Federal Communications Commission

The Pronk Pops Show 841, February 17, Story 1: President Trump’s First Press Conference Part 2: President Trump Speaks Directly To The American People — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Educates The Big Lie Media (Democratic Newspapers and Television Networks) with Fake News Spinning Propaganda — Trump to news media: The public doesn’t believe you anymore! — Trump On Offense vs. Big Lie Media On Defense — President Trump Wins With Working Americans — Buy American and Hire American — Videos

Posted on February 17, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Coal, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Genocide, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Labor Economics, Language, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mike Pence, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, News, Obama, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Russia, Scandals, Security, Senate, Senator Jeff Sessions, Social Networking, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weather, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10,  2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

 Story 1: President Trump’s First Press Conference Part 1: President Trump Speaks Directly To The American People — Videos — 

Image result for cartoons president trump press conference

Image result for cartoons 2017 branco president trump press conferenceImage result for cartoons president trump press conference
Image result for cartoons president trump press conferenceImage result for cartoons 2017 branco president trump press conference

Image result for cartoons 2017 branco president trump press conference
Image result for cartoons president trump press conferenceImage result for cartoons president trump coal miners

Image result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rolloutImage result for president trump with boeing rollout

Image result for president trump with coal minersImage result for president trump with coal minersImage result for president trump with coal minersImage result for president trump with coal minersImage result for president trump with coal miners

President Donald Trump Full Press Conference Addresses Ties to Russia, Leaks, and “Fake News” 2/16

President Trump scolds media at news conference

Trump to news media: The public doesn’t believe you anymore

Bill Bennett: Press can’t stand that Trump doesn’t fear them

President Trump helps Boeing debut it’s new 787

Trump Full Speech at Boeing 787 Dreamliner Unveiling | ABC News

Coal Miner Thanks President Trump for Removing Regulations

Published on Feb 17, 2017

Coal miner thanks President Trump for removing regulations

President dismisses negative reporting in a media massacre

Rush Limbaugh Podcast 2/16/17 | Trump blasts ‘out of control’ media, defends agenda, administration

Laura Ingraham Show 2/16/17 | Media freaks out as some come to the conclusion that Flynn

Trump Says General Flynn Did Nothing Wrong

Tucker Carlson Tonight & Hannity Special – 2/16/2017 Donald Trump, Paul Ryan, Netanyahu Interview

Scott Pelley: Trump’s “bluster, bravado, exaggeration” on display at news conference

John Dickerson on Beltway’s reaction to Trump’s press conference

Is The Intelligence Community At War With Trump?

Roger Stone Panicked Left Launching Civil War

Story 2: President Trump Educates The Big Lie Media (Democratic Newspapers and Television Networks) with Fake News Spinning Propaganda — Videos

Trump boasts approval rating, attacks media

President Trump scolds media at news conference

President Trump criticizes administration coverage

The Source of Leaks — Obama and Obama Partisians in Intelligence Community

BREAKING: Obama Gave NSA New Powers On His Way Out & They’re Using Them On Trump!

Before Obama Left Office, He Gave Domestic Agencies Warrantless Access to NSA Surveillance

Obama Expands NSA Spying On His Way Out The Door

Mike Flynn, Trump, Russia, CIA and what the HELL is actually going on!!!!

Flynn Resignation A Deep State Sabotage Of Trump

Sorry media — this press conference played very different with Trump’s supporters

 Far from dead, he was positively exuberant. His performance at a marathon press conference was a must-see-tv spectacle as he mixed serious policy talk with stand-up comedy and took repeated pleasure in whacking his favorite pinata, the “dishonest media.”

“Russia is a ruse,” he insisted, before finally saying under questioning he was not aware of anyone on his campaign having contact with Russian officials.

Trump’s detractors immediately panned the show as madness, but they missed the method behind it and proved they still don’t understand his appeal. Facing his first crisis in the Oval Office, he was unbowed in demonstrating his bare-knuckled intention to fight back.

He did it his way. Certainly no other president, and few politicians at any level in any time, would dare put on a show like that.

In front of cameras, and using the assembled press corps as props, he conducted a televised revival meeting to remind his supporters that he is still the man they elected. Ticking off a lengthy list of executive orders and other actions he has taken, he displayed serious fealty to his campaign promises.

Trump goes on marathon rant against the media

Sure, sentences didn’t always end on the same topic they started with, and his claim to have won the election by the largest electoral college margin since Ronald Reagan wasn’t close to true.

Fair points, but so what? Fact-checkers didn’t elect him, nor did voters who were happy with the status quo.

Trump, first, last and always, matches the mood of the discontented. Like them, he is a bull looking for a china shop. That’s his ace in the hole and he played it almost to perfection.

The immediate impact of his performance is likely to calm some of the jitters among Republicans in congress and supporters elsewhere, especially after the beating he took in the last few days.

On Monday night, Trump suddenly removed Gen. Michael Flynn, his national security adviser, over circumstances that still are not entirely clear. And on Wednesday, his nominee for Secretary of Labor, Andrew Puzder, withdrew after Republicans said he didn’t have the votes to be confirmed.

Combined with courts blocking his immigration and refugee order, unflattering leaks of confidential material from intelligence agencies and numerous demands for investigations into any Russian connections, Trump’s fast start suddenly hit a wall.

Just three weeks into his term, Democrats, in and out of the media, smelled blood. Many already were going for the kill.

They won’t get it, at least now. Trump bought himself time yesterday.

Yet those determined to bring him down won’t give up, and the insidious leaks of secret material suggest some opponents are members of the permanent government who are willing to use their position and the media to undermine him.

Indeed, the most serious leaks seem to vindicate a warning that Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer made in early January after Trump criticized leaders of the spook agencies.

“Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” Schumer told an interviewer. “So even for a practical, supposedly hard-nosed businessman, he’s being really dumb to do this.”

That incredible statement reflects what a dangerous game rogue agents are playing. The world is on fire yet the president is the target of partisan revenge in his own government. It’s a scandal and it’s outrageous, but it’s a fact that Trump must confront.

Finding the leakers and prosecuting them, which he promises to do, is part of the solution.

rAnother part comes Saturday, when Trump takes his solo act to Florida for a massive public rally. It’s smart for him to get out of Washington and soak in the enthusiasm of the populist movement he leads.

He should do it regularly, and also hold smaller, town-hall style forums where ordinary citizens can ask him questions in more intimate settings. Any way he can speak directly to the American people and hear from them democratizes his presidency and reduces the power of big biased media and the Washington establishment.

Yet the only sure and lasting way to keep ahead of the lynch mob is by producing results. Success will be Trump’s savior.

And nothing says success like jobs, jobs, jobs. Getting the economy to reach lift-off speed is essential so it can deliver the good-paying jobs and prosperity that he promised and the nation needs.

While Republican honchos in congress say they’re getting ready to move on tax cuts and replacing ObamaCare, nothing will happen without presidential leadership. That means Trump’s fate is in his own hands and he must keep himself and his White House team focused on delivering an economic revival.

If he does that, the lynch mob will be left holding an empty rope.

http://nypost.com/2017/02/16/sorry-media-this-press-conference-played-very-different-with-trumps-supporters/

At Boeing, Trump returns to an economic message after a week of controversy

February 17 at 2:35 PM

Trump promises focus on jobs, lower taxes in speech at Boeing factory

President Trump promised to work to keep manufacturing companies in the U.S., and to lower taxes for businesses, speaking at the unveiling of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner on Feb. 17 in North Charleston, S.C. (The Washington Post)

NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. — When President Trump took the stage here Friday to mark the launch of Boeing’s newest aircraft, it was a scene reminiscent of his airplane hangar rallies during the presidential campaign.

Except, instead of his “Trump” branded Boeing 757 parked in the background, Boeing’s newest product, the Dreamliner 787-10, glittered in the sun behind him, and off to the side stood Trump’s new ride, Air Force One.

Trump’s somewhat unusual appearance at the launch event for the company’s highly anticipated version 10 of the Dreamliner wasn’t to roll out new economic policy or even push a specific economic agenda item. Instead, it seemed that Trump was there to boost the company with a presidential endorsement for its American-made fleet, and he in turn would be the face of a major milestone for one of the country’s largest job creators.

“We’re here today to celebrate American engineering and American manufacturing,” Trump said. “We’re also here today to celebrate jobs. Jobs!”

“Jobs is one of the primary reasons I’m standing here as president, and I will never ever disappoint you. Believe me,” he added.

Trump’s visit to the Boeing plant also comes at a time when the Trump administration is struggling to establish a greater sense of order and focus after weeks of distractions and negative headlines.

The White House has aimed to structure his daily schedule with at least one jobs-focused meeting each day. But much of that has been overshadowed by several all-consuming stories, the most damaging of which was the ouster of Trump’s national security adviser, Michael Flynn, on Monday.

Questions about the Trump administration and campaign’s ties to Russia have only intensified after multiple media reports revealed that Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, despite Flynn’s statements to the contrary.

Friday’s event on the manufacturing floor of Boeing’s South Carolina plant offered Trump a much-needed opportunity to reset his administration and refocus an economic-based message.

“You look at what’s happening with jobs. You look at what’s happening with plants moving back to this country. All of a sudden they’re coming back,” Trump said. “As your president, I’m going to do everything that I can to unleash the power of the American spirit and put our great people back to work.

“This is our mantra, buy American and hire American.”

A few months ago, it seemed that Trump’s relationship with Boeing was on the rocks before it even really began.

As president-elect, Trump launched into a Twitter fight with the company and its chief executive, Dennis Muilenburg, over the cost of a new fleet of presidential airplanes that would be used as Air Force One. Quickly, Boeing relented, promising to bring down the plane’s costs after meetings with Trump.

Less than a month into his presidency, Trump is back to Boeing on a decidedly more positive note.

“That plane, as beautiful as it looks, is 30 years old,” Trump said, pointing to the Boeing 747 that serves as Air Force One. “What can look so beautiful at 30?”

The turnabout is emblematic of Trump’s preferred mode of dealing with America’s largest and most powerful businesses. It reflects the degree to which Trump has already changed the terms of engagement with the business community, quickly creating an incentive structure where businesses are rewarded with praise from the highest office in the land when they roll out jobs or cost savings for taxpayers — and credit him for influencing their decision-making.

Over the past several weeks, chief executives including Intel’s Brian Krzanich traveled to the White House to announce new American jobs, thanks to fresh “confidence” in the economy spurred by the new administration.

“They’re keeping and bringing thousands of jobs back to our country because the business climate, they know, has already changed,” Trump said, highlighting jobs announcements from automakers Ford, General Motors and Fiat Chrysler. “We will see more and more of that across the country as we continue to work on reducing regulations, cutting taxes — including for the middle class, including for everyone, and including for businesses.”

In this setting, Trump seems at his most comfortable.

Here, Trump reveled in his electoral victory and the adulation of a supportive crowd in a state that he won in both the Republican primary and the general election.

“This was going to be a place that was tough to win, and we won in a landslide,” Trump declared.

As the restive crowd of Boeing employees waited for hours for Trump to arrive, some cheered when his name was mentioned in the preshow. “Make America Great Again” hats and T-shirts dotted the sea of people on the plant’s manufacturing floor where more than 5,000 employees were gathered.

He toured the new Dreamliner with Boeing executives and could be seen sitting in the plane’s cockpit after his speech.

On Saturday, Trump plans something of a repeat performance in what the White House is dubbing the first “campaign” event of his presidency, at an airplane hangar rally in Melbourne, Fla.

Among some Boeing employees, the reception to Trump was reserved, but optimistic.

Leif Anderson, who started working at the factory six years ago after leaving the Air Force, sat Thursday night at the bar at Domino Lounge, a pool hall three miles from the Boeing plant, smoking cigarillos and sipping a shot of Crown Royal apple whiskey alongside a glass of Bud Lite.

Anderson said he voted for Trump more out of loyalty to the Republican Party, but is “not jumping to conclusions” about the president as a leader.

“I’m really curious to see what he does,” said Anderson, who leads a group of workers at the Boeing plant installing the planes’ interiors. He hopes that Trump’s economic policies succeed, which he said would help his own career along with the country as a whole.

“If he does good, then I’m going to do good,” Anderson said.

Elliott Slater, a Boeing mechanic, took the day off Friday and did not attend Trump’s speech, saying he wanted to avoid the traffic.

“I didn’t vote for him, either.” said Slater, a veteran of the Navy. “He’s not my president. He’s got to earn my respect.”

Slater, who supported the union’s unsuccessful vote to organize the plant in Wednesday’s election, said that Trump would support companies over workers. “He’s definitely pro businesses, being a business man himself. … That’s fine, but you know, how does the business treat its workers?”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/17/at-boeing-trump-returns-to-an-economic-message-after-a-week-of-controversy/?utm_term=.208a463653aa

Trump signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule

Trump signs bill undoing Obama coal mining rule
Autoplay: On | Off

President Trump on Thursday signed legislation ending a key Obama administration coal mining rule.

The bill quashes the Office of Surface Mining’s Stream Protection Rule, a regulation to protect waterways from coal mining waste that officials finalized in December.

The legislation is the second Trump has signed into law ending an Obama-era environmental regulation. On Tuesday, he signed a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution undoing a financial disclosure requirement for energy companies.

Both the mining and financial disclosure bills are the tip of a GOP push to undo a slate of regulations instituted in the closing days of the Obama administration. The House has passed several CRA resolutions, and the Senate has so far sent three of them to President Trump for his signature.

Regulators finalized the stream protection rule in December, but they spent most of Obama’s tenure writing it.The rule is among the most controversial environment regulations the former administration put together. The coal mining industry said it would be costly to implement and lead to job losses across the sector, which is already suffering from a market-driven downturn in demand for its product.

At the signing, Trump called the regulation “another terrible job killing rule” and said ending it would save “many thousands American jobs, especially in the mines, which, I have been promising you — the mines are a big deal.”

“This is a major threat to your jobs and we’re going to get rid of this threat,” he added. “We’re going to fight for you.”

Republicans on Congress, especially from Appalachia, supported that argument and sought to block the rule several times before finally passing the CRA resolution this month.

“In my home state of Kentucky and others across the nation, the stream buffer rule will cause major damage to communities and threaten coal jobs,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said before the bill passed. “We should heed their call now and begin bringing relief to coal country.”

Environmentalists supported the administration rule, saying it would protect waterways from pollution and preserve public health. They have criticized the GOP for repealing environmental rules in the name of supporting coal mining jobs, but doing little else to help displaced workers in mining areas.

“If you want to help miners, then come address their health and safety and their pension program,” Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the ranking member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, said during floor debate on the measure.

“You can protect the coal industry here with special interests and the amount of lobbying they do, or you can step up in a process and have a regulation that works for the United States of America so the outdoor industry and sportsman and fishermen can continue to thrive.”

The Senate this week sent Trump a CRA resolution blocking a gun sales regulation. Members could soon take up a measure undoing a methane rule for natural gas drilling operations on public land.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/319938-trump-signs-bill-undoing-obama-coal-mining-rule

Dan Coats Announced as Trump’s Pick for Director of National Intelligence

President-Elect Trump Goes on Tweetstorm for Better Russia Relations 1:38

President-elect Donald Trump intends to nominate former Indiana Sen. Dan Coats to serve as national intelligence director, his transition team announced Saturday.

Coats, would need to be confirmed by Senate for the role, served eight years in the House of Representatives and two years in the Senate. During the George W. Bush administration, he served as U.S. ambassador to Germany.

“I’m very confident that Senator Dan Coats is the right choice to serve as Director of National Intelligence,” President-elect Trump said in a statement. “Dan has clearly demonstrated the deep subject matter expertise and sound judgment required to lead our intelligence community.”

As director of national intelligence, Coats would serve as the head of the United States’ intelligence community and be the president’s principal adviser on the issue.

Image: Trump to name Dan Coats as Director of national intelligence
Indiana Senator Dan Coats speaks briefly with the press following his meeting with US President-elect Donald Trump at Trump Tower in New York, New York, USA, 30 November 2016 AALBIN LOHR-JONES / POOL / EPA

Coats will succeed James Clapper, who recently testified in front of Congress that Russia had stepped up its cyber espionage operation in an attempt to undermine the election. A redacted report about the hack and its goals was released on Friday.

First elected to the Senate in 1990 in a special election that filled the seat vacated by Dan Quayle — who departed the Senate to serve as George H. W. Bush’s vice president — Coats won reelection in 1992 before retiring from the Senate in 1998. He then was nominated to serve as U.S. ambassador to Germany in 2001, arriving there mere days before the Sept. 11 terrorism attack.

After departing as ambassador four years later, Coats worked as a prominent lobbyist in Washington D.C. and then decided to run for his former Senate seat in 2010 — an election he won.

Coats again announced his retirement from government in November 2015.

Most recently while in the Senate, Coats served as the chairman of the Joint Economic Committee and as a member of the Senate Committee on Finance and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

“If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, he will provide unwavering leadership that the entire intelligence community can respect, and will spearhead my administration’s ceaseless vigilance against those who seek to do us harm,” Trump added in his statement.

“I’m pleased to hear the President-elect has nominated my colleague and friend Dan Coats to be the next head of our Intelligence Community,” said Senator Richard Burr (R-NC), chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. “Dan’s experience as a valued member of the Senate Intelligence Committee will help to guide him as the next Director of National Intelligence.”

In the past year as a senator, Coats has introduced six bills. Only two simple resolutions passed: The first recognized the 100th running of the Indianapolis 500 Mile Race and the other commemorated the bicentennial of the state of Indiana.

Coats will lead an intelligence community that already has a rocky relationship with the president-elect, as Trump has continued to float doubts about the community’s findings in the Russia hacking investigation.

While testifying before the Armed Services Committee, Clapper stopped short of calling Russia’s interference in the election an act of war, saying that was something for lawmakers to discern.

However, the committee’s chairman, John McCain (R-AZ), maintained that the attack was alarming.

“Every American should be alarmed by Russia’s attacks on our nation. There is no national security interest more vital to the United States of America than the ability to hold free and fair elections without foreign interference,” McCain said in his opening statement during the hearing. “That is why Congress must set partisanship aside, follow the facts, and work together to devise comprehensive solutions to deter, defend against, and, when necessary, respond to foreign cyberattacks.”

On Twitter, Donald Trump seemed more concerned with the intelligence community’s findings that pertained to the legitimacy of his election rather than Russia’s involvement.

Having a good relationship with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing. Only “stupid” people, or fools, would think that it is bad! We…..

The president-elect has maintained a belief that the United States should “move on” from the attack, adding on Saturday that the country will have a good relationship and will work together with Russia under his administration.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/dan-coats-announced-trump-s-pick-director-national-intelligence-n704231

CNN’s Jeff Zucker on Covering Donald Trump — Past, Present, and Future

By Gabriel Sherman

At his press conference last week, President-elect Trump refused to take a question from CNN reporter Jim Acosta, denouncing the network as a purveyor of “fake news.” Trump’s ire was in response to CNN’s explosive report that U.S. intelligence chiefs had briefed Trump on claims that the Kremlin had collected compromising information on him. In the wake of CNN’s report, BuzzFeed published the unedited, and unverified, opposition-research dossier referenced in the intel briefing, which included lurid allegations about Trump’s behavior and his campaign’s ties to Russia.

On Tuesday morning, I sat down with CNN Worldwide president Jeff Zucker for a wide-ranging discussion about that controversial scoop, Trump’s threat to press freedom, and why he’s not worried about losing access to the White House.

After Trump attacked CNN for reporting on the intelligence chiefs’ briefing on the Russian dossier, you issued a strongly worded statement defending your story. What made CNN decide to publish reporting on the existence of the dossier?
I actually think this was a pretty easy call in terms of its news value. The fact is, the top four intelligence chiefs of the United States decided to include in their briefing to the president and president-elect a two-page summary of allegations involving the president-elect. That is newsworthy by any definition.

Even if the allegations themselves weren’t verified?
We didn’t pass judgment on the allegations. We reported we had not been able to corroborate them. But the news was that the two most powerful people in the world had been briefed on the existence of these allegations.

I was at the press conference at Trump Tower, where Trump’s incoming press secretary Sean Spicer and Trump himself denounced CNN and BuzzFeed as fake news. What do you think of BuzzFeed’s decision to publish the complete dossier?
They made a decision for themselves, and they have to live with it. I’m not going to pass judgment on their decision. We did not think it was appropriate for us given that we had not been able to corroborate the allegations.

It’s just unfortunate that the most powerful person in the world is trying to delegitimizejournalism.

When you have the president-elect saying, “Don’t trust CNN, it’s fake news,” is that harmful?
It’s just unfortunate that the most powerful person in the world is trying to delegitimize journalism and an organization that plays such a vital role in our democracy. I think he’s entitled to his opinion, but it’s — to use one of his favorite words — sad.

Over the weekend, it was reported that Trump is considering moving reporters out of the West Wing. How worried are you about Trump’s attacks on the press?
As Tim Russert said, the role of the media is the accountability of government. I think the press plays a much more important role in this administration. Their willingness and inclination to cherry-pick facts, conflate and inflate things, will make covering this administration very challenging. That means our role is more important than ever. We think that CNN has a job to do, which is to hold their feet to the fire. They may not like it, but they should respect it.

Acosta didn’t get to ask a question at last week’s press conference. The first question went to Fox News, and Breitbart got to ask a question. Are you concerned about getting access to Trump?
I think the era of access journalism as we’ve known it is over. It doesn’t worry me that Donald Trump hasn’t done an interview with CNN in eight months. I think our credibility is higher than ever, and our viewership is higher than ever, and our reporting is as strong as ever. One of the things I think this administration hasn’t figured out yet is that there’s only one television network that is seen in Beijing, Moscow, Seoul, Tokyo, Pyongyang, Baghdad, Tehran, and Damascus — and that’s CNN. The perception of Donald Trump in capitals around the world is shaped, in many ways, by CNN. Continuing to have an adversarial relationship with that network is a mistake.

Wouldn’t Trump say that’s what Twitter is for? He can shape his own perception.
If he’s relying on Twitter to shape his own perception in the capitals of the world then I think he’s making a big mistake.

How does CNN plan to cover Trump’s tweets?
I think we should look at his tweets on a case-by-case basis, just like we’d look at the comments of any president, and make an editorial decision on which ones to report, discuss, and cover. So I don’t think we should knee-jerk-cover every tweet just as we didn’t knee-jerk-cover every comment Barack Obama made. We should use our editorial judgment.

I noticed that Trump is sitting down with Fox & Friends. And in recent days, he’s given interviews to The Wall Street Journal and the Times of London, both Murdoch papers. What do you think of Trump’s alliance with Murdoch?
I think you’re trying to goad me here. But you’ve made the right observation. Look, I don’t think it’s any coincidence that friendly outlets have been the ones that have ended up with the interviews with Donald Trump. Fox News, The Wall Street Journal, the Times of London — the fact that they’re all Rupert’s publications — I don’t think it’s any coincidence those are the outlets that ended up with the interviews.

It was reported that MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski were at Mar-a-Lago on New Year’s Eve. They said it was because they were trying to get an interview with Trump. Was it appropriate for journalists to attend the president-elect’s private party?
I think in that case, optically, it would have been a lot better to have just made a phone call and ask for the interview.

Trump’s feud with CNN is ironic, in a way, because you have perhaps more history with him than any media executive. Some people say you made Trump’s presidential run possible with The Apprentice. Did you?
It’s true I put him on television with The Apprentice in 2004. I’ve never run away from that. But in no way do I think that’s why he’s the president. You have to give the guy credit. He ran a campaign that worked.

So you don’t ever regret that the Trump phenomenon arguably started with you?
No. Listen, I don’t regret putting The Apprentice on television.

Another irony of the current antagonism is that CNN has sometimes been perceived as being too close to Trump. You got a lot of flak for covering his speeches in full during the primaries and for hiring his former campaign chairman Corey Lewandowski. What do you think of the criticism?
We didn’t bend over backward for Trump; we did what we felt was in the best interest of our viewers and readers to understand the story. The reason we hired a number of voices to reflect the Trump point of view was to help the audience understand who he was, where he was coming from, and what he was thinking. Given the results of the election, it turns out we were exactly right to do so. We had a much better sense on our air what the Trump point of view was than most others.

Were you in touch with Trump regularly throughout the campaign?
Obviously we’ve known each other for a long time. Just because I’ve known somebody for more than 15 years doesn’t mean they get a pass.

So how often did you talk to him?
Probably once a month?

Do you still talk to him?
I haven’t talked to him in more than a month.

Some criticized the Ivanka Trump special that aired on CNN as an effort to curry favor with the White House. Was it?
I don’t think we’re the only news organization that did a profile of Ivanka Trump. That’s silly. Let’s remember the stories we’ve broken in the last week: the original story on the intelligence briefing; the fact that Monica Crowley was a plagiarist; the fact that Congressman Price may have broken the law on his stocks; the fact that Trump’s pick for Labor was having second thoughts … All those stories were broken by CNN. Tell me another news organization that’s broken more news on Donald Trump in the last week? Please.

Your corporate owner Time Warner is currently going through an $85 billion merger with telecom giant AT&T. Trump has suggested he may try to block the deal because it would concentrate too much media power in one company. Have you spoken with Time Warner CEO Jeff Bewkes about that?
No. It’s one of the things I respect about Time Warner and Turner: their understanding of CNN’s independence. There’s been absolutely no conversations or anything of the sort between us and Time Warner.

Some have suggested that CNN might have to be spun off in order to have the deal approved by Trump’s Justice Department. Are you worried about that?
No.

You had the biggest night in cable-news history on Election Night, 13 million viewers. What’s your plan to maintain ratings in 2017?
Our viewership continues to be significantly higher than it was a year ago and frankly much higher than we expected it to be. There’s been no evidence of any falloff at all. I think people are coming to us because they know we’ll report both sides of the story. We expected we’d be down 25 percent from last year because you had all the election nights, debates, and conventions, but if the first three weeks of this year are any indication, I’m not so sure it will be down that much.

In December, the Drudge Report reported you were wooing Megyn Kelly. Did you try to hire her?
I had one conversation with Megyn about coming to CNN in prime time. It never got serious, it never got real.

What do you think of her move to NBC?
I wish her nothing but success. I think NBC News is a great fit for her and she’ll be a big star there.

During the Bush years, MSNBC saw its ratings skyrocket by being the voice of opposition. Since Election Day, MSNBC has held on to much of its election-year audience, suggesting the network might enjoy similar success during the Trump years. What’s your assessment of MSNBC?
I think all of the cable-news networks are healthy and vibrant and at a good place in the history of cable news. In terms of audience, there’s a clear No. 1, a clear No. 2, and a clear No. 3. In terms of reporting and breaking news, there’s only one true cable-news network.

So, what would be the best scoop now? If CNN got Trump’s tax returns would you report them?
If we could verify they were real and legitimate, just like any other news organization, we would report on them. Sure.

* This interview has been lightly edited for clarity and length.

** Disclosure: I am an MSNBC contributor.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/cnns-zucker-on-covering-trump-past-present-and-future.html

The Reason Why There Are More Leaks Traced To Former President Obama and Violating American Citizens Right To Privacy Under The Fourth Amendment To U.S. Constitution

WASHINGTON — In its final days, the Obama administration has expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.

The new rules significantly relax longstanding limits on what the N.S.A. may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations, which are largely unregulated by American wiretapping laws. These include collecting satellite transmissions, phone calls and emails that cross network switches abroad, and messages between people abroad that cross domestic network switches.

The change means that far more officials will be searching through raw data. Essentially, the government is reducing the risk that the N.S.A. will fail to recognize that a piece of information would be valuable to another agency, but increasing the risk that officials will see private information about innocent people.

Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch signed the new rules, permitting the N.S.A. to disseminate “raw signals intelligence information,” on Jan. 3, after the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr., signed them on Dec. 15, according to a 23-page, largely declassified copy of the procedures.

Previously, the N.S.A. filtered information before sharing intercepted communications with another agency, like the C.I.A. or the intelligence branches of the F.B.I. and the Drug Enforcement Administration. The N.S.A.’s analysts passed on only information they deemed pertinent, screening out the identities of innocent people and irrelevant personal information.

Now, other intelligence agencies will be able to search directly through raw repositories of communications intercepted by the N.S.A. and then apply such rules for “minimizing” privacy intrusions.

“This is not expanding the substantive ability of law enforcement to get access to signals intelligence,” said Robert S. Litt, the general counsel to Mr. Clapper. “It is simply widening the aperture for a larger number of analysts, who will be bound by the existing rules.”

But Patrick Toomey, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the move an erosion of rules intended to protect the privacy of Americans when their messages are caught by the N.S.A.’s powerful global collection methods. He noted that domestic internet data was often routed or stored abroad, where it may get vacuumed up without court oversight.

“Rather than dramatically expanding government access to so much personal data, we need much stronger rules to protect the privacy of Americans,” Mr. Toomey said. “Seventeen different government agencies shouldn’t be rooting through Americans’ emails with family members, friends and colleagues, all without ever obtaining a warrant.”

The N.S.A. has been required to apply similar privacy protections to foreigners’ information since early 2014, an unprecedented step that President Obama took after the disclosures of N.S.A. documents by the former intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden. The other intelligence agencies will now have to follow those rules, too.

Under the new system, agencies will ask the N.S.A. for access to specific surveillance feeds, making the case that they contain information relevant and useful to their missions. The N.S.A. will grant requests it deems reasonable after considering factors like whether large amounts of Americans’ private information might be included and, if so, how damaging or embarrassing it would be if that information were “improperly used or disclosed.”

The move is part of a broader trend of tearing down bureaucratic barriers to sharing intelligence between agencies that dates back to the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court secretly began permitting the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. to share raw intercepts gathered domestically under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

After Congress enacted the FISA Amendments Act — which legalized warrantless surveillance on domestic soil so long as the target is a foreigner abroad, even when the target is communicating with an American — the court permitted raw sharing of emails acquired under that program, too.

In July 2008, the same month Congress passed the FISA Amendments Act, President George W. Bush modified Executive Order 12333, which sets rules for surveillance that domestic wiretapping statutes do not address, including techniques that vacuum up vast amounts of content without targeting anybody.

After the revision, Executive Order 12333 said the N.S.A. could share the raw fruits of such surveillance after the director of national intelligence and the attorney general, coordinating with the defense secretary, agreed on procedures. It took another eight years to develop those rules.

The Times first reported the existence of those deliberations in 2014 and later filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for documents about them. It ended that case last February, and Mr. Litt discussed the efforts in an interview at that time, but declined to divulge certain important details because the rules were not yet final or public.

Among the most important questions left unanswered in February was when analysts would be permitted to use Americans’ names, email addresses or other identifying information to search a 12333 database and pull up any messages to, from or about them that had been collected without a warrant.

There is a parallel debate about the FISA Amendments Act’s warrantless surveillance program. National security analysts sometimes search that act’s repository for Americans’ information, as do F.B.I. agents working on ordinary criminal cases. Critics call this the “backdoor search loophole,” and some lawmakers want to require a warrant for such searches.

By contrast, the 12333 sharing procedures allow analysts, including those at the F.B.I., to search the raw data using an American’s identifying information only for the purpose of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence investigations, not for ordinary criminal cases. And they may do so only if one of several other conditions are met, such as a finding that the American is an agent of a foreign power.

However, under the rules, if analysts stumble across evidence that an American has committed any crime, they will send it to the Justice Department.

The limits on using Americans’ information gathered under Order 12333 do not apply to metadata: logs showing who contacted whom, but not what they said. Analysts at the intelligence agencies may study social links between people, in search of hidden associates of known suspects, “without regard to the location or nationality of the communicants.”

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is on the verge of permitting the National Security Agency to share more of the private communications it intercepts with other American intelligence agencies without first applying any privacy protections to them, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

The change would relax longstanding restrictions on access to the contents of the phone calls and email the security agency vacuums up around the world, including bulk collection of satellite transmissions, communications between foreigners as they cross network switches in the United States, and messages acquired overseas or provided by allies.

The idea is to let more experts across American intelligence gain direct access to unprocessed information, increasing the chances that they will recognize any possible nuggets of value. That also means more officials will be looking at private messages — not only foreigners’ phone calls and emails that have not yet had irrelevant personal information screened out, but also communications to, from, or about Americans that the N.S.A.’s foreign intelligence programs swept in incidentally.

Civil liberties advocates criticized the change, arguing that it will weaken privacy protections. They said the government should disclose how much American content the N.S.A. collects incidentally — which agency officials have said is hard to measure — and let the public debate what the rules should be for handling that information.

“Before we allow them to spread that information further in the government, we need to have a serious conversation about how to protect Americans’ information,” said Alexander Abdo, an American Civil Liberties Union lawyer.

Robert S. Litt, the general counsel in the office of the Director of National Intelligence, said that the administration had developed and was fine-tuning what is now a 21-page draft set of procedures to permit the sharing.

The goal for the final rules, Brian P. Hale, a spokesman for the office, said in a statement, is “to ensure that they protect privacy, civil liberties and constitutional rights while enabling the sharing of information that is important to protect national security.”

Until now, National Security Agency analysts have filtered the surveillance information for the rest of the government. They search and evaluate the information and pass only the portions of phone calls or email that they decide is pertinent on to colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other agencies. And before doing so, the N.S.A. takes steps to mask the names and any irrelevant information about innocent Americans.

The new system would permit analysts at other intelligence agencies to obtain direct access to raw information from the N.S.A.’s surveillance to evaluate for themselves. If they pull out phone calls or email to use for their own agency’s work, they would apply the privacy protections masking innocent Americans’ information — a process known as “minimization” — at that stage, Mr. Litt said.

Executive branch officials have been developing the new framework and system for years. President George W. Bush set the change in motion through a little-noticed line in a 2008 executive order, and the Obama administration has been quietly developing a framework for how to carry it out since taking office in 2009.

The executive branch can change its own rules without going to Congress or a judge for permission because the data comes from surveillance methods that lawmakers did not include in the main law that governs national security wiretapping, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA.

FISA covers a narrow band of surveillance: the collection of domestic or international communications from a wire on American soil, leaving most of what the N.S.A. does uncovered. In the absence of statutory regulation, the agency’s other surveillance programs are governed by rules the White House sets under a Reagan-era directive called Executive Order 12333.

Mr. Litt declined to make available a copy of the current draft of the proposed procedures.

“Once these procedures are final and approved, they will be made public to the extent consistent with national security,” Mr. Hale said. “It would be premature to draw conclusions about what the procedures will provide or authorize until they are finalized.”

Among the things they would not address is what the draft rules say about searching the raw data using names or keywords intended to bring up Americans’ phone calls or email that the security agency gathered “incidentally” under the 12333 surveillance programs — including whether F.B.I. agents may do so when working on ordinary criminal investigations.

Under current rules for data gathered under a parallel program — the no-warrant surveillance program governed by the FISA Amendments Act — N.S.A. and C.I.A. officials may search for Americans’ information only if their purpose is to find foreign intelligence, but F.B.I. agents may conduct such a search for intelligence or law enforcement purposes. Some lawmakers have proposed requiring the government to obtain a warrant before conducting such a search.

In 2013, The Washington Post reported, based on documents leaked by the former intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden, that the N.S.A. and its British counterpart, Government Communications Headquarters, had tapped into links connecting Google’s and Yahoo’s data centers overseas and that the American spy agency had collected millions of records a day from them. The companies have since taken steps to encrypt those links.

That collection occurred under 12333 rules, which had long prohibited the N.S.A. from sharing raw information gathered from the surveillance it governed with other members of the intelligence community before minimization. The same rule had also long applied to sharing information gathered with FISA wiretaps.

But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration began an effort to tear down barriers that impeded different parts of the government from working closely and sharing information, especially about terrorism.

In 2002, for example, it won permission, then secret, from the intelligence court permitting the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the N.S.A. to share raw FISA wiretap information. The government did not disclose that change, which was first reported in a 2014 New York Times article based on documents disclosed by Mr. Snowden.

In August 2008, Mr. Bush change d 12333 to permit the N.S.A. to share unevaluated surveillance information with other intelligence agencies once procedures were developed.

Intelligence officials began working in 2009 on how the technical system and rules would work, Mr. Litt said, eventually consulting the Defense and Justice Departments. This month, the administration briefed the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, an independent five-member watchdog panel, seeking input. Before they go into effect, they must be approved by James R. Clapper, the intelligence director; Loretta E. Lynch, the attorney general; and Ashton B. Carter, the defense secretary.

“We would like it to be completed sooner rather than later,” Mr. Litt said. “Our expectation is months rather than weeks or years.”

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-841

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 Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 778, October 18, 2016, Breaking Stories — October Surprise — Surprise — Surprise — Story 1: Project Veritas Undercover Investigation Exposes Clinton Campaign and DNC Inciting Violence at Trump Rallies! — Dirty Democrat Deeds — Multiple Violations of The Law — Assault On Rule of Law — Videos — Story 2: The Sound of Silence of Big Lie Media — How The Democrats Rigged The Election — Videos — Story 3: Bill and Hillary Clinton Exposed By Hillary Hit Man –24 years of Cover-ups and Crimes — Read It In The National Enquirer — Videos

Posted on October 18, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Addiction, American History, Assault, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Monetary Policy, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Networking, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Story 1: Project Veritas Undercover Investigation Exposes Clinton Campaign and DNC Inciting Violence at Trump Rallies! — Dirty Democrat Deeds — Multiple Violations of The Law — Assault On Rule of Law  — Videos —

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Bob Cramer

Image result for project veritas

Scott Foval

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Image result for project veritas

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

Published on Oct 17, 2016

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging.

A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.”

Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud

The O’Reilly Factor 10/18/16 Rigging the Election – Mass Voter Fraud

James O’Keefe on Varney & Co Fox Business

UNDERCOVER VIDEO: DEMOCRATS CAUSED VIOLENCE AT TRUMP RALLIES

“Conflict engagement” means paying leftist agitators, the homeless and the mentally ill, to cause melees at Trump rallies.

The frequent outbursts of violence at Republican candidate Donald Trump’s campaign rallies have been orchestrated and paid for by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, a stunning new undercover video suggests.

Why isn’t the mainstream media apart from Fox News covering this new scandal? Perhaps because reporters overwhelmingly support Hillary Clinton in the election. In terms of dollars donated to the Clinton and Trump campaigns, journalists favor Clinton by a factor of 27 to 1. They’ve given more than $382,000 to Clinton’s campaign compared to just $14,000 to Trump’s campaign, according to the Center for Public Integrity.

This newly revealed Reichstag fire of a plot by Democrats at the highest levels is “a direct assault on democracy and the rule of law,” former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel last night. “This is a hundred times bigger than Watergate.”

Gingrich may be on to something. Thanks to the video provided by Project Veritas Action, Americans will now be able to see that the Left has been running a clandestine operation against Trump for some time now.

The idea was to concoct evidence that Trump supporters were crazy, knuckle-dragging thugs in order to discredit the billionaire businessman’s campaign for president. Many left-wingers already call Trump a fascist or a Nazi so creating the appearance at Trump rallies that the candidate’s supporters are violent put some meat on the bone, so to speak. It’s the Big Lie American-style, a huge false-flag operation generated by a real-life vast left-wing conspiracy.

This, of course, is what the Left does. Its agenda-setters dislike stories that deviate from their preferred narrative. They will lie and distort in order to shoehorn events to support their worldview. This is why Americans were told over and over again that the Tea Party movement was violent and dangerous, while Black Lives Matter and Occupy Wall Street are gentle and benign. This is why we are told Republicans are greedy, heartless, and racist, while Democrats are selfless, compassionate, and color-blind.

In the video, Americans United for Change (AUfC) operative Scott Foval is shown on camera saying, “One of the things we do is we stage very authentic grassroots protests right in their faces at their own events. Like, we infiltrate.”

Ethics, shmethics, is Foval’s attitude. “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker.” He adds, “we’re starting anarchy here.”

The Clinton campaign “is fully in it,” veteran left-wing strategist Robert Creamer confirms on hidden camera. “Hillary knows through the chain of command what’s going on.”

In another clip, Creamer is shown saying, “I’m not suggesting we wait around. We need to start this shit right away on every one of these fronts.”

The new video also appears to unveil a carefully coordinated scheme to circumvent campaign finance laws involving what some call the “Brocktopus,” or the network of organizations created by Media Matters for America founder and Hillary Clinton ally David Brock to get Clinton elected.

In the footage released by ACORN slayer James O’Keefe III yesterday, Creamer and Foval were caught explaining in detail their devious plan to generate negative media coverage of Trump events.

Creamer, a practitioner of the agitation arts taught by Marxist community organizing guru Saul Alinsky, is the husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), a socialist and advocate of single-payer health care. Creamer is considered by many to be the legislative architect of Obamacare. He also wrote a series of bad checks to cover his salary at a nonprofit and went to prison. Prosecutors wanted to send him up the river for 37 months but he received a mere five-month sentence and 11 months of home confinement from a friendly Democrat judge.

The information provided by Creamer and Foval is damning because it spells out the relationship between their various dirty tricks crews across the country and the leadership of the Democratic Party and how these people go about their illicit business.

But first let’s look at what Creamer said.

“Wherever Trump and Pence are gonna be we have events,” Creamer explains in the video. “We have a call with the campaign every day to go over the focuses that need to be undertaken.”

He continues:

And we have a whole team across the country that does that. Both consultants and people from the Democratic Party and the Democratic Party apparatus and people from the campaign, the Clinton campaign. And my role in the campaign is to manage all that.

Creamer founded Democracy Partners in 2011. He explains, “Just for a little orientation, Democracy Partners is kind of a group practice of a variety of consultants that do, essentially, a wide variety of different kinds of political consulting.”

Foval says that he works “with Bob Creamer one to one. I’m the white hat; Democracy Partners is kind of dark hat.” He adds, “Bob Creamer is diabolical and I love him for it.”

“We are contracted directly with the DNC and the campaign both,” Foval says. “I am contracted to him [Creamer], but I answer to the head of special events for the DNC and the head of the special events and political for the campaign.”

“The campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays the Foval Group, the Foval Group goes and executes the shit on the ground,” Foval says.

“We are the primary mechanism as a team. Democracy Partners is the tip of the spear on that stuff.”

Foval explains that his teams use “a script of engagement” to taunt and provoke Trump supporters. “Sometimes the crazies bite and sometimes the crazies don’t bite.”

The goal is to bring about a physical confrontation that will make it into media reports.

“If you’re there and you’re protesting and you do these actions, you will be attacked at Trump rallies,” he says. “That’s what we want.”

“The whole point of it is that we know Trump’s people will freak the fuck out, his security team will freak out, and his supporters will lose their shit.”

It is important to get the confrontation started in the lineup waiting to get in to the rally, Foval says.

Because once they’re inside the rally they’re under Secret Service’s control. When they’re outside the rally, the media will cover it no matter where it happens. The key is initiating the conflict by having leading conversations with people who are naturally psychotic. I mean honestly, it is not hard to get some of these assholes to pop off. It’s a matter of showing up, to want to get into the rally, in a Planned Parenthood t-shirt. Or, Trump is a Nazi, you know. You can message to draw them out, and draw them to punch you.”

Foval brags about the rent-a-mobs he keeps on standby across America.

We have to have people prepared to go wherever these events are, which means we have to have a central kind of agitator training. Now, we have a built-in group of people in New York who do this. We have a built-in group of people in D.C. who do this. We have a group of people in Vegas. We have a group of people in Colorado. We have a group of people in Minneapolis.

Foval says that “We have to be really careful because what we don’t need is for it to show up on CNN that the DNC paid for X people to, that’s not going to happen.” Events perceived as partisan by the media are far less likely to get worthwhile coverage, he says.

“It’s something that Bob and I obsess about is we’re not going to go to an effort to just do an event and not have anybody show up or not have it covered,” he says. “We have to get coverage.”

Foval continues:

You remember the Iowa State Fair thing where Scott Walker grabbed the sign out of the dude’s hand and then the dude gets kind of roughed up right in front of the stage right there on camera? That was all us. The guy that got roughed up is my counterpart who works for Bob.

Shirley Teeter, the 69-year-old lady who claimed to have been assaulted at a Trump rally in North Carolina, “was one of our activists,” Foval says. She “had been trained up to birddog.”

He explained what “birddogging” is.

So the term birddogging, you put people in the line at the front, which means they have to get there at six o’clock in the morning because they have to get in front of the rally, so what when Trump comes down the rope line they’re the ones asking him the question in front of the reporters, because they’re pre-placed there. To funnel that kind of operation, you have to start back with people two weeks ahead of time and train them how to ask questions. You have to train them to birddog.

Foval bragged about exploiting homeless people and people with psychiatric problems.

I’m saying we have mentally ill people that we pay to do shit, make no mistake. Over the last 20 years I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower and I put them in a program. Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people, especially our union guys, a lot of union guys, they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock ’n roll.

Foval explained how the super PACs communicate with each other and how their information finds its way to the DNC, likely in violation of federal law.

And then there’s the DNC and the campaigns and Priorities [Clinton’s super PAC]. Priorities is a big part of this too. The campaigns and DNC cannot go near Priorities, but I guaran-damn-tee you that the people who run the super PACs all talk to each other and we and a few other people are the hubs of that communication.

“We’re consultants,” Foval says, “so we’re not the official entity and so those conversations can be had between consultants who are working for different parts.”

An undercover journalist asks, “So there’s like a Morse code between the DNC and the super PACs?”

“It’s less of a Morse code than it is a text conversation that never ends,” Foval says. “It’s like that. It’s kind of like an ongoing Pony Express.”

The process is “not as efficient as it could be but that’s because the law doesn’t allow it to.”

He adds:

The thing that we have to watch is making sure there is a double blind between the actual campaign and the actual DNC and what we’re doing. There’s a double blind there. So they can plausibly deny that they knew anything about it.

A group Foval works for and repeatedly references in the video is Americans United for Change, a 501(c)(4) nonprofit headquartered in Washington, D.C. It had a $4 million budget in the year ending June 30, 2015. Ploughshares Fund Inc., which was instrumental in the Iranian nuclear nonproliferation pact process, gave Americans United for Change $64,971 in grants in 2014.

From 2010 to the present, AUfC has paid one of Creamer’s firms, Chicago-based Strategic Consulting Group, $955,132 as a contractor, according to IRS filings.

The cast of characters involved in Americans United for Change is a who’s who of the nation’s Democrat power elite.

According to the most recent publicly available IRS Form 990 for the period ending June 30, 2015, the group’s board members and corporate officers are:

Lee Saunders, AUfC board chairman, is president of AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees). He gave a keynote address at DNC 2016 in Philadelphia.

Brad Woodhouse, AUfC president, is president of two pro-Hillary super PACs, American Bridge 21st Centuryand Correct the Record. He is a former DNC communications director.

Mike Lux, AUfC secretary, is CEO of Progressive Strategies, and cofounder and CEO of Democracy Partners. His online bio states he serves on the boards of Arca Foundation, Netroots Nation, Progressive Congress, and USAction, that he founded and chairs American Family Voices, cofounded Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, Progressive Majority, Women’s Voice/Women Vote, and Center for Progressive Leadership. The bio states “he played a role in the early days of launching” the Center for American Progress, Air America, andMoveOn. He is aformer senior vice president for political action at People for the American Way (PfAW) andPfAW Foundation, and helped launch the PfAW PAC and the PfAW Voters Alliance. Lux was hired by the DNCon Sept. 27 as senior adviser for progressive outreach for the rest of the 2016 campaign.

Khalid Pitts, AUfC treasurer, is national political director for the Sierra Club, and a partner in Democracy Partners. He is an executive board member and secretary-treasurer for the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority. Pitts is president USAction, a pressure group cofounded by professional Alinskyite and DNC trainerHeather Booth, who founded the community organizing school, the Midwest Academy. He was also director of strategic campaigns for SEIU and a member of the board of Coalition on Human Needs.

Mary Kay Henry is international president of SEIU (Service Employees International Union). She gave an address at DNC 2016.

Randi Weingarten ispresident of the American Federation of Teachers. Like Henry, shegave an address at DNC 2016.

Former Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) is a former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee.

Susan McCue is president of Message Global LLC. She co-chairs Senate Majority PAC and is a; former chief of staff to then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.). She was deputy assistant secretary for public affairs under then-HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo. McCue worked for the Associated Press, National Journal, and theNew York Times. Her online bio states in 2007 GQ magazine named her “one of the 50 most powerful people in Washington,” and in 2006 Washingtonian Magazine “named her one of the 100 most powerful women in Washington.” She helped organize the “Camden Uprising” concert during DNC 2016 which featured Lady Gaga, Lenny Kravity, and DC Jazzy Jeff.

Jim Messina was the Obama 2012 campaign manager and Obama White House deputy chief of staff for operations.

Chuck Loveless is a senior advisor at Nueva Vista Group LLC. He is a former director of federal government affairs for AFSCME and a past chairman of the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans’ Public Employees Committee. Loveless is a former chairman of Americans for Tax Fairness.

But that’s not all.

Prominent Democrat operatives have served on the board of Americans United for Change in the past.

Among them are: Roger Hickey and Robert Borosage of the Campaign for America’s Future; Karen Olick, managing director, SKDKnickerbocker; and Adam Luna, senior advisor, United We Dream Network Inc., who also served as policy director for America’s Voice and America’s Voice Education Fund.

Thomas McMahon once served as AUfC’s acting executive director. He is a partner in New Partners and was executive director of the DNC from February 2005 to July 2010, according to his LinkedIn profile. He was deputy campaign manager for Howard Dean’s presidential run in 2004 and deputy director of advance in Bill Clinton’s White House from 1995 to 1997.

Former AUfC executive Caren Benjamin is now vice president of West End Strategy. Benjamin was an adviser to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), press secretary for Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), and worked as a communications strategist at the AFL-CIO and Vanguard Communications. She also was a reporter with theLas Vegas Review-Journal and the Associated Press in Washington, New York, and Nevada, according to her online bio.

O’Keefe promises another bombshell video Tuesday.

“Tomorrow we release our next installment of this investigation where we expose a voter fraud scheme discussed at the highest levels,” O’Keefe said. “The Hillary Clinton campaign is leaving nothing to chance as we have seen and will continue reveal as our undercover investigation into the dark machine of the Hillary Clinton campaign continues,”

“Hillary, check your email,” O’Keefe added cheekily.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264543/undercover-video-democrats-caused-violence-trump-matthew-vadum

Story 2: Big Lie Media — The Sound of Silence — How The Democrats Rigged The Election — Videos

James O’Keefe Demands The Corporate Media to Report Veritas

Hannity 10/17/16 | James O’Keefe video, Melania Trump interview, Clinton camp exposed

Story 3: Bill and Hillary Clinton Exposed By Hillary Hit Man –24 years of Cover-ups and Crimes — Read It In The National Enquirer — Videos —

Hillary Clinton in the National Enquirer on Wednesday

BREAKING: Hillary Hit Man Reveals Major BOMBSHELL SECRETS!

The Howie Carr Show | The New Project Veritas Video and the Hillary National Enquirer piece

John Edwards Admits Having Affair – National Enquirer Tells Truth!!

Rielle Hunter 20/20 Interview On John Edwards

BREAKING NEWS

Hillary Fixer Breaks Ranks: I Arranged Sex Trysts For Her — With Men & WOMEN

Stunning revelations of Clinton bag man!

hillary clinton lesbian sex claims scandals

Hillary Clinton is a secret sex freak who paid fixers to set up illicit romps with both men AND women!

That’s the blockbuster revelation from a former Clinton family operative who is sensationally breaking ranks with his one-time bosses to speak to The National ENQUIRER in a bombshell 9-page cover story — on newsstands Wednesday.

“I arranged a meeting for Hillary and a woman in an exclusive Beverly Hills hotel,” the man, who was hired by the Clintons, via a Hollywood executive, to cover up their scandals, told The ENQUIRER.

PHOTOS: Revenge! Donald Trump Fighting Back Against Hillary Clinton’s Smear Campaign

“She had come to the studio to see the filming of a movie in 1994.”

“While I was there, I helped her slip out of a back exit for a one-on-one session with the other woman. It was made to look casual, leaving quietly [rather] that being caught up in the melee … but really it was for something presumably more sordid.”

What’s more, it wasn’t just Hillary’s flings with women that the shadowy Mr. Fix It helped to orchestrate!

PHOTOS: Hillary’s Lies EXPOSED! Clinton’s Top 5 Debate Whoppers

Hillary’s former bagman finally confessed to The ENQUIRER just how he helped her to cover up her affair with married lover VinceFoster, too!

The shadowy figure — who provided PROOF of his employment for the Clintons — also revealed 12 fixes he covered-up, including:

+ How Hillary secretly plotted to a counter-attack on Bill’s mistress MonicaLewinsky — via a document buried for two decades!

PHOTOS: Leaked Emails Detail Hillary Clinton’s Desperate Health Crisis Cover-Ups

+ What crooked reporters were on the take from the Clinton camp!

+ How he covered up Bill’s seedy romp with hookers!

+ Which A-list celebrity had a secret affair with Bill during his presidency!

PHOTOS: Crooked Hillary’s Lies EXPOSED! Clinton’s 13 Most Infamous Scandals — So Far

In the bombshell exposé, The ENQUIRER will reveal the fixer’s dossier of smoking gun proof, including 24-years of documents, notes, and journals.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/hillary-clinton-lesbian-sex-claims-vince-foster-fixer/

Gomer Surprise

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-778

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 Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 709, June 29, 2016, Part 1: Story 1: Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists — Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

Posted on June 29, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Gangs, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Networking, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

The Pronk Pops Show 709, June 29, 2016, Part 1: Story 1:  Trump Gives Outstanding Economic Policy Speech Using Teleprompter and Before Clinton and Big Lie Media Crushed Trash As Backdrop –How To Make America Wealthy Again — The American Worker vs. Global Elitists —  Free Fair Trade and Fair Tax Less — Landslide Victory For Trump in November — Videos

trump-garbage

us tariff rates

Donald Trump Monessen Pennsylvania Alumisource Policy Speech Economy FULL STREAM HD [AMAZING]

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 1

Published on Jun 28, 2016

Tuesday, June 28, 2016: Live streaming coverage of Donald J. Trump’s policy speech in Monessen, PA at Alumisource. Coverage begins at 2:30 PM EDT.

– TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2016 –

MONESSEN, PA
Alumisource
2:30 PM

Donald J. Trump for President Policy Speech
Donald John Trump (born June 14, 1946) is an American businessman, television personality, author, and politician. He is chairman of The Trump Organization, which is the principal holding company for his real estate ventures and other business interests. He is also the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party in the 2016 presidential election.

Trump graduated from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania in 1968. Having worked in his father Fred Trump’s real estate and construction firm while attending college, he assumed control of that family business in 1973, later renaming it The Trump Organization. During his career, Trump has built hotels, casinos, golf courses, the Manhattan neighborhood Riverside South and numerous other developments, many of which bear his name, including Trump Entertainment Resorts (now owned by Carl Icahn). He has made the Trump name a valuable and distinct brand, licensing it to numerous enterprises in which he has minimal or no stake. He briefly sought the Reform Party’s nomination in the 2000 presidential election, withdrawing prior to any primary contests, although he won two primaries after his withdrawal. Listed by Forbes among the wealthiest 400 of The World’s Billionaires, Trump and his businesses, as well as his three marriages, have for decades received prominent media exposure. He hosted The Apprentice, a popular reality television show on NBC, from 2004 to 2015.

On June 16, 2015, Trump announced his candidacy for president as a Republican, and quickly emerged as the front-runner for his party’s nomination. His platform includes measures to combat illegal immigration, opposition to many free-trade agreements that he regards as unfair, often non-interventionist views on foreign policy, and a proposal to temporarily ban immigration to the United States from countries with a proven history of terrorism against the United States, until the government has perfected its ability to screen out potential terrorists. His statements in interviews and at campaign rallies have often been controversial, with the rallies sometimes accompanied by protests or riots.

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 2

FULL Donald Trump Delivers Economy Policy Speech! June 28th 2016 Part 3

Donald Trump’s 7-point trade plan: No TPP, renegotiate NAFTA

Is NAFTA a success story or damaging policy?

Obama calls out Trump trade rhetoric

Obama On Trump’s Anti-Mexican Rhetoric

Gorka: Trump’s Populism ‘Is A Direct Response To Obama’s Divisive Presidency’

2016 North American Leaders’ Summit – Trilateral News Conference

Trump vs Friedman – Trade Policy Debate

Milton Friedman on Free Trade

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Milton Friedman debates a protectionist

Milton Friedman on the Dangers of Protectionism (Obama’s recent tariff on Chinese imports

The Legacy of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act

Lessons from the Great Depression

Lincoln’s Tariff War | by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 4

An In Depth Look at Southern Secession and American Principles part 5

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 1

Published on Jul 12, 2015

The South was 25% of the population and they were paying 80% of the taxes in the US which were being used to subsidize Northern industries. There is no way around that.

The declaration of secession included language from every faction including minority factions like slave owners who had a lot of money. Slavery wasn’t originally part of it. They pissed and moaned until they got everything included in it. These people were not the driving force of secession as secession and nullification movements started 30 years before the Civil War when slavery wasn’t even on the table. Furthermore slavery WASN’T on the table in the Civil War either. The North via New York and Ohio introduced a constitutional amendment, the Corwin Amendment which forbid the interference in slavery. Congress passed it too. It read : “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.” It was not ratified because the South seceded anyway the two largest states did so AFTER Lincoln put a naval blockade on his own country to collect the import and export taxes.

The CSA constitution changed things that we accept today a) it gave term limits b)it gave a line item veto and c) section 8 (I) was changed to

“The Congress shall have power – To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises for revenue, necessary to pay the debts, provide for the common defense, and carry on the Government of the Confederate States; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury; nor shall any duties or taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry; and all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the Confederate States”

. I will remind you that 5 Northern states also had slaves, actually they all allowed slaves just not as to scale as the south. Other Northern States forbid foreign blacks from even entering the state such as Lincolns home state and the black code laws. And the 13th amendment which freed the slaves was rejected by 3 northern states and only 1 southern state. Let’s think they just lost 400,000 people to free the slaves then vote against freeing the slaves? It was never about slavery. It was about as Lincoln said “preserving the union” Lincoln didn’t even bring up the issue of slaves until the middle of the war.

Lincoln said “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people to the idea of indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races … A separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation, but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is to keep them apart where they are not already together. If white and black people never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas …”

He also said “I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is physical difference between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.”

And he said “Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

And pay attention to this Lincoln said ” I HAVE NO PURPOSE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY TO INTERFERE WITH THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY IN THE STATES WHERE IT EXIST. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

And “My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy Slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.” -Abe Lincoln your white separatist hero.

Tariffs: The Road to Civil War Part 2

Real Causes of “The Civil War”– Morrill tariff

 

Donald J. Trump Address: Declaring American Economic Independence

AddThis Sharing Buttons

Today, Donald J. Trump spoke at the Alumisource Factory in Monessen, Pennsylvania. Mr. Trump’s speech focused on how to rebuild the American economy by fighting for fair trade. The middle class has collapsed because of the failed policies from Washington, D.C. that benefit the politicians, but not the American people. The all talk, no action politicians have promoted globalization at the expense of American workers. Mr. Trump will fight to put the country and its workers first in order to Make America Great Again. A transcript of the remarks can be viewed via the link below:

Declaring American Economic Independence
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/DJT_DeclaringAmericanEconomicIndependence.pdf

———————————————————————————

Trump Campaign Announces Expansion of Team

Today, Donald J. Trump announced the expansion of his campaign team making several appointments as he continues to build his operations in advance of the general elections.

Jason Miller will serve as Senior Communications Advisor, where he will work with the existing team to build out a full Communications Department to deliver victory this November. Mr. Miller will work with several areas of the campaign to ensure messaging coordination and implementation. Mr. Miller has managed campaigns and shaped messages for successful House, Senate and gubernatorial races in addition to serving on the senior staffs of two presidential campaigns.

Trumppenn

Michael Abboud is joining the Trump Campaign as a Communications Coordinator. Formerly with the RNC Communications Department, Mr. Abboud will work to execute the campaign’s rapid response and daily messaging, as well as providing candidate briefings on daily news and breaking stories.

Alan Cobb will serve as the Director of Coalitions for the campaign, organizing and managing the numerous coalition groups that currently support, and will support, Mr. Trump for president. Previously, Mr. Cobb served in several roles for the Trump Campaign including as a Senior Advisor. Mr. Cobb managed statewide, political and issue campaigns, served as the Deputy State Director for U.S. Senators Bob Dole and U.S. Senator Sheila Frahm and served as a Campaign Advisor to the 2014 campaigns of Congressman Mike Pompeo and Senator Pat Roberts.

On the appointments, Mr. Trump stated, “As we continue to work to defeat Hillary Clinton this November, I am constantly building a superior political team. After winning the most votes in the history of a Republican primary contest, we are taking our messages to the people so that we can Make American Great Again.”

 

Morrill Tariff

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Morrill Tariff of 1861 was an increased import tariff in the United States, adopted on March 2, 1861, during the administration of President James Buchanan, a Democrat. It was the twelfth of seventeen planks in the platform of the incoming Republican Party, which had not yet been inaugurated, and it appealed to industrialists and factory workers as a way to foster rapid industrial growth.[1]

It was named for its sponsor, Representative Justin Smith Morrill of Vermont, who drafted it with the advice of Pennsylvania economist Henry Charles Carey. The passage of the tariff was possible because many tariff-averse Southerners had resigned from Congress after their states declared their secession. The Morrill Tariff raised rates to encourage industry and to foster high wages for industrial workers.[2] It replaced the low Tariff of 1857, which was written to benefit the South. Two additional tariffs sponsored by Morrill, each one higher, were passed during Abraham Lincoln‘s administration to raise urgently needed revenue during the Civil War.

The Morrill tariff inaugurated a period of continuous trade protection in the United States, a policy that remained until the adoption of the Revenue Act of 1913 (the Underwood tariff). The schedule of the Morrill Tariff and its two successor bills were retained long after the end of the Civil War.

History

Origins

A high tariff to encourage the development of domestic industry had been advocated for many years, especially by the Whig Party and its long-time leader Henry Clay. They enacted such a tariff in 1842, but in 1846 the Democrats enacted the Walker Tariff, cutting tariff rates substantially. The Democrats cut rates even further in the Tariff of 1857, which was highly favorable to the South.

Meanwhile, the Whig Party broke up, and this element of the Whig program was taken up by the new Republican Party, which ran its first national ticket in 1856. Some former Whigs from the Border States and upper South remained in Congress as “Opposition”, “Unionist”, or “American” (Know Nothing) members; they also supported higher tariffs.

The Panic of 1857 led to calls for protectionist tariff revision. Well-known economist Henry C. Carey blamed the Panic on the Tariff of 1857. His opinion was widely circulated in the high tariff (or “protectionist”) media.

Efforts to revise the tariff schedules upward began in earnest in the 35th Congress of 1857–1859. Two proposals were submitted in the House. House Ways and Means Committee chairman John S. Phelps (D-Missouri wrote the Democrats’ plan, which retained most of the low rates of the 1857 Tariff, with minor revisions to stimulate revenue.

Minority Ways and Means members Morrill and Henry Winter Davis (a Maryland “American”) produced the Republican proposal, an upward revision of the tariff schedule. It replaced the existing ad valorem tariff schedule with specific duties and drastically increased tariff rates on goods produced by popular “protected” industries, such as iron, textiles, and other manufactured goods. Economic historian Frank Taussig argued that in many cases, the substitution of specific duties was used to disguise the extent of the rate increases.[3] Supporters of the specific rates argued that they were necessary, though, because European exporters were routinely providing their American customers with phony invoices showing lower prices for goods than were actually paid. Specific rates made such subterfuge pointless.

However, the House took no action on either tariff bill during the 35th Congress.

House actions

When the 36th Congress met in 1859, action remained blocked by a wrangle over the Speaker of the House until 1860, when Republican William Pennington of New Jersey was elected. A pro-tariff Republican majority was appointed to Ways and Means, and John Sherman of Ohio became chairman.

The Morrill bill was passed out of committee and brought up for a floor vote near the end of first session of the Congress (December 1859 – June 1860).

The vote was on May 10, 1860; the bill passed by a vote of 105 to 64.[4]

The vote was largely but not entirely sectional. Republicans, all from the northern states, voted 89–2 for the bill. They were joined by 7 northern Democrats from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Five of these were “anti-Lecompton Democrats” (dissident Democrats who opposed the pro-slavery Lecompton constitution for Kansas).

14 northern Democrats voted against the bill.

In the Border States, 4 “Opposition” Representatives from Kentucky voted for it, as did its co-sponsor Winter of Maryland, a Maryland “Unionist”, and a Democrat from Delaware. 8 Border state Democrats and an “American” from Missouri voted no.

35 southern Democrats and 3 Oppositionists voted against it; one Oppositionist from Tennessee voted for it.

Thus the sectional breakdown was 96–15 in the north, 7–9 in the Border, and 1–39 in the south.

There were 55 abstentions, including 13 Republicans, 12 northern Democrats, 13 southern Democrats, and 8 southern “Oppositionists” and “Americans”. (The remaining Representatives were mostly “paired” with opposing Representatives who could not be present.[5]

Senate action

The Morrill bill was sent on to the Senate. However, the Senate was controlled by Democrats, and so the bill was bottled up in the Finance Committee, chaired by Robert M. T. Hunter of Virginia.

This insured that the Senate vote would be put off till the second session in December. It also meant that the tariff would be a prominent issue in the 1860 election.[6]

1860 election

The Republican party included a strong pro-tariff plank in its 1860 platform. They also sent prominent tariff advocates such as Morrill and Sherman to campaign in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where the tariff was popular, by touting the Morrill bill. Both Democratic candidates, John C. Breckinridge and Stephen Douglas, opposed all high tariffs and protectionism in general.[7]

Historian Reinhard H. Luthin documents the importance of the Morrill Tariff to the Republicans in the 1860 presidential election.[8] Abraham Lincoln’s record as a protectionist and support for the Morrill Tariff bill, he notes, helped him to secure support in the important electoral college state of Pennsylvania, as well as neighboring New Jersey. Lincoln carried Pennsylvania handily in November, as part of his sweep of the North.

On February 14, 1861, President-elect Lincoln told an audience in Pittsburgh that he would make a new tariff his priority in the next session if the bill did not pass by inauguration day on March 4.

Renewed Senate action

The second session of the 36th Congress began in December 1860. At first it appeared that Hunter would keep the Morrill bill tabled until the end of the term in March.

However, in December 1860 and January 1861, seven southern states declared secession, and their low-tariff Senators withdrew. Republicans took control of the Senate in February, and Hunter lost his hold on the Finance Committee.

Meanwhile, the Treasury was in financial crisis, with less than $500,000 on hand and millions in unpaid bills. The Union urgently needed new revenue. A recent historian concludes, “the impetus for revising the tariff arose as an attempt to augment revenue, stave off ‘ruin,’ and address the accumulating debt.”[9]

The Morrill bill was brought to the Senate floor for a vote on February 20, and passed 25 to 14. The vote was split almost completely down party lines. It was supported by 24 Republicans and Democrat William Bigler of Pennsylvania. It was opposed by 10 Southern Democrats, 2 Northern Democrats, and 2 Far West Democrats. 12 Senators abstained, including 3 Northern Democrats, 1 California Democrat, 5 Southern Democrats, 2 Republicans, and 1 Unionist from Maryland.[10]

There were some minor amendments related to the tariffs on tea and coffee, which required a conference committee with the House, but these were resolved and the final bill was approved by unanimous consent on March 2.

Though a Democrat himself, outgoing President James Buchanan favored the bill because of the interests of his home state, Pennsylvania. He signed the bill into law as one of his last acts in office.

Adoption and amendments

The Morrill Tariff took effect one month after it was signed into law. Besides setting tariff rates, the bill altered and restricted the Warehousing Act of 1846.

The Morrill Tariff was drafted and passed the House before the Civil War began or was even expected, and was passed by the Senate almost unchanged. Thus it should not be considered “Civil War” legislation.[11]

In fact, the Tariff proved to be too low for the revenue needs of the Civil War, and was quickly supplanted by the Second Morrill Tariff, or Revenue Act of 1861, later that fall.[12]

Impact

In its first year of operation, the Morrill Tariff increased the effective rate collected on dutiable imports by approximately 70%. In 1860 American tariff rates were among the lowest in the world and also at historical lows by 19th century standards, the average rate for 1857 through 1860 being around 17% overall (ad valorem), or 21% on dutiable items only. The Morrill Tariff immediately raised these averages to about 26% overall or 36% on dutiable items, and further increases by 1865 left the comparable rates at 38% and 48%. Although higher than in the immediate antebellum period, these rates were still significantly lower than between 1825 and 1830, when rates had sometimes been over 50%.[13]

The United States needed $3 billion to pay for the immense armies and fleets raised to fight the Civil War — over $400 million just in 1862. The chief source of Federal revenue had been the tariff revenues. Therefore, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, though a long-time free-trader, worked with Morrill to pass a second tariff bill in summer 1861, raising rates another 10 points in order to generate more revenues.[14] These subsequent bills were primarily revenue driven to meet the war’s needs, though they enjoyed the support of protectionists such as Carey, who again assisted Morrill in the bill’s drafting.

However, the tariff played only a modest role in financing the war. It was far less important than other measures, such as $2.8 billion in bond sales and some printing of Greenbacks. Customs revenue from tariffs totaled $345 million from 1861 through 1865, or 43% of all federal tax revenue, while military spending totalled $3,065 million.[15]

Reception abroad

The Morrill Tariff was met with intense hostility in Britain, where the free trade movement dominated public opinion. Southern diplomats and agents sought to use British ire towards the Morrill Tariff in order to garner sympathy, with the aim of obtaining British recognition for the Confederacy.[16] The new tariff schedule heavily penalized British iron, clothing, and manufactured exports with new taxes and sparked public outcry from many British politicians. The expectation of high tax rates probably caused British shippers to hasten their deliveries before the new rates took effect in the early summer of 1861. When complaints were heard from London, Congress counterattacked. The Senate Finance Committee chairman snapped, “What right has a foreign country to make any question about what we choose to do?”[17]

When the American Civil War broke out in 1861, British public opinion was sympathetic to the Confederacy, in part because of lingering agitation over the tariff. As one diplomatic historian has explained, the Morrill Tariff:[18]

“Not unnaturally gave great displeasure to England. It greatly lessened the profits of the American markets to English manufacturers and merchants, to a degree which caused serious mercantile distress in that country. Moreover, the British nation was then in the first flush of enthusiasm over free trade, and, under the lead of extremists like Cobden and Gladstone, was inclined to regard a protective tariff as essentially and intrinsically immoral, scarcely less so than larceny or murder. Indeed, the tariff was seriously regarded as comparable in offensiveness with slavery itself, and Englishmen were inclined to condemn the North for the one as much as the South for the other. “We do not like slavery,” said Palmerston to Adams, “but we want cotton, and we dislike very much your Morrill tariff.”

Many prominent British writers condemned the Morrill Tariff in the strongest terms. Economist William Stanley Jevons denounced it as a “retrograde” law. The well known novelist Charles Dickens used his magazine, All the Year Round, to attack the new tariff. On December 28, 1861 Dickens published a lengthy article, believed to be written by Henry Morley,[19] which blamed the American Civil War on the Morrill Tariff:

If it be not slavery, where lies the partition of the interests that has led at last to actual separation of the Southern from the Northern States? …Every year, for some years back, this or that Southern state had declared that it would submit to this extortion only while it had not the strength for resistance. With the election of Lincoln and an exclusive Northern party taking over the federal government, the time for withdrawal had arrived … The conflict is between semi-independent communities [in which] every feeling and interest [in the South] calls for political partition, and every pocket interest [in the North] calls for union … So the case stands, and under all the passion of the parties and the cries of battle lie the two chief moving causes of the struggle. Union means so many millions a year lost to the South; secession means the loss of the same millions to the North. The love of money is the root of this, as of many other evils… [T]he quarrel between the North and South is, as it stands, solely a fiscal quarrel.

Communist philosopher Karl Marx was among the few writers in Britain who saw slavery as the major cause of the war. Marx wrote extensively in the British press and served as a London correspondent for several North American newspapers including Horace Greeley’s New York Tribune. Marx reacted to those who blamed the war on Morrill’s bill, arguing instead that slavery had induced secession and that the tariff was just a pretext. Marx wrote, in October 1861:

Naturally, in America everyone knew that from 1846 to 1861 a free trade system prevailed, and that Representative Morrill carried his protectionist tariff through Congress only in 1861, after the rebellion had already broken out. Secession, therefore, did not take place because the Morrill tariff had gone through Congress, but, at most, the Morrill tariff went through Congress because secession had taken place.[20]

Legacy

According to historian Heather Cox Richardson, Morrill intended to offer protection to both the usual manufacturing recipients and a broad group of agricultural interests. The purpose was to appease interests beyond the northeast, which traditionally supported protection. For the first time protection was extended to every major farm product.

Planning to distribute the benefits of a tariff to all sectors of the economy, and also hoping to broaden support for his party, Morrill rejected the traditional system of protection by proposing tariff duties on agricultural, mining, and fishing products, as well as on manufactures. Sugar, wool, flaxseed, hides, beef, pork, corn, grain, hemp, wool, and minerals would all be protected by the Morrill Tariff. The duty on sugar might well be expected to appease Southerners opposed to tariffs, and, notably, wool and flaxseed production were growing industries in the West. The new tariff bill also would protect coal, lead, copper, zinc, and other minerals, all of which the new northwestern states were beginning to produce. The Eastern fishing industry would receive a duty on dried, pickled, and salted fish. “In adjusting the details of a tariff,” Morrill explained with a rhetorical flourish in his introduction of the bill, “I would treat agriculture, manufactures, mining, and commerce, as I would our whole people—as members of one family, all entitled to equal favor, and no one to be made the beast of burden to carry the packs of others.”[21]

According to Taussig, “Morrill and the other supporters of the act of 1861 declared that their intention was simply to restore the rates of 1846.” However, he also gives reason to suspect that the bill’s motives were intended to put high rates of protection on iron and wool to attract states in the West and in Pennsylvania:

“The important change which they (the sponsors) proposed to make from the provisions of the tariff of 1846 was to substitute specific for ad-valorem duties. Such a change from ad-valorem to specific duties is in itself by no means objectionable; but it has usually been made a pretext on the part of protectionists for a considerable increase in the actual duties paid. When protectionists make a change of this kind, they almost invariably make the specific duties higher than the ad-valorem duties for which they are supposed to be an equivalent…The Morrill tariff formed no exception to the usual course of things in this respect. The specific duties which it established were in many cases considerably above the ad-valorem duties of 1846. The most important direct changes made by the act of 1861 were in the increased duties on iron and on wool, by which it was hoped to attach to the Republican party Pennsylvania and some of the Western States”[22]

Henry Carey, who assisted Morrill while drafting the bill and was one of its most vocal supporters, strongly emphasized its importance to the Republican Party in his January 2, 1861 letter to Lincoln. Carey told the President-Elect “the success of your administration is wholly dependent upon the passage of the Morrill bill at the present session.” According to Carey:

“With it, the people will be relieved — your term will commence with a rising wave of prosperity — the Treasury will be filled and the party that elected you will be increased and strengthened. Without it, there will be much suffering among the people — much dissatisfaction with their duties — much borrowing on the part of the Government — & very much trouble among the Republican Party when the people shall come to vote two years hence. There is but one way to make the Party a permanent one, & that is, by the prompt repudiation to the free trade system.”

Congressman John Sherman later wrote:

The Morrill tariff bill came nearer than any other to meeting the double requirement of providing ample revenue for the support of the government and of rendering the proper protection to home industries. No national taxes, except duties on imported goods, were imposed at the time of its passage. The Civil War changed all this, reducing importations and adding tenfold to the revenue required. The government was justified in increasing existing rates of duty, and in adding to the dutiable list all articles imported, thus including articles of prime necessity and of universal use. In addition to these duties, it was compelled to add taxes on all articles of home production, on incomes not required for the supply of actual wants, and, especially, on articles of doubtful necessity, such as spirits, tobacco and beer. These taxes were absolutely required to meet expenditures for the army and navy, for the interest on the war debts and just pensions to those who were disabled by the war, and to their widows and orphans.[23]

Secession and tariffs

The Morrill Tariff and the secession movement

The Morrill tariff was adopted against the backdrop of the secession movement, and provided an issue for secessionist agitation in some southern states. The law’s critics compared it to the 1828 Tariff of Abominations that sparked the Nullification Crisis, although its average rate was significantly lower.

Slavery dominated the secession debate in the southern states,[24] but the Morrill Tariff was addressed in the conventions of Georgia and South Carolina.

Robert Barnwell Rhett similarly railed against the then-pending Morrill Tariff before the South Carolina convention. Rhett included a lengthy attack on tariffs in the Address of South Carolina to Slaveholding State19s, which the convention adopted on December 25, 1860 to accompany its secession ordinance.

And so with the Southern States, towards the Northern States, in the vital matter of taxation. They are in a minority in Congress. Their representation in Congress, is useless to protect them against unjust taxation; and they are taxed by the people of the North for their benefit, exactly as the people of Great Britain taxed our ancestors in the British parliament for their benefit. For the last forty years, the taxes laid by the Congress of the United States have been laid with a view of subserving the interests of the North. The people of the South have been taxed by duties on imports, not for revenue, but for an object inconsistent with revenue— to promote, by prohibitions, Northern interests in the productions of their mines and manufactures.[25]

The Morrill Tariff played less prominently elsewhere in the South. In some portions of Virginia, secessionists promised a new protective tariff to assist the state’s fledgling industries.[26]

In the North, enforcement of the Morrill Tariff contributed to support for the Union cause among industrialists and merchant interests. Speaking of this class, the abolitionist Orestes Brownson derisively remarked that “the Morrill Tariff moved them more than the fall of Sumter.”[27] In one such example the New York Times, which had previously opposed Morrill’s bill on free trade grounds, editorialized that the tariff imbalance would bring commercial ruin to the North and urged its suspension until the secession crisis passed. “We have imposed high duties on our commerce at the very moment the seceding states are inviting commerce to their ports by low duties.”[28] As secession became more evident and the fledgling Confederacy adopted a much lower tariff of its own, the paper urged military action to enforce the Morrill Tariff in the Southern states.[29]

Historiography

Historians, James Huston notes, have been baffled by the role of high tariffs in general and have offered multiple conflicting interpretations over the years. (Low tariffs, all historians agree, were noncontroversial and were needed to fund the federal government.) One school of thought says the Republicans were the willing tools of would-be monopolists. A second schools says the Republicans truly believed tariffs would promote nationalism and prosperity for everyone along with balanced growth in every region (as opposed to growth only in the cotton South). A third school emphasizes the undeniable importance of the tariff in cementing party loyalty, especially in industrial states. Another approach emphasizes that factory workers were eager for high tariffs because it protected their high wages from European competition.[30]

Charles A. Beard argued in the 1920s that very long-term economic issues were critical, with the pro-tariff industrial Northeast forming a coalition with the anti-tariff agrarian Midwest against the plantation South. According to Luthin in the 1940s, “Historians are not unanimous as to the relative importance which Southern fear and hatred of a high tariff had in causing the secession of the slave states.”[31] However, none of the statesmen seeking a compromise in 1860-61 that would avert the war ever suggested the tariff might be the key to a solution, or might be a cause of the secession.[32] Beginning in the 1950s, historians moved away from the Beard thesis of economic causality. In its place, historians led by Richard Hofstadter began to emphasize the social causes of the war, centered around the issue of slavery. The Beard thesis has enjoyed a recent revival among economists, pro-Confederate historians, and neo-Beardian scholars. A 2002 study by economists Robert McGuire and T. Norman Van Cott concluded:

A de facto constitutional mandate that tariffs lie on the lower end of the Laffer relationship means that the Confederacy went beyond simply observing that a given tax revenue is obtainable with a “high” and “low” tax rate, a la Alexander Hamilton and others. Indeed, the constitutional action suggests that the tariff issue may in fact have been even more important in the North–South tensions that led to the Civil War than many economists and historians currently believe.”

Rather than contributing to secession, Marc-William Palen notes how the tariff was only able to pass through Congress following the secession of Southern states. Thus, secession itself allowed for the bill’s passage, rather than the other way around.[33]Allan Nevinsand James M. McPherson downplay the significance of the tariff, arguing that it was peripheral to the issue of slavery. They note that slavery dominated the secessionist declarations, speeches, and pamphlets. Nevins also points to the argument of Alexander Stephens, who disputed Toombs’ claims about the severity of the Morrill tariff. Though initially a unionist, Stephens would later cite slavery as the “cornerstone” reason behind his support of the secessionist cause.[34]

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-708

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 Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 509, July 24, 2015, Story 1, The Next President of The United States Will Be Donald Trump? — Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Mainstream Media Are In Panic Mode Trying To Take Donald Down Because Trump Made Illegal Immigration A Wedge Issue! — American People Want Trump To Make America Great Again — Trump Plays To Win — Videos

Posted on July 22, 2015. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Bribery, Business, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Drugs, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, Eugenics, Fast and Furious, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, History, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Media, Medicine, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Scandals, Security, Social Science, Spying, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 457: April 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1, The Next President of The United States Will Be Donald Trump? — Democratic Party, Republican Party, and Mainstream Media Are In Panic Mode Trying To Take Donald Down Because Trump Made Illegal Immigration A Wedge Issue! — American People Want Trump To Make America Great Again — Trump Plays To Win — Videos

trump-poll-abc-wapo-julythe gop race polls

Election 2016 Presidential Polls

Thursday, July 23
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Trump 19, Bush 12, Walker 17, Rubio 10, Carson 10, Huckabee 8, Paul 4, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Kasich 3, Perry 1, Fiorina 4, Santorum 1, Jindal 1, Graham 0 Trump +2
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 57, Sanders 22, Biden, Webb 5, O’Malley 2, Chafee 3 Clinton +35
Wednesday, July 22
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Colorado: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 41, Clinton 36 Bush +5
Colorado: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 47, Clinton 38 Walker +9
Colorado: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 46, Clinton 38 Rubio +8
Virginia: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 42, Clinton 39 Bush +3
Virginia: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 43, Clinton 40 Walker +3
Virginia: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 43, Clinton 41 Rubio +2
Iowa: Bush vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Bush 42, Clinton 36 Bush +6
Iowa: Walker vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Walker 45, Clinton 37 Walker +8
Iowa: Rubio vs. Clinton Quinnipiac Rubio 44, Clinton 36 Rubio +8
Colorado: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 45, Biden 36 Bush +9
Colorado: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 48, Biden 36 Walker +12
Colorado: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 49, Biden 35 Rubio +14
Virginia: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 45, Biden 40 Bush +5
Virginia: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 45, Biden 41 Walker +4
Virginia: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Biden 41 Rubio +4
Iowa: Bush vs. Biden Quinnipiac Bush 44, Biden 37 Bush +7
Iowa: Walker vs. Biden Quinnipiac Walker 47, Biden 36 Walker +11
Iowa: Rubio vs. Biden Quinnipiac Rubio 45, Biden 37 Rubio +8
Colorado: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 43, Sanders 37 Bush +6
Colorado: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Colorado: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 46, Sanders 35 Rubio +11
Virginia: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 46, Sanders 36 Bush +10
Virginia: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Virginia: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 44, Sanders 37 Rubio +7
Iowa: Bush vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Bush 42, Sanders 38 Bush +4
Iowa: Walker vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Walker 44, Sanders 36 Walker +8
Iowa: Rubio vs. Sanders Quinnipiac Rubio 43, Sanders 36 Rubio +7
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Bush 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Walker 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Rubio 41 Clinton +5
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 50, Trump 37 Clinton +13
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 46, Huckabee 40 Clinton +6
Monday, July 20
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Monmouth Walker 22, Bush 7, Trump 13, Paul 5, Carson 8, Huckabee 6, Cruz 7, Rubio 5, Santorum 3, Perry 3, Fiorina 3, Christie 1, Jindal 4, Kasich 2, Graham 0 Walker +9
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination ABC/Wash Post Trump 24, Bush 12, Walker 13, Rubio 7, Carson 6, Huckabee 8, Paul 6, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Kasich 2, Perry 4, Fiorina 0, Santorum 1, Jindal 2, Graham 0 Trump +11
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination ABC News/Wash Post Clinton 63, Sanders 14, Biden 12, Webb 2, O’Malley 1, Chafee 0 Clinton +49
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton ABC News/Wash Post Clinton 50, Bush 44 Clinton +6
Friday, July 17
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination FOX News Trump 18, Bush 14, Walker 15, Rubio 7, Carson 6, Huckabee 4, Paul 8, Cruz 4, Christie 3, Kasich 2, Perry 1, Fiorina 1, Santorum 2, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +3
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination FOX News Clinton 59, Sanders 19, Biden 8, Webb 1, O’Malley 1, Chafee 1 Clinton +40
Thursday, July 16
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Virginia Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Bush 18, Walker 14, Rubio 7, Trump 14, Carson 10, Paul 5, Christie 5, Huckabee 8, Cruz 5, Fiorina 5, Jindal 3, Perry 2, Kasich 1, Santorum 1 Bush +4
Virginia Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Clinton 64, Sanders 14, Webb 8, Chafee 5, O’Malley 2 Clinton +50
Virginia: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Bush 38, Clinton 46 Clinton +8
Virginia: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Trump 39 Clinton +10
Virginia: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Walker 42, Clinton 47 Clinton +5
Virginia: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Rubio 43, Clinton 47 Clinton +4
Virginia: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Paul 42 Clinton +5
Virginia: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 49, Huckabee 39 Clinton +10
Virginia: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 48, Cruz 41 Clinton +7
Virginia: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 47, Carson 43 Clinton +4
Virginia: Rubio vs. Sanders PPP (D) Rubio 40, Sanders 38 Rubio +2
Virginia: Walker vs. Sanders PPP (D) Walker 39, Sanders 38 Walker +1
Virginia: Bush vs. Sanders PPP (D) Bush 40, Sanders 39 Bush +1
Wednesday, July 15
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination Monmouth Clinton 51, Sanders 17, Biden 13, Webb 1, O’Malley 1, Chafee 0 Clinton +34
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 59, Sanders 14, Biden 8, Webb 2, O’Malley 0, Chafee 0 Clinton +45
Tuesday, July 14
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
General Election: Bush vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 46, Bush 42 Clinton +4
General Election: Trump vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 51, Trump 34 Clinton +17
General Election: Walker vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 48, Walker 37 Clinton +11
General Election: Rubio vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 46, Rubio 40 Clinton +6
General Election: Huckabee vs. Clinton USA Today/Suffolk Clinton 49, Huckabee 40 Clinton +9
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination USAT/Suffolk Trump 17, Bush 14, Walker 8, Rubio 5, Carson 4, Huckabee 4, Paul 4, Cruz 6, Christie 3, Kasich 1, Perry 1, Fiorina 1, Santorum 1, Jindal 1, Graham 0 Trump +3
Monday, July 13
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Monmouth Trump 13, Bush 15, Walker 7, Rubio 6, Carson 6, Huckabee 7, Paul 6, Cruz 9, Christie 2, Kasich 1, Perry 2, Fiorina 1, Santorum 2, Jindal 2, Graham 0 Bush +2
Thursday, July 9
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus KBUR/WAA Walker 18, Bush 12, Trump 7, Paul 10, Carson 5, Huckabee 10, Cruz 8, Rubio 9, Santorum 4, Perry 4, Fiorina 3, Christie 5, Jindal 2, Kasich 1, Graham Walker +6
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus KBUR/WAA Clinton 63, Sanders 20, Biden, O’Malley 5, Webb 3, Chafee 1 Clinton +43
Wednesday, July 8
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
North Carolina Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Trump 16, Walker 12, Bush 12, Huckabee 11, Rubio 9, Carson 9, Paul 7, Cruz 6, Christie 5, Fiorina 4, Perry 2, Santorum 1 Trump +4
North Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Clinton 55, Sanders 20, Biden, Webb 7, O’Malley 4, Chafee 4 Clinton +35
North Carolina: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Bush 43, Clinton 45 Clinton +2
North Carolina: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Walker 47, Clinton 43 Walker +4
North Carolina: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Rubio 47, Clinton 46 Rubio +1
North Carolina: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Paul 46, Clinton 45 Paul +1
North Carolina: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Huckabee 49, Clinton 45 Huckabee +4
North Carolina: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Cruz 46, Clinton 47 Clinton +1
North Carolina: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Carson 47, Clinton 44 Carson +3
North Carolina: Trump vs. Clinton PPP (D) Trump 44, Clinton 47 Clinton +3

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

Donald Trump Continues His Rise – MORNING JOE 7/27/15

Full Speech: Donald Trump Speaks To Border Patrol and Police In Laredo, TX

What Pisses Me Off About Donald Trump and John McCain

Donald Trump FULL Press Conference In Laredo, TX at U.S./Mexico Border (7-23-15)

Ann Coulter Defends Donald Trump: ‘Midgets’ Are Attacking ‘Flip Remark’ of John McCain ‘No Hero’

O’Reilly Confronts Donald Trump over McCain ‘No Hero’ Remarks: ‘You Picked the Wrong Guy’

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Donald Trump is a ‘jackass’

Mark Levin weighs in on Trump’s McCain comments: WHO GIVES A CRAP?!

Obama Administration creating secret ‘race database?’

Big Brother Barack Wants You In A Race Database

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump Should Never Apologize

Donald Trump’s Poll Numbers DOUBLE Jeb Bush’s

Donald Trump Breaks Lindsey Graham Like a Boy

Bill O’Reilly Donald Trump Interview. Trump Slams GOP Field: I Don’t Have a Lot of Respect for …

Laura Wilkerson on Donald Trump, “Whether you love him or you don’t, I felt heard.” (C-SPAN)

Jim Steinle, on death of his daughter Kathryn Steinle, before Senate Judiciary Cmte (C-SPAN)

Sen. Cruz: I am proud to stand with Donald Trump

Rand Paul Talks About Sanctuary Cities and Immigration – Fox News: On the Record

Donald Trump: ‘I Will Win The Latino Vote’ (Full Interview) | NBC News

Limbaugh: Trump Announcement “Riveting”; Message will Resonate; Think Perot

Ann Coulter: I Hope Donald Trump Is Serious

Illegal Immigrants, Crime And The Media Laura Ingraham O’Reilly Talking Point Wake Up America!

Donald Trump to Laura Ingraham: I want you to say more positive things about me

Laura Ingraham – Analysis of illegal immigrants crossing the border

The Laura Ingraham Show – Donald Trump on abortion and cutting spending

From the Desk of Donald Trump: Major Announcement

• Donald Trump on Iran, Illegals, Trade, Jobs, and More • Hannity • 7/15/15 •

Donald Trump Interview with Anderson Cooper on “AC360” (July 8, 2015)

Donald Trump flirting with third-party candidacy

Jon Stewart Destroys Donald Trump – ‘Our First Openly Asshole President”

Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform

Partnership for a New American Economy Launches on Fox & Friends

Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch on solving immigration reform

Bill Gates Asks Senate For Infinite Number Of H 1B Visas

Ted Cruz’ solution to Obama’s illegal actions on immigration

Sen. Cruz Amendment to Immigration Legislation to Increase H-1B Visas

Sen Ted Cruz Wants to DOUBLE Immigration

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Newsmax Prime | Roy Beck discusses the GOP presidential contenders’ stance on immigration

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

Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007.

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

Elvis Presley – Return To Sender [Video]

Donald Trump makes a Texas-size splash with visit to Mexican border

By James Hohmann July 23 at 8:05 PM
LAREDO, Tex. — A defiant Donald Trump, visiting the U.S. border with Mexico here Thursday, said again that he will not apologize for his hard-line rhetoric on illegal immigration or back away from his plan to build a fence between the two nations.

During a whirlwind visit — it was less than three hours from when his jet touched down to when it took off — Trump blazed around in a presidential-style motorcade that included seven SUVs and even more police cars. Local officers blocked off roads, including Interstate 35, for Trump’s entourage.

The Republican presidential candidate, leading the GOP field in national polls but increasingly under fire from the establishment wing of his party, said repeatedly that he had been told he would be in “great danger” if he visited this town of 236,000 in southern Texas — even though Laredo, which is roughly 96 percent Hispanic, has a significantly lower murder rate than Trump’s home town of New York City. He would not say who had told him that he was at risk.

[What the world thinks about America’s infatuation with Donald Trump]

At the World Trade Bridge, where a long line of 18-wheelers queued up to enter the United States, Trump spent half an hour meeting with local leaders — none of whom seemed eager to endorse his signature prescription for border security.

Speaking to reporters after the meeting, with the crossing as a backdrop, Laredo City Manager Jesus Olivares said the border fence Trump has been calling for was not on their list of priorities.

“We don’t think that’s necessary at this time,” he replied, with Trump looking on.

Asked whether that opinion would have an impact on his own, Trump said nothing had changed: “Not at all. . . . In certain sections, we have to have a wall.”

On a windy day with temperatures over 100 degrees, Trump wore a blazer, white dress shoes and a white ball cap emblazoned with his campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again.”

[Poll: Trump surges to big lead in GOP presidential race]

At every stop, his visit seemed to draw more journalists than locals. More than 100 reporters, with multiple camera crews in tow, chased after the former “Apprentice” star as soon as his jet touched down in Laredo, packing two charter buses for the drive to the border.
Border Patrol agents who had been slated to lead the tour backed out Thursday morning, citing the appearance of politicization. Trump accused unnamed officials in Washington of trying to silence them.

[Photos: Cutting ties with Trump: Who has dumped him and why]

After his visit to the border, Trump stopped briefly to speak to a few dozen plainclothes Border Patrol agents and others in local law enforcement. He got a raucous reception, especially when he said that he would give agents more leeway to do their jobs if elected. He declined to elaborate on what that might mean.

Luis Villegas, a 28-year-old Border Patrol agent who said he has been on the force for eight years, cheered Trump loudly. He said he has never been politically active but has been galvanized by the mogul’s stance on immigration. “I believe in what he’s throwing out there,” Villegas said.

Trump, meanwhile, took another shot at former Texas governor Rick Perry in his home state, calling him a “terrible” governor. “I’m not even sure he honestly understands what [border security] means,” he said.

Perry, another GOP presidential contender, on Wednesday called Trump “a cancer on conservatism.” The former governor’s campaign made surrogates available Thursday to defend his record on border security as Perry issued another scathing statement slamming Trump.

“As a known employer of illegal immigrant labor, Donald Trump’s record on border security is non-existent at best and a farce at worst,” Perry said. “It’s going to take more than a day trip for him to convince the American people he is anything but a hypocrite when it comes to border security.”

About 50 Hispanic activists — a few waving Mexican flags — protested outside the terminal where Trump’s private jet landed, pointing to his controversial remarks last month that many Mexicans who come to the United States are drug dealers or rapists.

“The criminal element sells newspapers, but for every one of those there are hundreds of good Mexican nationals that . . . just want to work,” said Jose Gonzalez, 67, a retired firefighter who was among the protesters.

Trump responded to questions about whether he should apologize for his remarks by saying again that he employs thousands of Hispanics, and that they “love” him.
“They were chanting for me at the airport,” he said.

“There were plenty chanting against you,” a reporter yelled back during his news conference.

“I didn’t see them,” Trump said.

A few minutes later, another reporter asked why the magnate would not apologize to the Hispanics he has offended.

“They weren’t insulted,” Trump said, “because the press misinterprets my words.”

Trump ducked when asked what he would do with the 11 million undocumented immigrants estimated to be in the United States.

“The first thing is to secure our borders,” he said, “and after that we’ll have plenty of time to talk about it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-makes-a-texas-size-splash-with-visit-to-mexican-border/2015/07/23/277670c8-316b-11e5-8353-1215475949f4_story.html

CAUGHT ON CAMERA: ILLEGALS SMUGGLE DRUGS INTO LAREDO BEFORE TRUMP VISIT
Shock footage validates Trump’s assertion on Mexicans bringing drugs into America

by PAUL JOSEPH WATSON | JULY 23, 2015
Share on Facebook5571Tweet about this on Twitter550Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page
As Donald Trump prepared to arrive in Laredo for a tour of the US border, Infowars captured astounding footage which shows illegals sneaking across the Rio Grande river before they frantically throw huge bags of drugs into a vehicle and swim back to Mexico.

Infowars reporters Joe Biggs and Josh Owens traveled to Laredo to cover Trump’s highly publicized visit. While recording footage of the Rio Grande river, which forms part of the Mexico–US border, Owens spotted illegals crossing the water in the distance on rafts and began to film.

The clip then shows an individual holding open the trunk of a red Ford Explorer before four illegals frantically run up carrying huge packs of what are almost certainly drugs before quickly throwing them into the vehicle and fleeing back towards Mexico.
The vehicle then drives into America as one of the smugglers glances back towards Biggs and Owens.

Biggs and Owens immediately had to go into hiding and remove the license plates on their vehicle because they were spotted by the cartel during filming.

The footage validates Trump’s assertion, for which he has been vilified for weeks, that illegal immigrants are bringing drugs into the United States.

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” Trump said during his announcement that he would run for president. “They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.”

Trump was invited to visit the border by the National Border Patrol Council and will arrive in Laredo later today, although the participation of Border Patrol agents was subsequently canceled after the national AFL-CIO-controlled union intervened.

Mexican drug cartels make up to $29 billion annually from U.S. drug sales, with 90% of the cocaine that enters America transiting through Mexico. The majority of marijuana and methamphetamines that are sold in the U.S. also come from Mexico.

The footage illustrates the porous nature of the US border and how easy it would be for ISIS terrorists – who reportedly have set up training bases nearby, to bring militants, weapons and explosives into America.

http://www.infowars.com/caught-on-camera-illegals-smuggle-drugs-into-laredo-before-trump-visit/

List of Sanctuary cities

Sanctuary city is a name given to a city in the United States that follows certain procedures that shelters illegal immigrants. These procedures can be by law (de jure) or they can be by action (de facto). The term most commonly is used for cities that do not permit municipal funds or resources to be applied in furtherance of enforcement of federal immigration laws.  These cities normally do not permit police or municipal employees to inquire about one’s immigration status. The designation of Sanctuary City” has no legal meaning.

List of U.S. Sanctuary Cities* 

sactuary cities

Information obtained from* OJJPAC.ORG and DOWNTREND.com 

*Note: Not all listings have been independently confirmed by OJJPAC. If you believe a city should not be listed, please send an email, and OJJPAC will make note of the dispute and attempt to verify.  Adjacent dates represent when a city was added to the list, not necessarily when it became (or allegedly became) a sanctuary city. Other notations may indicate the source of information.  Cities without a date were added prior to May, 2007.  Some sanctuary cities may not have yet been identified and therefore not listed below.  You are encouraged to perform additional research regarding the status of your own community.  The presence of illegal aliens in a community does not necessarily indicate that a city supports illegal migration or is a “sanctuary city.”

Sometimes city councils pass actual ordinances (like San Francisco) banning police from asking questions about citizens’ residency status, other police departments have the equivalent of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” when it comes to immigration status.

Living in the Phoenix area (listed as a “sanctuary city,” by at least one group), I understand and sympathize with police concerns. If there’s a crime, you want cooperative residents – you need them – to help solve the crime. It’s a valid point.

But there must be an alternative to ignoring federal law. As I mentioned, Phoenix is listed as a sanctuary city … and so is Mesa and Tucson, but with the passage ofSB1070, you’d think that would put a halt to any of this. Maybe it simply put the unofficial “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” in place.

Note: This is the list, compiled by ojjpac.org.The notes adjoining to the cities are their own.  Ohio Jobs & Justice PAC.

Alaska

  • Anchorage, AK  (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service) (7-29-10 The Municipality of Anchorage disputes the listing. See notes at bottom of page for details.)
  • * (The city of Fairbanks has been removed from the Sanctuary Cities list due to the city council’s passage of a resolution supporting a formal recognition of its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency.  The city of Fairbanks had previously been listed due its designation as a sanctuary city by the Congressional Research Service.  OJJPAC thanks the City of Fairbanks for taking positive steps to clarify its compliance with federal law. Fairbanks enforcement statistics will be monitored for compliance.

Arizona

  • Chandler, AZ   (Added 5/30/07, Congressional Research Service Report, 2006 )
  • Mesa, AZ        (Added 10-18-09, Sources: Judicial Watch; East Valley Tribune article,1-4-2008)*
  • Phoenix, AZ
  • Tucson, A Z    (Added 11-12-07, Source: 11-11-07 story by Brady McCombs, Arizona Daily Star. See note below.)

California

  • Bell Gardens, CA
  • City of Industry, CA
  • City of Commerce, CA
  • Coachella, CA       (Added 7-23-12, Source: La Voz de Aztlan. Passed in 2006 and existence supported by quotes in city’s 9-12-07 council meeting minutes.)
  • Cypress, CA
  • Davis CA
  • Downey, CA
  • Fresno, CA            (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Greenfield, CA    (Added 7-23-12, Source: Battle at the ballot box in Greenfield, Monterey County, The Herald, 6-1-12)
  • Lakewood, CA
  • Los Angeles, CA   (Congressional Research Service)
  • Long Beach, CA
  • Lynwood, CA
  • Maywood, CA
  • Montebello, CA
  • National City, CA
  • Norwalk, CA
  • Oakland, CA                 (Added 8-27-07. Source: 4/25/07 story by KCBS 740 AM. Link here.)
  • Paramount, CA
  • Pico Rivera, CA
  • Richmond, CA               (Added 11-5-09. Sources:  Mayor Gayle McLaughlin’s campaign website from 2004, 2006)
  • So. Gate, CA
  • San Bernardino, Ca.      (Added 6/7/07, reader submitted /  9/5/08 Listing disputed by the city administration* See addl.notes)
  • San Diego, CA              Sources: Congressional Research Service; SDPD chief endorses constoversial immigration bill, Fox-TV 5, 9-2-13
  • Santa Clara County, CA  (Added 11-29-10, source:  Forced into Immigration Enforcement, A County Considers Plan B, 10-21-10, Huffington Post.)
  • Santa Cruz, CA             (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
  • San Francisco, CA        (Congressional Research Service)
  • San Jose, CA                (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Santa Maria, CA           (11-18-08 Submitted research from local activist/ Listing disputed by the city administration)
  • Sonoma County, CA    (Congressional Research Service)
  • Vernon, CA
  • Watsonville, CA         (Added 5/30/07, documented by KSBW news)
  • Wilmington, CA

Colorado  

  •  Aurora, CO
  •  Commerce City, CO
  •  Denver, CO                     (Source: Congressional Research Service)
  •  Durango, CO                   (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  •  Federal Heights, CO
  •  Fort Collins, CO
  •  Lafayette, CO                 (Added 6/3/07, documented by reader)
  •  Thornton, CO
  •  Westminster, CO

Connecticut

  • Hartford, CT                     (Added 5/4/10.  Source: [Ordinance passed in 2008], NEWS 21 Blog, by Amy Crawford, Hartford, CT)
  • New Haven, CT                (Added 6/4/07.  Source: TV News 8: City council votes 25-1 to issue ID cards to illegal aliens)

Florida

  • DeLeon Springs, FL
  • Deltona, FL
  • Jupiter, FL  (Added 4-13-09. Previously on watch list.)
  • Lake Worth, FL  (Added 4-13-09.)
  • Miami, FL

Georgia

  • Dalton, GA        (Added 5/30/07. 6/18/07 Listing disputed by the City of Dalton, GA. City’s written policy requested, not received as of 1-28-12. )

Illinois

  • Chicago, IL        (Congressional Research Service)
  • Cicero, IL          (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Evanston, IL       (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Iowa

  • (See city watch list below)

Kansas

  • Wichita                (Source: Police department policy exposed after the death of Lola Jayne, KSN TV-3, 12-19-08)

        Louisiana

  • New Orleans, LA  (Source: Police department announced policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell”  by Police superintendent Warren Riley, WWL-TV; 9-9-09)

        Massachusetts

  • Cambridge, MA     (Source: Boston Globe. First passed resolution in 1985)
  • Chelsea, MA          (Added: 8-14-07 Source: Chelsea government website with text of sanctuary policy.)
  • Northampton, MA  (Added 6-20-12 Source: City of Northampton Resolution dated 8-18-2011.  Resolutionlimits cooperation with ICE but does not use the term “sanctuary.” )
  • Orleans, MA          (Added 6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Sommerville, MA   (Added 7-23-12 Original resolution passed in 1987, later repealed and replaced with Safe City Resolution. Source: Sommerville News Blog, 10-15-2007)
  • Springfield, MA      (Disputed)

Maine

  • Portland    (Added 5/31/07 Note: Maine resident reported that Portland city council passed sanctuary legislation)
  • State of Maine   (Added 5/31/07 Note: Governor of Maine initiated de facto protections for illegals by Executive Order in 2004)*

Maryland

  • Baltimore, MD               (Congressional Research Service)
  • Gaithersburg, MD
  • Mt. Rainier, MD        (Added 1-20-08, Source: The Washington D.C. Examiner, 1-19-08)
  • Montgomery County, MD  (Added 11-3-09, Source: Frederick County sheriff worried about MontCo gangs, The Washington D.C. Examiner, 11-2-09)
  • Takoma Park, MD      (Reported that City ordinance passed some 20 years ago; Congressional Research Service)

Michigan

  • Ann Arbor, MI      (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Detroit, MI            (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)

Minnesota

  • Austin, MN            (Added 11-1-11 Source: Protecting illegal immigrants to catch criminals, Star Tribune, 10-27-11)*
  • Minneapolis, MN    (Congressional Research Service)
  • St. Paul, MN
  • Worthington, MN   (Added 5-30-07 Note: This is where a Swift plant was raided by ICE in December, 2006)

New Jersey

  • Camden, NJ                (Added in 2007; latest source: Camden, Immigrant Haven?, By Lauren Feeney, City Paper, 7-16-08)
  • Fort Lee, NJ
  • Hightstown, NJ           (Added 5-30-07)
  • Jersey City, NJ
  • Newark, NJ                (Added 6-3-07)
  • North Bergen, NJ
  • Trenton, NJ
  • Union City, NJ
  • West New York, NJ

New Mexico

  • Albuquerque, NM            6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 8-14-07 KOB-TV 4 Eyewitness News report
  • Aztec, NM                       Added 5-8-10, Identified by CRS in 2006 report to Congress
  • Rio Ariba County, NM    6/13/07 Congressional Research Service
  • Santa Fe, NM                  6/13/07 Congressional Research Service; 1-26-12 AP story, Santa Fe Mayor David Coss opposes taking drivers licenses away from illegal aliens.

New York

  • Albany, NY                (Added 7-22-09 Source: Council adopts don’t ask policy, Times Union report by Jordan Carleo-Evangelist)
  • Bay Shore, NY
  • Brentwood, NY
  • Central Islip, NY
  • Farmingville, NY
  • New York City, NY
  • Riverhead, NY
  • Shirly/Mastic, NY
  • Spring Valley Village, NY  (Added 7-25-07)
  • Uniondale, NY
  • Westbury, NY

North Carolina

  • Carrboro, NC               (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)
  • Chapel Hill, NC            (Added 11-12-07 Source: Towns differ on illegal aliens by Patrick Winn, The News & Observer)
  • Charlotte, NC
  • Chatham County, NC    (Added 1-14-09 Source: Chatham rejects immigration program, The News & Observer; Chatham County Commissioners Board Minutes, 1-5–09)
  • Durham, NC                 (6/13/07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Raleigh
  • Winston-Salem

Ohio

  • Columbus, OH        (7/5/07 Source: 5/10/07 Columbus Dispatch article stating illegal aliens in misdemeanor cases are not reported to ICE)
  • Dayton, OH            (Added 1-11-10 Source:  Dayton Daily News story by Lucas Sullivan.  Police chief prohibits officers from asking about immigration status.
  • Lima, OH                    (Added 10-28-08 Note:  City administration opposes County Sheriff’s efforts to remove illegal aliens.)
  • Lorain, OH             (Added 4-21-14 Source:  Lorain Police Chief Celestino Rivera has ordered (by written policy) his officers not to cooperate with ICE)
  • Oberlin, OH           (Added 1-25-09. Source: City Resolution adopted January 20, 2009)
  • Painesville, OH        (7-19-07 Source: 7-18-07 Cleveland Scene article)

Oklahoma

  • Oklahoma City         (de facto)
  • Tulsa                        (6-3-07 Note: Tulsa city council is discussing changing its sanctuary policy.  8-15-10 Update:  See note below.)

Oregon

  • Ashland, OR               (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Gaston, OR                (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Marion County, OR    (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Multnomah County, OR  (Added 11-9-13 Source: Sheriff’s office says ‘no’ to ICE, By Kirsten Lock, Fox TV-12, 4-25-13)
  • Portland, OR
  • State of Oregon *       (8-9-07 Congressional Research Service)  *(See note below)

Pennsylvania

  • Allentown, PA (Rescinded)  7-23-12 Note: Allentown city council passed a sanctuary resolution in 1986 but voted 4-3 to rescind it in 1991.
  • Philadelphia, PA*          (7-15-10 Source: Mayor Nutter’s, November, 2009 Executive order: Policy Concerning Access of Immigrants to City Services .)
  • Pittsburgh, PA  (Added 5-29-14 Source: Pittsburg Post Gazette: Pittsburg launches effort to woo more immigrants, 5-29-14)

Rhode Island

  • Providence         (Added 5-17-11 Source: Providence wants to opt out of ‘Secure Communities’ database, by Gregory Smith, Providence Journal, 2-23-11).

Texas

  • Austin, TX                (Congressional Research Service)
  • Baytown, TX            (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
  • Brownsville, TX
  • Channelview, TX      (6-13-07 Local reader observation)
  • Denton, TX
  • Dallas, TX
  • El Cenizo, TX          (6-13-07 Congressional Research Service)
  • Ft.Worth, TX
  • Houston, TX            (Congressional Research Service)
  • Katy, TX                 (Congressional Research Service)
  • Laredo, TX
  • Mcallen, TX
  • Port Arthur, TX          (6-13-07 Reader/resident observation)

Utah

  • State of Utah                (Added 5-15-11  Source:  Utah Approves Guest Worker Program for Illegal Immigrants, ABC New, 5-7-11)
  • Provo, UT*                (* 8-27-2010  The current administration in Provo Utah contacted OJJPAC earlier this month and indicated that it has no desire to be a sanctuary city.                                     *5-16-11Update: Pending removal of Provo, UT from list upon verification of city’s participation/cooperation in enforcement of immigration laws.)

Virginia

  • Alexandria, VA*            (Added 10-6-08,  Source: City Resolution No. 2246 adopted 10-9-07)
  • Fairfax County, VA
  • Virginia Beach, VA         (Added 6/3/07)

        Vermont

  • Burlington, VT            (Added 5-14-09  Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
  • Middlebury, VT          (Added 5-14-09  Source: 5-13-09 Associated Press story by Wilson Ring)
  • State of Vermont*        (Added 11-29-10  Source: 11-21-10 Vermont AG proposes bias-free policing policy, Burlington Free Press)

        Washington 

  • King Co. Council, WA     (Added as a de facto sanctuary on 6-28-09 Source: The Seattle Times; and on 11-9-09 Ordinance passed)
  • Seattle, WA                      (Added 5/30/07; Congressional Research Service)
  • Spokane, WA                   (Added 6-22-15; City Council passed Ordinances C35164 and C-35167)

Wisconsin

  • Madison, WI                    (Congressional Research Service)  Update: In June, 2010, the city council passed a resolution reaffirming its policy.
  • Millwaukee County, WI    (Added 6-10-12 Source article: County Board Resolution on Immigration on target, Opinion, Journal Sentinel News., 6-9-12)

Wyoming

  • Jackson Hole, WY

Washington, D.C.         (Update: The Washington D. C. city council has voted to prohibit its police department from participating in the Secure Communities program in July, 2010 according to an AP story by Ivan Moreno dated 7-26-10;   10-19-11 D.C. Examiner story which states that Mayor Vincent Gray signed an order prohibiting the city’s police dept. from inquiring about a person’s immigration status.

http://www.apsanlaw.com/law-246.List-of-Sanctuary-cities.html

EXCLUSIVE DETAILS: DONALD TRUMP HEADING TO TEXAS BORDER

Richmond Times-Dispatch via AP

Breitbart Texas has learned that 2016 Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump is heading to the Texas-Mexico border to get a firsthand look at the current border security situation. Trump is expected to meet with Border Patrol agents of the Laredo Sector.

“We look forward to giving Mr. Trump a boots on the ground perspective on the Laredo Sector of the Texas-Mexico Border,” said National Border Patrol Council, Local 2455 President Hector Garza. “Mr. Trump is expected to be in Laredo later in the week.”

Garza told Breitbart Texas that following the border tour, Trump will have a town hall style meeting where law enforcement officers will be invited to provide feedback on their perspective of the border situation.

Breitbart Texas Managing Director Brandon Darby worked with Agent Garza to prepare for Trump’s border tour. “It is of utmost importance that possible future leaders of our country visit the border region, especially the Laredo Sector. Most Texans and other Americans hear that the Texas border was secured, but it wasn’t. The Rio Grande Valley Sector was supplemented with manpower from the State of Texas, but that mostly stopped where that sector ended and the Laredo Sector begins.” Darby added, “Mr. Trump will learn firsthand of the many holes and vulnerabilities that the Los Zetas cartel exploits to enter Texas and oppress their victims. We will keep the details of Mr. Trump’s intended visit private at this time.”

Agent Garza added, “Breitbart Texas has been instrumental in making sure that the voices and experiences of Border Patrol agents in the Laredo Sector have been heard. We appreciate Mr. Trump and anyone else with such a platform who takes the time to hear what we are experiencing and seeing at the border. We assure you that the reality is far different from what the federal government is telling the public.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/07/21/exclusive-details-donald-trump-heading-to-texas-border/

DOES YOUR FAVORITE PRESIDENTIAL HOPEFUL HAVE A LOUSY IMMIGRATION GRADE? DON’T BLAME US.

Roy Beck's Picture

UPDATED:

Mon, MAY 25th 2015 @ 4:20 pm EDT by  Roy Beck

We will very soon be posting our every-four-year Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Grade Cards on the 20 candidates who are polling at 1% or higher.

And we will update their ratings and grades every week until the 2016 election is held.

Every election cycle, we get hammered by people who think we have gone too hard on their favorite candidate and too easy on a competitor. But we are transparent, providing all the statements and actions (plus citations) that we use to rate each Hopeful.

It’s possible that the candidate you like the best right now may be fantastic on immigration.

But most of the candidates really ARE pretty awful with their current policy stands.

This cycle, we are placing all weight on how each Hopeful’s immigration stances would affect American workers’ jobs and wages by changing the supply of competing workers. We’re calling the ratings:

2016 Presidential Hopefuls
WORKER-PROTECTION IMMIGRATION GRADE CARDS

We are rating each Hopeful in 10 different immigration categories:

  • Mandate E-Verify Plus
  • Prevent Illegal Border Entries & Surges
  • Implement Enforcement Mandated by Congress
  • Finish Entry-Exit System to Track Visa Overstays
  • End Automatic Birthright Citizenship
  • Oppose Work Permits for Illegal Immigrants
  • Support Overall Reduction in Annual Immigration
  • End Chain Migration
  • Protect Against Unfair Work Visa Competition
  • End Visa Lottery

And we will give each an overall letter grade.

The likelihood is that the hopeful you like best (for all kinds of reasons) is pretty bad overall on immigration policy.

The good news is that we will recalculate ratings and grades every week. So, your response should be to put the pressure on the staffs of your favored candidates to learn more about the issues and modify their stances to be in the national interest.

We’ll also depend on you to look over the statements and actions we are using to calculate each rating and to let us know something that we have missed that could change our rating.

For several election cycles, NumbersUSA’s Presidential Hopefuls Immigration Grade Cards have been the most cited measure of candidate immigration stances in the news media. In every cycle, we have seen most candidates get better as the campaign progresses and we are able to raise their grades.

We take very seriously our role as the primary source for how the candidates compare with each other on many different aspects of immigration policy. We are always thankful to all of you who help us get it right. Keep in mind that, when we give our best grade to a candidate, we are not giving an endorsement. But we ARE telling you which candidates are the very best on this issue.

20 candidates.
10 category ratings for each.
200 sections of quotes and citations to measure the Hopefuls on the myriad nuances of the immigration policies that have so much effect on the ability of America’s wage-earners and their families to live lives of dignity.

ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA

Tags:  
2016 elections
NumbersUSA’s blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

578++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

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

The Pronk Pops Show 421, February 20, 2015, Story 3: The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Posted on February 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Applications, Banking System, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Computers, Constitutional Law, Culture, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Hardware, History, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Public Sector Unions, Regulation, Resources, Social Science, Software, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

 Story 3: The Hostile Takeover Of The Internet by Obama — More Taxes, More Regulation, More Control of Freedom of Speech, More Government Intervention into Business — Abolish The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — Do Not Mess With The Internet — Videos

Sen Ted Cruz (RTX) Warns Of “Obamacare For The Internet” – Net Neutrality – America’s Newsroom

Coming Soon: The Department of the Internet

The Negative Consequences of Net Neutrality Explained in 2 Minutes

Net Neutrality Neuters the Internet

The Truth About Net Neutrality

Advocates say that Net Neutrality means guaranteeing free speech on the Internet. Without it, big telecoms could control what you see and how you see it. But what is the truth about Net Neutrality?

2:00 – Brief Technical Introduction
9:20 – Major Concerns
14:53 – Monopoly History
35:57 – ISP Foul Play
48:05 – Event Timeline
1:02:08 – FCC Corruption
1:09:36 – Conclusions

Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/net-neutrality

 

Blackburn to Continue Fight Against FCC Net Neutrality in 114th Congress

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Net Neutrality (HBO)

Judge Napolitano: Orwellian ‘Net Neutrality’ Anything But Neutral

Mark Cuban: ‘Net Neutrality Is Dumbest Stuff Ever’ | CNBC

Net Neutrality: What’s the Libertarian Position?

[236] Henderson: ‘Net Neutrality won’t work’; Ebeling: ‘The Fed distorts resource allocation’

Obama’s Net Neutrality Plan: Techno Control Grid

What is Net Neutrality In 60 seconds

Net Neutrality as Fast As Possible

Net Neutrality – A Slow but Sure Assault to Takeover the Internet

Net Neutrality: Is the Internet a Public Utility? | Idea Channel | PBS Digital Studios

Will Net Neutrality Save the Internet?

NET NEUTRALITY: Blackburn Discusses on Glenn Beck Program

The Fallacy of Net Neutrality: Thomas Hazlett on the FCC & Consumer Protection

“I’m very confident a hundred years from now we won’t have an FCC,” says Thomas Hazlett, Reason contributor and George Mason economics professor.

Internet service providers are coming under scrutiny from both the FCC and net neutrality supporters who want to ensure unrestricted consumer access to the Web. However, Hazlett points out that the fear over ISPs limiting Web content is unfounded and government “has no idea what the optimal business model is” to effectively regulate.

Hazlett sat down with Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie to discuss net neutrality, the Internet, and and his Encounters Broadside book “The Fallacy of Net Neutrality.”

Hank vs. Hank: The Net Neutrality Debate in 3 Minutes

On Net Neutrality, Time to Regulate the Regulators

by THE EDITORS

The Federal Communications Commission’s decision to effectively convert broadband Internet providers into regulated utility companies, stifling both technological innovation and consumer choice, is the latest example of the footrace dynamic that will dominate national domestic politics from now until January 2016: The Obama administration — or one of its purportedly independent enablers in the FCC and other federal agencies — announces sweeping and unilateral regulatory change, and the Republican-controlled legislative branch hustles to outmaneuver it. Given the respective timelines involved in executive fiat and lawmaking, the administration will almost always have a head start — but that should not stop Congress from catching up as quickly as possible.

At issue here is the question of “net neutrality,” an increasingly elastic term describing how an Internet service provider (ISP) treats any given packet of data moving through its network. On one side of the ideological divide, partisans of “neutrality” insist that every packet be treated in precisely the same way as every other packet, that none be given priority. On the other side is reality, in which the bandwidth demands of sending an e-mail from a home computer are different from those of streaming live video to a wireless device. That Netflix, for example, should be permitted to pay an Internet service provider to fast-lane its videos is, for the ideological neutralists, the first step toward another one of those science-fiction corporate dystopias that the anti-capitalists keep promising us, in this case one in which every Internet service provider becomes a “walled garden” in which consumers are hostage to the self-interested caprices of their ISPs, and therefore customers of an ISP that has an arrangement with Facebook might be relegated to pokey service when trying to use Instagram — or be blocked entirely from accessing certain Facebook competitors.

Internet users will notice that that hasn’t happened, and hasn’t shown any likelihood of happening, despite the absence of FCC regulations forbidding it. Even in the settings that most resemble “walled gardens” — for example, in-flight Internet services that do allow providers to enjoy absolute monopoly, for the duration of the flight at least — the trend has been in the opposite direction: When consumers made it clear that they were annoyed by Gogo’s unwillingness to support YouTube and streaming-video services, new products (notably services provided by the airlines themselves) came into the market to meet consumers’ demand for being able to while away that ORD–JFK segment watching funny cat videos.

The FCC’s move, then, is a typical federal regulatory enterprise: a non-solution to a non-problem.

While mainly motivated by a naïve ideological enthusiasm, net-neutrality activists fear, not without some reason, that the dominant operating model for ISPs will be something like that of cable-television providers. (Indeed, many cable-television providers are ISPs.) Specifically, they fear that ISPs will come to resemble cable companies circa 2010. The irony there is that it is the Internet itself — without any enabling regulation from the FCC — that has provided the beginnings of a solution to the problem of the general awfulness of the American cable company, with gleeful “cord-cutters” replacing their cable services with AppleTV, Hulu, and the like.

Neutrality as an operating principle has largely prevailed among ISPs in the absence of a federal mandate largely because consumers like it that way. But consumers may not always like it that way: For example, those who want faster service for downloading movies at the moment are largely restricted to paying for faster service across the board rather than paying for faster service when they want faster service — imagine the FAA’s insisting that if customers want to fly first-class on one trip, they have to fly first-class all the time. The FCC’s new rules are not aimed at preserving the effective neutrality that prevails today — they are ideologically informed measures aimed at preventing innovations in the marketplace that consumers might prefer to the current model.

To accomplish this, the FCC is reclassifying broadband providers as “telecommunication services” under Title II of the Communications Act . . . of 1934. The FCC’s recourse to a law passed during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt should give us all an idea about the sort of cutting-edge thinking that is at work here.

There is much that is unnecessary in these rules. For example, the regulation against blocking access to lawful websites addresses a situation that is largely unknown. (Some providers that serve customers of businesses open to the public do block pornographic sites, which does not seem unreasonable.) Likewise, the call for greater transparency in protocols speaks to a desirable end, though one that is hardly crying out for federal intervention.

On the other hand, the ban on creating “fast lanes” for services that would benefit from them forecloses what might be a fruitful avenue of innovation. More worrisome still is the vast, open-ended powers that federal regulators have granted themselves: The FCC has — with no congressional mandate — just given itself a mandate to forbid anything that it believes to be other than “reasonable,” or anything it judges will “harm consumers or edge providers.” (“Edge providers” essentially means those who create or distribute content.) And, of course, there is cronyism: As Philip Elmer-DeWitt of Fortune reports, Internet-based pay-television services of the sort being contemplated by Sony (and possibly by Apple) would be specifically exempt from the fast-lane rules.

As an Internet-based concern, National Review Online has a strong preference for an open, rambling, largely unregulated Internet. We believe that intense FCC oversight is as likely to undermine those freewheeling ways and “permissionless innovation” as to preserve them — look at any other industry in which the FCC stands athwart commerce. There are measures that can and should be taken to increase competition among ISPs, and, as Julian Sanchez of Cato points out, in the event of truly cumbrous and destructive collusions between ISPs and content providers, then the prudent response would be case-by-case intervention carried out by the Federal Trade Commission rather than preemptive blanket regulation by the FCC. It takes a certain kind of crackedness to believe that “free and open” and “under heavy federal regulation” are synonymous.

Congress has the authority to legally limit the FCC’s ambitions in this matter, and it should do so, even though such efforts would probably run into an Obama veto. That’s a fight worth having. It is high time to regulate the regulators and remind the bureaucrats who in this republic is in fact empowered to make law. Likewise, Jason Chaffetz’s initiation of an Oversight Committee investigation into whether the White House improperly colluded with the FCC in formulating these new rules is to be encouraged — if only for the potential amusement in learning whether improper collusion was instrumental in this crusade against improper collusion.

Far from being dysfunctional, the Internet is one of the critical aspects of life in these United States, one that is brilliantly functional and wonderfully innovative in no small part because of the laissez-faire approach that government has historically taken toward it. Why anybody would want to make it more like a utility company is a mystery — unless one appreciates that, for those suffering from a certain progressive inclination, federal regulation is thought to be desirable in and of itself, and that the freewheeling ways of the Internet are a standing rebuke to those who would regiment and regulate practically every aspect of life.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/398227/net-neutrality-time-regulate-regulators-editors

Republican lawmakers investigate White House net neutrality push

Congressional Republicans are demanding to know how much the White House influenced the Federal Communications Commission while the agency crafted net neutrality rules.
The FCC has until Monday afternoon to produce unredacted email messages, focused on net neutrality rules, between FCC staff and officials with the Obama administration, U.S. Rep. Jason Chaffetz said in a letter to the FCC Friday. The Utah Republican is chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Chaffetz’s committee is “investigating the potential involvement of the White House” in the creation of proposed net neutrality rules that the FCC is scheduled to vote on next Thursday, he said in the letter. FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler will propose regulations that would reclassify broadband as a regulated telecommunications service instead of a lightly regulated information service.

An FCC spokeswoman didn’t immediately respond to a request for a comment on Chaffetz’s letter.

Several congressional Republicans have accused the White House of improperly influencing the FCC net-neutrality rule-making process, after Obama called on the agency to reclassify broadband as a regulated public utility in November. Wheeler appeared to change his position and embrace that idea after the president urged the independent agency to do so, critics have said.
But U.S. presidential administrations have repeatedly weighed in on FCC proceedings during the past 30-plus years, net neutrality advocate Public Knowledge has noted.

Chaffetz’s letter to the FCC came just two days after Republican leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee told Wheeler they were expanding an investigation into agency rule-making processes.

The Energy and Commerce Committee’s probe covers a wide range of FCC process concerns beyond net neutrality, but new reports detailing White House contact with the FCC on net neutrality raise “additional concerns about whether the commission is managing its affairs with the independence and openness required by its mandate,” committee leaders said in a Wednesday letter to Wheeler.

Republican concerns about Obama administration influence over the FCC were fueled by a Feb. 4 Wall Street Journal report saying the White House last year had set up a “parallel version of the FCC” to push for regulation of broadband providers.

Chaffetz’s letter asks for specific email messages sent by Obama administration officials to the FCC in April. On Friday, Vice.com published an exchange between administration officials and FCC staff that the website obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request.

http://www.computerworld.com/article/2886968/republican-lawmakers-investigate-white-house-net-neutrality-push.html

 

GOP, tech industry mostly out of step over net neutrality issue

By NOAH BIERMAN AND EVAN HALPER contact the reporters Politics and Government U.S. Congress Federal Communications Commission John Thune Ted Cruz Rand Paul

  • Silicon Valley executives and activists are increasingly irritated by the feeling the GOP is not on their side
  • GOP lawmakers argue that FCC net neutrality proposal amounts to a government takeover of the Web
  • GOP lawmakers in Congress are unified in opposition to the administration approach on net neutrality

Thee intensifying debate over how to keep the Internet open and ripe for innovation has heightened tensions between Republican congressional leaders and tech entrepreneurs they have been trying to woo.

As tech firms and cable companies prepare for a fight that each says will shape the future of the Internet, Silicon Valley executives and activists are growing increasingly irritated by the feeling that the GOP is not on their side.

Republican leaders have struggled to explain to their nascent allies in the Bay Area why they are working so hard to undermine a plan endorsed by the Obama administration to keep a level playing field in Internet innovation, enforcing what the administration and its allies call “net neutrality.”

FCC chief seeks to treat Web as public utility in net neutrality fight
Arguments from the GOP that the plan amounts to a government takeover of the Web — “Obamacare for the Internet,” as Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called it — are falling flat with many tech innovators.

“This is one of the most prominent moments in Internet freedom,” said Julie Samuels, executive director of Engine, a nonpartisan advocacy group that brings policymakers together with tech start-ups. “I don’t think any party can afford to be on the wrong side of this conversation.”

But Republicans, she said, are on the wrong side.

The Federal Communications Commission is expected to vote this month to adopt the net neutrality plan proposed last week by the panel’s chairman, Tom Wheeler. The plan would regulate Internet service providers, such as Comcast Corp. and AT&T Inc., as public utilities and would ban them from offering high-speed lanes to companies that pay more.

Republicans have promised to push legislation to overturn any such move, but most high-tech companies support it.

The fight comes at a time when Republicans had been making gains in Silicon Valley, a constituency of well-heeled donors and coveted millennial-generation voters who have generally been loyal to Democrats.

Prominent Republicans, including House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield), have taken members of Congress on listening tours of tech companies. Tech money has begun flowing into GOP campaign accounts. Presidential hopefuls, including Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), have made an aggressive case that the GOP better understands the values of privacy and freedom in the digital world.

GOP leaders had hoped to build on those gains at an event in Washington called Reboot Congress, which started Wednesday evening, where top Republican lawmakers plan to join Silicon Valley business leaders to discuss the future of the Internet.

Republicans have hoped to seize on recent Democratic policy moves that riled tech companies, including a push for strict anti-piracy rules and the Obama administration’s continued backing of National Security Agency surveillance of Internet users.
The FCC makes a breakthrough on net neutrality–but the battle isn’t over
But the hot issue in Silicon Valley now is net neutrality. And on that issue, the GOP and the tech industry are mostly out of step.

Republicans argue that intervention by a big government agency is the wrong approach to leveling the playing field for companies that depend on the Internet. That’s especially true now, as conservatives accuse Obama of a broad pattern of regulatory overreach in healthcare, the environment and immigration.

“As is often the case in Washington, those who want more power create the specter of a false threat that is not occurring in the marketplace today,” Cruz said in an interview in which he warned that new regulations could lead to new taxes and put a chill on innovation. “The power of regulation is like a camel’s nose under the tent,” he said.

In Congress, GOP lawmakers are unified in opposition to the administration approach.

That includes tech-savvy California Republicans such as Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista), who warns that the administration approach “will result in over-regulation and years of fruitless litigation.” McCarthy joined his House leadership colleagues in warning regulators that imposing net neutrality rules would “deter investment and stifle one of the brightest spots in our economy.”

Many Internet entrepreneurs disagree.

“The argument is a red herring,” said Corynne McSherry, intellectual property director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which fights alongside GOP lawmakers on privacy and surveillance issues but is helping lead the attack against them on net neutrality.

“Nobody is talking about wanting the Federal Communications Commission to regulate the Internet. That would be terrible,” McSherry said. “All they would be doing is putting in rules of the road for broadband providers.”

Republicans, she said, are essentially helping big corporations squeeze out innovation. “Politically, this is a real mistake,” she said.

It is unclear to what extent the issue will overshadow other Silicon Valley priorities. But it is certainly making the GOP a tougher sell.

“It is close to a litmus test,” said Paul Sieminski, a Republican who is the general counsel to Automattic, the company that operates Web-making tool WordPress.com.

“It’s such a fundamental issue for the Internet,” said Sieminski, who has been active in fighting for net neutrality. “I guess it is a proxy on where a candidate may stand on a lot of issues related to the Internet.”

The fight goes beyond wealthy entrepreneurs making or seeking their fortunes in start-up companies. Silicon Valley is adept at mobilizing consumers eager to protect what they see as a core value of the digital age.

The FCC received nearly 4 million comments on the net neutrality rules — most urging them to enforce stricter regulations — before Wheeler announced his proposal last week.

Groups such as Fight for the Future, whose donors include technology companies, said they have helped initiate tens of thousands of calls from their members to regulators and lawmakers using technology that bypasses switchboards.

Polls also showed overwhelming support for the concept that big carriers such as Verizon Communications Inc. and Comcast should not be allowed to charge more to companies that want a fast lane.

That may have propelled a shift among some Republicans, who once questioned the need for any new regulations.

Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) is proposing a bill that would let Congress, rather than regulators, set the terms for net neutrality. In establishing the concept, however, the measure also would take away the FCC’s authority to make any new regulations in the fast-changing broadband marketplace.

Thune and others frame their disagreement with Obama and federal regulators as one over process, asserting that Congress would better protect openness on the Internet yet avoid burdensome regulations.

“I worry that online innovators will be subject to the Mother-may-I system in which startups have to hire regulatory lawyers before they hire engineers,” Thune said Wednesday night as the Reboot conference began at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce headquarters in Washington.

Silicon Valley activists are unimpressed. They don’t trust the GOP-controlled Congress on this issue.

“They’re cynical attempts,” Evan Greer, campaign manager for Fight for the Future, said of the legislative proposals, “last-ditch efforts by cable lobbyists who know they’ve been beat in the court of public opinion.”

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-gop-tech-20150213-story.html#page=1

 

Net neutrality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Net neutrality (also network neutrality, Internet neutrality, or net equality) is the principle that Internet service providersand governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, site, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication. The term was coined by Columbia University media law professor Tim Wu in 2003 as an extension of the longstanding concept of a common carrier.[1][2][3][4]

There has been extensive debate about whether net neutrality should be required by law, particularly in the United States. Debate over the issue of net neutrality predates the coining of the term. Advocates of net neutrality such as Lawrence Lessighave raised concerns about the ability of broadband providers to use their last mile infrastructure to block Internet applications and content (e.g. websites, services, and protocols), and even to block out competitors[5]

Neutrality proponents claim that telecom companies seek to impose a tiered service model in order to control the pipeline and thereby remove competition, create artificial scarcity, and oblige subscribers to buy their otherwise uncompetitive services[citation needed]. Many believe net neutrality to be primarily important as a preservation of current freedoms.[6] Prominent supporters of net neutrality include Vinton Cerf, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, and Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web.[7][8]

Examples of net neutrality violations include when the internet service provider Comcast intentionally slowed peer-to-peercommunications.[9] In 2007, one other company was using deep packet inspection to discriminate against peer-to-peer, file transfer protocol, and online games, instituting a cell-phone style billing system of overages, free-to-telecom value added services, and bundling.[10] Critics of net neutrality argue that data discrimination is desirable for reasons like guaranteeingquality of service. Bob Kahn, co-inventor of the Internet Protocol, called the term net neutrality a slogan and opposes establishing it, but he admits that he is against the fragmentation of the net whenever this becomes excluding to other participants.[11] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]Adoption of this notion would reclassify internet service from one of information to one of telecommunications[17] and, according to Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, ensure net neutrality.[18][19] The Obama administration said that it would not let the public see its 332 page net neutrality plan until after the FCC voted on its implementation.[20]

Definition and related principle

Net neutrality

Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally.[21] According to Columbia Law School professor Tim Wu, the best way to explain network neutrality is as a principle to be used when designing a network: that a public information network will end up being most useful if all content, sites, and platforms are treated equally.[22] A more detailed proposed definition of technical and service network neutrality suggests that service network neutrality is the adherence to the paradigm that operation of a service at a certain layer is not influenced by any data other than the data interpreted at that layer, and in accordance with the protocol specification for that layer.[23]

Open Internet

The idea of an open Internet is the idea that the full resources of the Internet and means to operate on it are easily accessible to all individuals and companies. This often includes ideas such as net neutrality, open standards, transparency, lack of Internet censorship, and low barriers to entry. The concept of the open Internet is sometimes expressed as an expectation of decentralized technological power, and is seen by some as closely related to open-source software.[24]

Proponents often see net neutrality as an important component of an open internet, where policies such as equal treatment of data and open web standards allow those on the Internet to easily communicate and conduct business without interference from a third party.[25] A closed Internet refers to the opposite situation, in which established corporations or governments favor certain uses. A closed Internet may have restricted access to necessary web standards, artificially degradesome services, or explicitly filter out content.

Dumb pipe

Main article: Dumb pipe

The concept of a dumb network made up of dumb pipes has been around since at least the early 1990s. The idea of a dumb network is that the endpoints of a network are generally where the intelligence lies, and that the network itself generally leaves the management and operation of communication to the end users. In 2013 the software company MetroTech Net, Inc. (MTN) coined the term Dumb Wave which is the modern application of the Dumb Pipe concept to the ubiquitous wireless network. If wireless carriers do not provide unique and value added services, they will be relegated to the dumb pipe category where they can’t charge a premium or retain customers.

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

The end-to-end principle is a principle of network design, first laid out explicitly in the 1981 conference paper End-to-end arguments in system design by Jerome H. Saltzer, David P. Reed, and David D. Clark. The principle states that, whenever possible, communications protocol operations should be defined to occur at the end-points of a communications system, or as close as possible to the resource being controlled. According to the end-to-end principle, protocol features are only justified in the lower layers of a system if they are a performance optimization, hence, TCP retransmission for reliability is still justified, but efforts to improve TCP reliability should stop after peak performance has been reached. They argued that reliable systems tend to require end-to-end processing to operate correctly, in addition to any processing in the intermediate system. They pointed out that most features in the lowest level of a communications system have costs for all higher-layer clients, even if those clients do not need the features, and are redundant if the clients have to re-implement the features on an end-to-end basis. This leads to the model of a minimal dumb network with smart terminals, a completely different model from the previous paradigm of the smart network with dumb terminals. Because the end-to-end principle is one of the central design principles of the Internet, and because the practical means for implementing data discrimination violate the end-to-end principle, the principle often enters discussions about net neutrality. The end-to-end principle is closely related, and sometimes seen as a direct precursor to the principle of net neutrality.[26]

Traffic shaping

Main article: Traffic shaping

Traffic shaping is the control of computer network traffic in order to optimize or guarantee performance, improve latency, and/or increase usable bandwidth by delaying packets that meet certain criteria.[27] More specifically, traffic shaping is any action on a set of packets (often called a stream or a flow) which imposes additional delay on those packets such that they conform to some predetermined constraint (a contract or traffic profile).[28] Traffic shaping provides a means to control the volume of traffic being sent into a network in a specified period (bandwidth throttling), or the maximum rate at which the traffic is sent (rate limiting), or more complex criteria such as GCRA.

Over-provisioning

If the core of a network has more bandwidth than is permitted to enter at the edges, then good QoS can be obtained without policing. For example the telephone network employs admission control to limit user demand on the network core by refusing to create a circuit for the requested connection. Over-provisioning is a form of statistical multiplexing that makes liberal estimates of peak user demand. Over-provisioning is used in private networks such as WebEx and the Internet 2 Abilene Network, an American university network. David Isenberg believes that continued over-provisioning will always provide more capacity for less expense than QoS and deep packet inspection technologies.[29][30]

By issue

Discrimination by protocol

Favoring or blocking information based on the communications protocol that the computers are using to communicate.

On 1 August 2008, the FCC formally voted 3-to-2 to uphold a complaint against Comcast, the largest cable company in the United States, ruling that it had illegally inhibited users of its high-speed Internet service from using file-sharing software. FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin said that the order was meant to set a precedent that Internet providers, and indeed all communications companies, could not prevent customers from using their networks the way they see fit unless there is a good reason. In an interview, Martin said, “We are preserving the open character of the Internet”. The legal complaint against Comcast related to BitTorrent, a transfer protocol that is especially apt at distributing large files such as video, music, and software on the Internet.[31] Comcast admitted no wrongdoing[32] in its proposed settlement of up to US$16 dollars per share in December 2009.[33]

Discrimination by IP address

During the early decades of the Internet, creating a non-neutral Internet was technically infeasible.[34] Originally developed to filter malware, the Internet security company NetScreen Technologies released network firewalls in 2003 with so called deep packet inspection. Deep inspection helped make real-time discrimination between different kinds of data possible,[35] and is often used for internet censorship.

In a practice called zero-rating, companies will reimburse data use from certain addresses, favoring use of those services. Examples include Facebook Zero[36] and Google Free Zone, and are especially common in the developing world.[37]

Sometimes ISPs will charge some companies, but not others, for the traffic they cause on the ISP’s network. French telecoms operator Orange, complaining that traffic from YouTube and other Google sites consists of roughly 50% of total traffic on the Orange network, reached a deal with Google, in which they charge Google for the traffic incurred on the Orange network.[38] Some also thought that Orange’s rival ISP Free throttled YouTube traffic. However, an investigation done by the French telecommunications regulatory body revealed that the network was simply congested during peak hours.[39]

Favoring private networks

Favoring communications sent over the private networks run by individual organizations over information sent over the general Internet Protocol. Examples include Comcast’s deal with Xbox.[40]

Peering discrimination

See also: Peering

There is some disagreement about whether peering is a net neutrality issue.[41]

In the first quarter of 2014, streaming website Netflix reached an arrangement with ISP Comcast to improve the quality of its service to Netflix clients.[42] This arrangement was made in response to increasingly slow connection speeds through Comcast over the course of the 2013, where average speeds dropped by over 25% of their values a year before to an all time low. After the deal was struck in January 2014, the Netflix speed index recorded a 66% increase in connection.

Netflix agreed to a similar deal with Verizon in 2014 after Verizon DSL customers connection speed dropped to less than 1 Mbit/s early in the year. Netflix spoke out against this deal with a controversial statement delivered to all Verizon customers experiencing low connection speeds using the Netflix client.[43] This sparked an internal debate between the two companies that led to Verizon obtaining a cease and desist order on June 5, 2014 that forced Netflix to stop displaying this message.

Legal aspects

Main article: Net neutrality law

Legal enforcement of net neutrality principles takes a variety of forms, from provisions that outlaw anti-competitive blocking and throttling of Internet services, all the way to legal enforcement that prevents companies from subsidizing Internet use on particular sites.

Arguments for net neutrality

Proponents of net neutrality include consumer advocates, human rights organizations such as Article 19,[44] online companies and some technology companies.[45]Many major Internet application companies are advocates of neutrality. Yahoo!, Vonage,[46] eBay, Amazon,[47] IAC/InterActiveCorp. Microsoft, along with many other companies, have also taken a stance in support of neutrality regulation.[48] Cogent Communications, an international Internet service provider, has made an announcement in favor of certain net neutrality policies.[49] In 2008, Google published a statement speaking out against letting broadband providers abuse their market power to affect access to competing applications or content. They further equated the situation to that of the telephony market, where telephone companies are not allowed to control who their customers call or what those customers are allowed to say.[4] However, Google’s support of net neutrality has recently been called into question.[50]

Individuals who support net neutrality include Tim Berners-Lee,[51] Vinton Cerf,[52][53] Lawrence Lessig, Robert W. McChesney,[6] Steve Wozniak, Susan P. Crawford, Ben Scott, David Reed,[54] and U.S. President Barack Obama.[55][56] On November 10, 2014, President Obama recommended the FCC reclassify broadband Internet service as a telecommunications service in order to preserve net neutrality.[57][58][59] On November 12, 2014, AT&T stopped build-out of their fiber network until it has “solid net neutrality rules to follow”.[60] On 31 January 2015, AP News reported the FCC will present the notion of applying (“with some caveats”) Title II (common carrier) of the Communications Act of 1934 to the internet in a vote expected on 26 February 2015.[12][13][14][15][16]

Control of data

Supporters of network neutrality want to designate cable companies as common carriers, which would require them to allow Internet service providers (ISPs) free access to cable lines, the model used for dial-up Internet. They want to ensure that cable companies cannot screen, interrupt or filter Internet content without court order.[61] Common carrier status would give the FCC the power to enforce net neutrality rules.[62]

SaveTheInternet.com accuses cable and telecommunications companies of wanting the role of gatekeepers, being able to control which websites load quickly, load slowly, or don’t load at all. According to SaveTheInternet.com these companies want to charge content providers who require guaranteed speedy data delivery…to create advantages for their own search engines, Internet phone services, and streaming video services – and slowing access or blocking access to those of competitors.[63] Vinton Cerf, a co-inventor of the Internet Protocol and current vice president of Google argues that the Internet was designed without any authorities controlling access to new content or new services.[64] He concludes that the principles responsible for making the Internet such a success would be fundamentally undermined were broadband carriers given the ability to affect what people see and do online.[52]

Digital rights and freedoms

Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that net neutrality ensures that the Internet remains a free and open technology, fostering democratic communication. Lessig and McChesney go on to argue that the monopolization of the Internet would stifle the diversity of independent news sources and the generation of innovative and novel web content.[6]

User intolerance for slow-loading sites

Users with faster Internet connectivity (e.g., fiber) abandon a slow-loading video at a faster rate than users with slower Internet connectivity (e.g., cable or mobile).[65] A “fast lane” in the Internet can irrevocably decrease the user’s tolerance to the relative slowness of the “slow lane”.

Proponents of net neutrality invoke the human psychological process of adaptation where when people get used to something better, they would not ever want to go back to something worse. In the context of the Internet, the proponents argue that a user who gets used to the “fast lane” on the Internet would find the “slow lane” intolerable in comparison, greatly disadvantaging any provider who is unable to pay for the “fast lane”. Video providers Netflix[66] and Vimeo[67] in their comments to FCC in favor of net neutrality use the research[65] of S.S. Krishnan and Ramesh Sitaraman that provides the first quantitative evidence of adaptation to speed among online video users. Their research studied the patience level of millions of Internet video users who waited for a slow-loading video to start playing. Users who had a faster Internet connectivity, such as fiber-to-the-home, demonstrated less patience and abandoned their videos sooner than similar users with slower Internet connectivity. The results demonstrate how users can get used to faster Internet connectivity, leading to higher expectation of Internet speed, and lower tolerance for any delay that occurs. Author Nicholas Carr[68] and other social commentators[69][70] have written about the habituation phenomenon by stating that a faster flow of information on the Internet can make people less patient.

Competition and innovation

Net neutrality advocates argue that allowing cable companies the right to demand a toll to guarantee quality or premium delivery would create an exploitative business model based on the ISPs position as gatekeepers.[71] Advocates warn that by charging websites for access, network owners may be able to block competitor Web sites and services, as well as refuse access to those unable to pay.[6] According to Tim Wu, cable companies plan to reserve bandwidth for their own television services, and charge companies a toll for priority service.[72]

Proponents of net neutrality argue that allowing for preferential treatment of Internet traffic, or tiered service, would put newer online companies at a disadvantage and slow innovation in online services.[45] Tim Wu argues that, without network neutrality, the Internet will undergo a transformation from a market ruled by innovation to one ruled by deal-making.[72] SaveTheInternet.com argues that net neutrality puts everyone on equal terms, which helps drive innovation. They claim it is a preservation of the way the internet has always operated, where the quality of websites and services determined whether they succeeded or failed, rather than deals with ISPs.[63] Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney argue that eliminating net neutrality would lead to the Internet resembling the world of cable TV, so that access to and distribution of content would be managed by a handful of massive companies. These companies would then control what is seen as well as how much it costs to see it. Speedy and secure Internet use for such industries as health care, finance, retailing, and gambling could be subject to large fees charged by these companies. They further explain that a majority of the great innovators in the history of the Internet started with little capital in their garages, inspired by great ideas. This was possible because the protections of net neutrality ensured limited control by owners of the networks, maximal competition in this space, and permitted innovators from outside access to the network. Internet content was guaranteed a free and highly competitive space by the existence of net neutrality.[6]

Preserving Internet standards

Network neutrality advocates have sponsored legislation claiming that authorizing incumbent network providers to override transport and application layer separation on the Internet would signal the decline of fundamental Internet standards and international consensus authority. Further, the legislation asserts that bit-shaping the transport of application data will undermine the transport layer’s designed flexibility.[73]

Preventing pseudo-services

Alok Bhardwaj argues that any violations to network neutrality, realistically speaking, will not involve genuine investment but rather payoffs for unnecessary and dubious services. He believes that it is unlikely that new investment will be made to lay special networks for particular websites to reach end-users faster. Rather, he believes that non-net neutrality will involve leveraging quality of service to extract remuneration from websites that want to avoid being slowed down.[74]

End-to-end principle

Main article: End-to-end principle

Some advocates say network neutrality is needed in order to maintain the end-to-end principle. According to Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney, all content must be treated the same and must move at the same speed in order for net neutrality to be true. They say that it is this simple but brilliant end-to-end aspect that has allowed the Internet to act as a powerful force for economic and social good.[6] Under this principle, a neutral network is a dumb network, merely passing packets regardless of the applications they support. This point of view was expressed by David S. Isenberg in his paper, “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. He states that the vision of an intelligent network is being replaced by a new network philosophy and architecture in which the network is designed for always-on use, not intermittence and scarcity. Rather than intelligence being designed into the network itself, the intelligence would be pushed out to the end-user’s device; and the network would be designed simply to deliver bits without fancy network routing or smart number translation. The data would be in control, telling the network where it should be sent. End-user devices would then be allowed to behave flexibly, as bits would essentially be free and there would be no assumption that the data is of a single data rate or data type.[75]

Contrary to this idea, the research paper titled End-to-end arguments in system design by Saltzer, Reed, and Clark[76] argues that network intelligence doesn’t relieve end systems of the requirement to check inbound data for errors and to rate-limit the sender, nor for a wholesale removal of intelligence from the network core.

Arguments against net neutrality

Opposition includes the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the Goldwater Institute, Americans for Tax Reform, and the Ayn Rand Institute. Opponents of net neutrality include hardware companies and members of the cable and telecommunications industries, including major telecommunications providers, such as Comcast and AT&T.[77]

A number of these opponents created a website called Hands Off The Internet[78] (which no longer exists) to promote their arguments against net neutrality. Principal financial support for the website came from AT&T, and members included technology firms and pro-market advocacy group Citizens Against Government Waste.[79][80][81][82]

Network neutrality regulations are opposed by Internet engineers such as professor David Farber[83] and TCP inventor and Qualcomm Director[84] Bob Kahn.[11]Robert Pepper is senior managing director, global advanced technology policy, at Cisco Systems, and is the former FCC chief of policy development. He says: “The supporters of net neutrality regulation believe that more rules are necessary. In their view, without greater regulation, service providers might parcel out bandwidth or services, creating a bifurcated world in which the wealthy enjoy first-class Internet access, while everyone else is left with slow connections and degraded content. That scenario, however, is a false paradigm. Such an all-or-nothing world doesn’t exist today, nor will it exist in the future. Without additional regulation, service providers are likely to continue doing what they are doing. They will continue to offer a variety of broadband service plans at a variety of price points to suit every type of consumer”.[85] Bob Kahn, another computer scientist and Director at Qualcomm,[84] has said net neutrality is a slogan that would freeze innovation in the core of the Internet.[11]

Farber has written and spoken strongly in favor of continued research and development on core Internet protocols. He joined academic colleagues Michael Katz,Christopher Yoo, and Gerald Faulhaber in an op-ed for the Washington Post strongly critical of network neutrality, essentially stating that while the Internet is in need of remodeling, congressional action aimed at protecting the best parts of the current Internet could interfere with efforts to build a replacement.[86]

Financing infrastructure improvements

Some opponents of net neutrality argue that prioritization of bandwidth is necessary for future innovation on the Internet.[77] Telecommunications providers such as telephone and cable companies, and some technology companies that supply networking gear, argue telecom providers should have the ability to provide preferential treatment in the form of tiered services, for example by giving online companies willing to pay the ability to transfer their data packets faster than other Internet traffic. The added revenue from such services could be used to pay for the building of increased broadband access to more consumers.[45]

Conversely, opponents say that net neutrality regulation would make it more difficult for Internet service providers (ISPs) and other network operators to recoup their investments in broadband networks.[87] John Thorne, senior vice president and deputy general counsel of Verizon, a broadband and telecommunications company, has argued that they will have no incentive to make large investments to develop advanced fibre-optic networks if they are prohibited from charging higher preferred access fees to companies that wish to take advantage of the expanded capabilities of such networks. Thorne and other ISPs have accused Google and Skype of freeloading or free riding for using a network of lines and cables the phone company spent billions of dollars to build.[77][88][89]

Counterweight to server-side non-neutrality

Those in favor of forms of non-neutral tiered Internet access argue that the Internet is already not a level playing field: large companies achieve a performance advantage over smaller competitors by replicating servers and buying high-bandwidth services. Should prices drop for lower levels of access, or access to only certain protocols, for instance, a change of this type would make Internet usage more neutral, with respect to the needs of those individuals and corporations specifically seeking differentiated tiers of service. Network expert[citation needed] Richard Bennett has written, “A richly funded Web site, which delivers data faster than its competitors to the front porches of the Internet service providers, wants it delivered the rest of the way on an equal basis. This system, which Google calls broadband neutrality, actually preserves a more fundamental inequality.”[90]

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral, because its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[91]

Prevent overuse of bandwidth

Since the early 1990s, Internet traffic has increased steadily. The arrival of picture-rich websites and MP3s led to a sharp increase in the mid-1990s followed by a subsequent sharp increase since 2003 as video streaming and Peer-to-peer file sharing became more common.[92][93] In reaction to companies including YouTube, as well as smaller companies starting to offer free video content, using substantial amounts of bandwidth, at least one Internet service provider (ISP), SBC Communications (now AT&T Inc.), has suggested that it should have the right to charge these companies for making their content available over the provider’s network.[94]

Bret Swanson of the Wall Street Journal wrote in 2007 that the popular websites of that time, including YouTube, MySpace, and blogs, were put at risk by net neutrality. He noted that, at the time, YouTube streamed as much data in three months as the world’s radio, cable and broadcast television channels did in one year, 75 petabytes. He argued that networks were not remotely prepared to handle the amount of data required to run these sites. He also argued that net neutrality would prevent broadband networks from being built, which would limit available bandwidth and thus endanger innovation.[95]

One example of these concerns was the series of tubes analogy, which was presented by US senator Ted Stevens on the floor of the US senate in 2006.

Related issues

Data discrimination

Main article: Data discrimination

Tim Wu, though a proponent of network neutrality, claims that the current Internet is not neutral as its implementation of best effort generally favors file transfer and other non-time-sensitive traffic over real-time communications.[96] Generally, a network which blocks some nodes or services for the customers of the network would normally be expected to be less useful to the customers than one that did not. Therefore, for a network to remain significantly non-neutral requires either that the customers not be concerned about the particular non-neutralities or the customers not have any meaningful choice of providers, otherwise they would presumably switch to another provider with fewer restrictions.[citation needed]

While the network neutrality debate continues, network providers often enter into peering arrangements among themselves. These agreements often stipulate how certain information flows should be treated. In addition, network providers often implement various policies such as blocking of port 25 to prevent insecure systems from serving as spam relays, or other ports commonly used by decentralized music search applications implementing peer-to-peer networking models. They also present terms of service that often include rules about the use of certain applications as part of their contracts with users.[citation needed]

Most consumer Internet providers implement policies like these. The MIT Mantid Port Blocking Measurement Project is a measurement effort to characterize Internet port blocking and potentially discriminatory practices. However, the effect of peering arrangements among network providers are only local to the peers that enter into the arrangements, and cannot affect traffic flow outside their scope.[citation needed]

Jon Peha from Carnegie Mellon University believes it is important to create policies that protect users from harmful traffic discrimination, while allowing beneficial discrimination. Peha discusses the technologies that enable traffic discrimination, examples of different types of discrimination, and potential impacts of regulation.[97]

Quality of service

Main article: Quality of service

Internet routers forward packets according to the diverse peering and transport agreements that exist between network operators. Many networks using Internet protocols now employ quality of service (QoS), and Network Service Providers frequently enter into Service Level Agreements with each other embracing some sort of QoS.

There is no single, uniform method of interconnecting networks using IP, and not all networks that use IP are part of the Internet. IPTV networks are isolated from the Internet, and are therefore not covered by network neutrality agreements.

The IP datagram includes a 3-bit wide Precedence field and a larger DiffServ Code Point that are used to request a level of service, consistent with the notion that protocols in a layered architecture offer services through Service Access Points. This field is sometimes ignored, especially if it requests a level of service outside the originating network’s contract with the receiving network. It is commonly used in private networks, especially those including Wi-Fi networks where priority is enforced. While there are several ways of communicating service levels across Internet connections, such as SIP, RSVP, IEEE 802.11e, and MPLS, the most common scheme combines SIP and DSCP. Router manufacturers now sell routers that have logic enabling them to route traffic for various Classes of Service at “wire-speed”.

With the emergence of multimedia, VoIP, IPTV, and other applications that benefit from low latency, various attempts to address the inability of some private networks to limit latency have arisen, including the proposition of offering tiered service levels that would shape Internet transmissions at the network layer based on application type. These efforts are ongoing, and are starting to yield results as wholesale Internet transport providers begin to amend service agreements to include service levels.[98]

Advocates of net neutrality have proposed several methods to implement a net neutral Internet that includes a notion of quality-of-service:

  • An approach offered by Tim Berners-Lee allows discrimination between different tiers, while enforcing strict neutrality of data sent at each tier: “If I pay to connect to the Net with a given quality of service, and you pay to connect to the net with the same or higher quality of service, then you and I can communicate across the net, with that quality and quantity of service”.[3] “[We] each pay to connect to the Net, but no one can pay for exclusive access to me.”[99]
  • United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would now allow quality of service discrimination for certain services as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.[100]

Alok Bhardwaj has argued that net neutrality preservation through legislation is consistent with implementing quality of service protocols. He argues legislation should ban the charging of fees for any quality of service, which would both allow networks to implement quality of service as well as remove any incentive to abuse net neutrality ideas. He argues that since implementing quality of service doesn’t require any additional costs versus a non-QoS network, there’s no reason implementing quality of service should entail any additional fees.[74] However, the core network hardware needed (with large number of queues, etc.) and the cost of designing and maintaining a QoS network are both much higher than for a non-QoS network.[citation needed]

Pricing models

Broadband Internet access has most often been sold to users based on Excess Information Rate or maximum available bandwidth. If Internet service providers(ISPs) can provide varying levels of service to websites at various prices, this may be a way to manage the costs of unused capacity by selling surplus bandwidth (or “leverage price discrimination to recoup costs of ‘consumer surplus‘”). However, purchasers of connectivity on the basis of Committed Information Rate or guaranteed bandwidth capacity must expect the capacity they purchase in order to meet their communications requirements.

Various studies have sought to provide network providers the necessary formulas for adequately pricing such a tiered service for their customer base. But while network neutrality is primarily focused on protocol based provisioning, most of the pricing models are based on bandwidth restrictions.[101]

Privacy concerns

Some opponents of net neutrality legislation point to concerns of privacy rights that could come about as a result, how those infringements of privacy can be exploited. While some believe it is hyperbole to suggest that ISPs will just transparently monitor transmitted content, or that ISPs will have to alter their content, there is the concern that ISPs may have profit motives to analyze what their subscribers are viewing, and be able to use such information to their financial advantage. For example, an ISP may be able to essentially replicate the “targeting” that has already been employed by companies like Google. To critics such as David Clark, a senior research scientist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the proper question is “who has the right to observe everything you do”?[102]

Framing of debate

Former Washington Post columnist, and Fox News commentator, Jeffrey Birnbaum, who currently works for the BGR Group (a lobbying firm which is employed byComcast[103]) has called the debate “vague and misleading.”[104]

See also

References

  1. Jump up^ Tim Wu (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal on telecom and high tech law. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  2. Jump up^ Krämer, J; Wiewiorra, L. & Weinhardt,C. (2013): “Net Neutrality: A progress report”. Telecommunications Policy 37(9), 794–813.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b Berners-Lee, Tim (21 June 2006). “Net Neutrality: This is serious”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff. “A Guide to Net Neutrality for Google Users”. Google. Archived fromthe original on 1 September 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  5. Jump up^ Lessig, L. 1999. Cyberspace’s Architectural Constitution, draft 1.1, Text of lecture given at www9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
  6. ^ Jump up to:a b c d e f Lawrence Lessig and Robert W. McChesney (8 June 2006). “No Tolls on The Internet”. Columns.
  7. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”. Blogspot.com. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  8. Jump up^ “MIT.edu”. Dig.csail.mit.edu. 21 June 2006. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  9. Jump up^ Peter Svensson (19 October 2007). “Comcast Blocks some Subscriber Internet Traffic, AP Testing shows”. Associated Press. Retrieved 25 October 2009.
  10. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  11. ^ Jump up to:a b c Robert Kahn and Ed Feigenbaum (9 January 2007). An Evening with Robert Kahn (WMV). Computer History Museum. Retrieved 26 December 2008. Partial transcript: Hu-Berlin.de[dead link]
  12. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “In Net Neutrality Push, F.C.C. Is Expected to Propose Regulating Internet Service as a Utility”. New York Times. Retrieved2 February 2015.
  13. ^ Jump up to:a b Lohr, Steve (2 February 2015). “F.C.C. Chief Wants to Override State Laws Curbing Community Net Services”. New York Times. Retrieved 2 February 2015.
  14. ^ Jump up to:a b Flaherty, Anne (31 January 2015). “Just whose Internet is it? New federal rules may answer that”. AP News. Retrieved 31 January 2015.
  15. ^ Jump up to:a b Fung, Brian (2 January 2015). “Get ready: The FCC says it will vote on net neutrality in February”. Washington Post. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  16. ^ Jump up to:a b Staff (2 January 2015). “FCC to vote next month on net neutrality rules”. AP News. Retrieved 2 January 2015.
  17. Jump up^ Lohr, Steve (4 February 2015). “F.C.C. Plans Strong Hand to Regulate the Internet”. New York Times. Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  18. Jump up^ Wheeler, Tom (4 February 2015). “FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality”. Wired (magazine). Retrieved 5 February 2015.
  19. Jump up^ The Editorial Board (6 February 2015). “Courage and Good Sense at the F.C.C. – Net Neutrality’s Wise New Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
  20. Jump up^ FCC’s Pai: Net-neutrality proposal is secret Internet regulation plan, Los Angelese Times, February 10, 2015
  21. Jump up^ Honan, Matthew (12 February 2008). “Inside Net Neutrality: Is your ISP filtering content?”. MacWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  22. Jump up^ Wu, Tim. “Network Neutrality FAQ”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  23. Jump up^ Hagai Bar-El (19 Aug 2014). “Protecting Network Neutrality: Both Important and Hard”. Retrieved 19 Aug 2014.
  24. Jump up^ Mathew Ingram (23 Mar 2012). “Open vs. closed: What kind of internet do we want?”. GigaOm. Retrieved 8 Jun 2014.
  25. Jump up^ “About the Open Internet”. European Commission. Retrieved 23 Apr 2014.
  26. Jump up^ Alexis C. Madrigal and Adrienne LaFrance (25 Apr 2014). “Net Neutrality: A Guide to (and History of) a Contested Idea”. The Atlantic. Retrieved 5 Jun 2014.This idea of net neutrality…[Lawrence Lessig] used to call the principle e2e, for end to end
  27. Jump up^ IETF RFC 2475 “An Architecture for Differentiated Services” section 2.3.3.3 – definition of “Shaper”
  28. Jump up^ tsbmail. “ITU-T I.371 : Traffic control and congestion control in B-ISDN”. Retrieved 14 September 2014.
  29. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (2 July 2007). “Research on Costs of Net Neutrality”. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  30. Jump up^ Anderson, Nate (25 July 2007). “Deep packet inspection meets ‘Net neutrality, CALEA”. Ars Technica. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  31. Jump up^ Hansell, Saul (2 August 2008). “F.C.C. Vote Sets Precedent on Unfettered Web Usage”. The New York Times.
  32. Jump up^ Duncan, Geoff (23 December 2009). “Comcast to Pay $16 Million for Blocking P2P Applications”. Digital Trends. Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  33. Jump up^ Cheng, Jacqui (22 December 2009). “Comcast settles P2P throttling class-action for $16 million”. Ars Technica (Condé Nast). Retrieved 23 December 2009.
  34. Jump up^ M. Chris Riley and Ben Scott, Free Press (Mar 2009). “Deep Packet Inspection: The end of the Internet as we know it?”. Center for Internet and Society. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  35. Jump up^ Paul Roberts, IDG News Service (20 Oct 2003). “NetScreen announces deep inspection firewall”. Network World. Retrieved 29 May 2014.
  36. Jump up^ Ben Gilbert (23 Dec 2013). “T-Mobile prepaid offering free data… but only to access Facebook”. Engadget. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  37. Jump up^ Lily Hay Newman (21 Jan 2014). “Net Neutrality Is Already in Trouble in the Developing World”. Slate. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  38. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi (2013-01-19). “French ISP Orange says it’s making Google pay to send traffic over its network”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  39. Jump up^ “ARCEP closes the administrative inquiry involving several companies, including Free and Google, on the technical and financial terms governing IP traffic routing.”. 19 July 2013. Retrieved 18 January 2014.
  40. Jump up^ Brendan Greeley (21 Jun 2012). “Comcast ‘Invents’ Its Own Private Internet”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  41. Jump up^ Joshua Brustein (24 Feb 2014). “Netflix’s Deal With Comcast Isn’t About Net Neutrality—Except That It Is”. Bloomberg. Retrieved 18 Nov 2014.
  42. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Comcast Jumps up in Netflix Speed Rankings after Payola-style Agreement.” Digital Trends. N.p., 14 Apr. 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  43. Jump up^ Waniata, Ryan. “Netflix Calls Verizon out on the Big Red Screen [Update: Netflix Backs Off].” Digital Trends. N.p., 9 June 2014. Web. 15 Aug. 2014.
  44. Jump up^ “Four tenors: Call for Internet Speech Rights”. ARTICLE 19. Retrieved31 August 2012.
  45. ^ Jump up to:a b c Meza, Philip E. (20 March 2007). Coming Attractions?. Stanford University Press. p. 158. ISBN 9780804756600.
  46. Jump up^ Plunkett, Jack W. (2008). Plunkett’s Telecommunications Industry Almanac 2009. Plunkett Research. p. 208. ISBN 9781593921415.
  47. Jump up^ “Defeat for net neutrality backers”. BBC News. 9 June 2006. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  48. Jump up^ “Open letter to the Committee on Energy and Commerce” (PDF). 1 March 2006. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  49. Jump up^ Cogent Communications, Inc. “Net Neutrality Policy Statement”. Retrieved21 April 2009.
  50. Jump up^ “Google’s Sordid History of Net Neutrality Hypocrisy”. Gizmodo. Retrieved14 September 2014.
  51. Jump up^ Tim Berners-Lee (18 November 2006). Humanity Lobotomy – what will the Internet look like in 10 years?. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  52. ^ Jump up to:a b Cerf, Vinton (7 February 2006). “The Testimony of Mr. Vinton Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google” (PDF). p. 1. Retrieved5 November 2012.
  53. Jump up^ Cerf, Vinton (July 2009). “The Open Network. What it is, and why it matters”.Telecommunications Journal of Australia 59 (2). doi:10.2104/tja09018/issn.1835-4270.
  54. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Preserve the Internet Standards for Net Neutrality”. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  55. Jump up^ Albanesius, Chloe (22 September 2009). “Obama Supports Net Neutrality Plan”. PC Magazine. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  56. Jump up^ Broache, Anne (29 October 2007). “Obama pledges Net neutrality laws if elected president”. CNET. Retrieved 25 January 2013.
  57. Jump up^ Wyatt, Edward (November 10, 2014). “Obama Asks F.C.C. to Adopt Tough Net Neutrality Rules”. New York Times. Retrieved November 15, 2014.
  58. Jump up^ NYT Editorial Board (November 14, 2014). “Why the F.C.C. Should Heed President Obama on Internet Regulation”. New York Times. RetrievedNovember 15, 2014.
  59. Jump up^ Sepulveda, Ambassador Daniel A. (January 21, 2015). “The World Is Watching Our Net Neutrality Debate, So Let’s Get It Right”. Wired (website). RetrievedJanuary 20, 2015.
  60. Jump up^ Hardawar, Devindra (12 November 2014). “AT&T halts fiber build-out until net neutrality rules are sorted”. http://www.engadget.com (Reuters). Retrieved12 November 2014.
  61. Jump up^ Phillips, Peter (2006). Censored 2007. Seven Stories Press. p. 34.ISBN 9781583227381.
  62. Jump up^ Robertson, Adi. “Federal court strikes down FCC net neutrality rules”. The Verge. Retrieved 14 January 2014.
  63. ^ Jump up to:a b “Frequently Asked Questions”. SaveTheInternet.com. Archived from the original on 11 December 2008. Retrieved 7 December 2008.
  64. Jump up^ Davidson, Alan (8 November 2005). “Vint Cerf speaks out on net neutrality”.The Official Google Blog. Google.
  65. ^ Jump up to:a b “Video Stream Quality Impacts Viewer Behavior, by Krishnan and Sitaraman, ACM Internet Measurement Conference, Nov 2012.”.
  66. Jump up^ “NetFlix comments to FCC, page 17, Sept 16th 2014”.
  67. Jump up^ “Vimeo Open Letter to FCC, page 11, July 15th 2014”.
  68. Jump up^ “Patience is a Network Effect, by Nicholas Carr, Nov 2012”.
  69. Jump up^ “NPR Morning Edition: In Video-Streaming Rat Race, Fast is Never Fast Enough, October 2012”. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  70. Jump up^ “Boston Globe: Instant gratification is making us perpetually impatient, Feb 2013”. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  71. Jump up^ “What Is Net Neutrality? 10 Aug 2010”.
  72. ^ Jump up to:a b Wu, Timothy (1 May 2006). “Why You Should Care About Network Neutrality”. Slate.
  73. Jump up^ Dynamic Platform Standards Project. “Internet Platform for Innovation Act”. Sec. 2.11. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  74. ^ Jump up to:a b “Against Fee-Based and other Pernicious Net Prejudice: An Explanation and Examination of the Net Neutrality Debate”. Scribd.com. 27 November 2007. Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  75. Jump up^ Isenberg, David (1 August 1996). “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. Retrieved19 August 2006.
  76. Jump up^ J. H. Saltzer; D. P. Reed; D. D. Clark (November 1984). “End-to-end arguments in system design”. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems 2 (4): 277–288.doi:10.1145/357401.357402.
  77. ^ Jump up to:a b c Hart, Jonathan D. (2007). Internet Law. BNA Books. p. 750.ISBN 9781570186837.
  78. Jump up^ “Hands off the Internet”. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  79. Jump up^ Jeffrey H. Birnbaum, “No Neutral Ground in This Internet Battle”, The Washington Post, 26 July 2006.
  80. Jump up^ “Hands Off the Internet, “Member Organizations,””. Archived from the original on 5 January 2009. Retrieved 4 August 2006.
  81. Jump up^ Anne Veigle, “Groups Spent $42 Million on Net Neutrality Ads, Study Finds”, Communications Daily, 20 July 2006.
  82. Jump up^ SaveTheInternet.com, “One Million Americans Urge Senate to Save the Internet”, at Savetheinternet.com (last visited 4 August 2006).
  83. Jump up^ Farber, David (2 June 2006). “Common sense about network neutrality”.Interesting-People (Mailing list). Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  84. ^ Jump up to:a b “Robert Kahn, Forbes”. Retrieved 11 November 2011.
  85. Jump up^ Pepper, Robert (14 March 2007). “Network Neutrality: Avoiding a Net Loss”.TechNewsWorld. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  86. Jump up^ David Farber; Michael Katz (19 January 2007). “Hold Off On Net Neutrality”.The Washington Post. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  87. Jump up^ “FTC to Host Workshop on Broadband Connectivity Competition Policy”. Federal trade Commission. December 2006.
  88. Jump up^ Mohammed, Arshad (February 2007). “Verizon Executive Calls for End to Google’s ‘Free Lunch'”. The Washington Post.
  89. Jump up^ Crowcroft, Jon (2007). Net Neutrality: The Technical Side of the Debate: A White Paper (PDF). University of Cambridge. p. 5. Retrieved 23 June 2009.
  90. Jump up^ “Google’s political Head-fake”. SFGate. 9 July 2008. Retrieved 14 September2014.
  91. Jump up^ “Network neutrality, broadband discrimination by Tim Wu” (PDF). Retrieved23 June 2011.
  92. Jump up^ “Google and cable firms warn of risks from Web TV”. USA Today. 2 July 2007. Retrieved 20 May 2010.
  93. Jump up^ Kelly, Spencer (15 June 2007). “Warning of ‘Internet overload'”. BBC Click.
  94. Jump up^ Banks, Theodore L. (24 May 2002). Corporate Legal Compliance Handbook. Aspen Publishers Online. p. 70. ISBN 9780735533424.
  95. Jump up^ Swanson, Bret (20 January 2007). “The Coming Exaflood”. The Wall Street Journal.
  96. Jump up^ Wu, Tim (2003). “Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination”. Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2: 141. doi:10.2139/ssrn.388863.SSRN 388863.
  97. Jump up^ Jon Peha. “The Benefits and Risks of Mandating Network Neutrality, and the Quest for a Balanced Policy”. Retrieved 1 January 2007.
  98. Jump up^ Sullivan, Mark (14 August 2006). “Carriers Seek IP QOS Peers”. Light Reading. Retrieved 26 December 2008.
  99. Jump up^ Berners-Lee, Tim (2 May 2006). “Neutrality of the Net”. timbl’s blog. Retrieved26 December 2008.
  100. Jump up^ A bill to amend the Communications Act of 1934 to ensure net neutrality, S. 215
  101. Jump up^ “NCSU.edu” (PDF). Retrieved 23 June 2011.
  102. Jump up^ Joch, Alan (October 2009). “Debating Net Neutrality”. Communications of the ACM 52 (10): 14–15. doi:10.1145/1562764.1562773.
  103. Jump up^ Washington Post, Lobbyists find mixed reception running for office, but a few have won elections, By Holly Yeager, Published: 19 May,http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/lobbyists-find-mixed-reception-running-for-office-but-a-few-have-won-elections/2014/05/18/2d0343de-db74-11e3-b745-87d39690c5c0_story.html
  104. Jump up^ Bimbaum, Jeffrey (26 June 2006). “No Neutral Ground In This Battle”. The Washington Post. Retrieved 15 December 2006.

External links

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

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