tariffs, and repatriating global supply chains. He was a fierce opponent of the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

According to Bloomberg News, Navarro had “roots as a mainstream economist” as he voiced support for free trade in his 1984 book The Policy Game. He changed his positions as he saw “the globalist erosion of the American economy” develop.[56]

According to Politico, Navarro’s economic theories are “considered fringe” by his fellow economists.[57] Al-Jazeera notes that “few other economists have endorsed Navarro’s ideas.”[58] A New Yorker reporter described Navarro’s views on trade and China as so radical “that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them.”[59] The Economist described Navarro as having “oddball views”.[60] The George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen has described him as “one of the most versatile and productive American economists of the last few decades”, but Cowen noted that he disagreed with his views on trade, which he claimed go “against a strong professional consensus.”[57] University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers described Navarro’s views as “far outside the mainstream,” noting that “he endorses few of the key tenets of” the economics profession.[61] According to Lee Branstetter, economics professor at Carnegie Mellon and trade expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Navarro “was never a part of the group of economists who ever studied the global free-trade system … He doesn’t publish in journals. What he’s writing and saying right now has nothing to do with what he got his Harvard Ph.D. in … he doesn’t do research that would meet the scientific standards of that community.”[62] Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, described a tax and trade paper written by Navarro and Wilbur Ross for Trump as “a complete misunderstanding of international trade, on their part.”[40]

Border adjustment tax

Navarro supports a tax policy called “border adjustment”, which essentially taxes all imports.[62] In response to criticism that the border adjustment tax could hurt U.S. companies and put jobs at risk, Navarro called it “fake news.”[62]

Critic of China trade policy

According to Politico, “Navarro is perhaps the most extreme advocate in Washington, and maybe in all of economics, for an aggressive stance toward China.”[57] Navarro put his attention to China in the mid-2000s.[16] His first publication on the subject is the 2006 book The Coming China Wars: Where They Will Be Fought, How They Can Be Won.[63] Navarro has said that he started to examine China when he noticed that his former students were losing jobs, concluding that China was at fault.[16]

In Politicos description of the book, “Navarro uses military language to refer to China’s trade policies, referring to its ‘conquest’ of the world’s export markets, which has ‘vaporized literally millions of manufacturing jobs and driven down wages.’ … China’s aspirations are so insatiable, he claims, that eventually there will be a clash over “our most basic of all needs—bread, water, and air.'”[63] Navarro has described the entry of China to the World Trade Organization as one of the United States’ biggest mistakes.[16] To respond to the Chinese threat, Navarro has advocated for 43% tariffs, the repudiation of trade pacts, major increases in military expenditures and strengthened military ties with Taiwan.[63][16]The New York Times notes that “a wide range of economists have warned that curtailing trade with China would damage the American economy, forcing consumers to pay higher prices for goods and services.”[64] Navarro has reportedly also encouraged President Trump to enact a 25-percent tariff on Chinese steel imports, something that “trade experts worry… would upend global trade practices and cause countries to retaliate, potentially leading to a trade war”.[65]

Navarro has said that a large part of China’s competitive advantage over the United States stems from unfair trade practices.[25] Navarro has criticized China for pollution, poor labor standards, government subsidies, producing “contaminated, defective and cancerous” exports, currency manipulation, and theft of US intellectual property.[25][58][66] In his poorly received 2012 documentary, Navarro said that China caused the loss of 57,000 US factories and 25 million jobs.[58] While Navarro maintains that China manipulates its currency, neither the U.S. Treasury nor most economists believe that it is the case.[62][16]

Of the more than dozen China specialists contacted by Foreign Policy, most either did not know of him or only interacted with him briefly.[16] Kenneth Pomeranz, University of Chicago professor of Chinese History, said that his “recollection is that [Navarro] generally avoided people who actually knew something about the country.”[16] Columnist Gordon G. Chang was the only China watcher contacted by Foreign Policy who defended Navarro, but even then noted that he disagreed with Navarro’s claims of currency manipulation, opposition to the TPP and calls for high tariffs.[16] Navarro does not appear to speak Chinese nor has he spent any time in the country.[16] James McGregor, a former chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce in China, said that Navarro’s books and documentary on China “have close to zero credibility with people who know the country,” and are filled with “hyperbole, inaccuracies” and a “cartoonish caricature of China that he puts out.”[16]

Germany

Navarro drew controversy when he accused Germany of using a “grossly undervalued” euro to “exploit” the US and its EU partners.[67]Politico noted that Germany does not set the value of the euro.[63] Economists and commentators are divided on the accuracy of Navarro’s remarks.[68][69]Paul Krugman said that Navarro was right and wrong at the same time: “Yes, Germany in effect has an undervalued currency relative to what it would have without the euro… But does this mean that the euro as a whole is undervalued against the dollar? Probably not.”[70] Boston University economist Laurence Kotlikoff described Navarro’s accusation of Germany as a currency manipulator as “#stupideconomics”.[71]

Manufacturing

Navarro argues that the decline in US manufacturing jobs is chiefly due to “unfair trade practices and bad trade deals. And if you don’t believe that, just go to the booming factories in Germany, in Japan, in Korea, in China, in Malaysia, in Vietnam, in Indonesia, in Italy—every place that we’re running deficits with.”[72] However, many economists attribute the decline in manufacturing jobs chiefly to automation and other innovations that allow manufacturing firms to produce more goods with fewer workers, rather than trade.[72][73]

Navarro has been a proponent of strengthening the manufacturing sector’s role in the national economy: “We envision a more Germany-style economy, where 20 percent of our workforce is in manufacturing. … And we’re not talking about banging tin in the back room.”