Transportation Security Administration (TSA)

The Pronk Pops Show 770, October 6, 2016, Part 2 of 2: Story 1: Leader and Winner Mild Mannered Mike Pence vs. Follower and Loser Crude Rude Tim Kaine — Videos

Posted on October 6, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Applications, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Bombs, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Coal, Coal, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Environment, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, Mike Pence, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Networking, News, Nuclear, Nuclear, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Oil, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Science, Social Security, Software, Solar, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Tim Kaine, Trade Policy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

Part 2 of 2: Story 1: Leader and Winner Mild Mannered Mike Pence vs. Follower and Loser Crude Rude Tim Kaine — Videos

Image result for cartoon vice presidential debates kaine pence

Image result for cartoon kaine pence

Image result for cartoon kaine pence

Image result for vp debate pence and kaine

Image result for vp debate

Image result for cartoon kaine penceImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debateImage result for vp debate

Image result for cartoon kaine pence

Image result for cartoon kaine pence

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE SPLIT SCREEN (C-SPAN)

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2016 (FULL !!)• PENCE VS KAINE !! #debate

Pence edges Kaine in VP debate instant poll

Mike Pence scored a narrow win over Tim Kaine in the vice presidential debate Tuesday night,according to a CNN/ORC instant poll, with 48% of voters who watched the debate saying Pence did the better job while 42% think Kaine had the best night.

With two relatively unknown politicians taking the stage, those watching seemed more impressed by Pence than Kaine. About two-thirds of debate-watchers said Pence’s performance was better than they expected, just 14% said he did worse than they thought he would. Reviews of Kaine tilted toward the negative, with 43% saying he did worse than they expected and 38% saying he outperformed their expectations.
The debate itself focused more on the candidates at the top of the ticket than the two men on stage. Most debate watchers said Kaine did the better job defending Hillary Clinton, 58%, while just 35% thought Pence better defended Donald Trump.
Still, 29% of debate watchers said what they saw Tuesday made them more apt to vote for Trump, compared with 18% who said it made them more likely to back Clinton. Most debate watchers, 53%, said their vote was not swayed by Tuesday’s face off. After the first Clinton-Trump debate last week, 34% said it made them more apt to vote Clinton, 18% Trump.
Kaine’s performance fell short of Clinton’s on several other measures in the poll as well. Tuesday’s debate watchers were split on which candidate expressed his views more clearly, 47% named each, a metric on which Clinton soundly beat Trump in last week’s presidential debate.
And 48% said Kaine had a better understanding of the issues, edging out Pence at 41%. Clinton topped Trump by a better than 2-to-1 margin on that score after their first debate.
Kaine and Pence emerge from the debate with near identical and net-positive favorability ratings, but Kaine appears to have taken a hit among those who watched. Pence, meanwhile, boosted his numbers somewhat.
Pence was largely seen as the more likeable candidate on the stage, 53% to 37%, and nearly all of the movement in Kaine’s favorability rating post-debate was toward the negative side: His unfavorable rating rose from 28% among this same group of debate watchers when they were interviewed pre-debate to 40% after, while his favorability number held about even at 55%. For Pence, his favorability rating bumped up 7 points to 57%, from 50% pre-debate. His unfavorable numbers held about even 40%.
Both men are broadly judged qualified to take over the office of president if needed, 77% say Pence is qualified, 70% that Kaine is. Most voters who watched Tuesday night said Kaine’s positions on the issues are about right ideologically (57%) while 36% see him as too liberal and 5% too conservative. Assessing Pence’s positions, about half, 49%, think he’s about right, 46% too conservative and just 3% too liberal.
The CNN/ORC post-debate poll includes interviews with 472 registered voters who watched the October 4 vice presidential debate. Results among debate-watchers have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. Respondents were originally interviewed as part of a September 28-October 2 telephone survey of a random sample of Americans, and indicated they planned to watch the debate and would be willing to be re-interviewed when it was over.

Mike Pence

Michael RichardMikePence (born June 7, 1959) is an American politician, attorney, and the 50th Governor of Indiana. He is the Republican Party nominee for Vice President of the United States in the 2016 presidential election.

After losing two bids for a U.S. congressional seat in 1988 and 1990, he became a conservative radio and television talk show host from 1994 to 1999. Pence successfully ran for Congress in 2000 and represented Indiana’s 2nd congressional district and Indiana’s 6th congressional district in the United States House of Representatives from 2001 to 2013, rising to the position of chairman of the House Republican Conference from 2009 to 2011.[1]

In 2012 Pence was elected the 50th Governor of Indiana. In the midst of a re-election campaign for governor, he dropped out in July 2016 to become the vice presidential running mate for Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. Pence is a conservative and a supporter of the Tea Party movement.[2][3]

Early life and career

Pence, born in Columbus, Indiana, was one of six children of Nancy Jane (née Cawley) and Edward J. Pence, Jr., who ran a string of gas stations.[4][5] His family were Irish Catholic Democrats.[6] He was named after his grandfather, Richard Michael Cawley, a Chicago bus driver and Irish immigrant, who came from County Sligo to the United States through Ellis Island.[7] His maternal grandmother’s parents were from Doonbeg, County Clare.[8][9]

Pence graduated from Columbus North High School in 1977. He earned a Bachelor of Arts in history from Hanover College in 1981, and a Juris Doctor from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1986. While at Hanover, Pence joined the Phi Gamma Delta fraternity, serving as his chapter’s president.[10] After graduating from Hanover, Pence was an admissions counselor at the college, from 1981 to 1983.[11]

After graduating from law school in 1986, Pence was an attorney in private practice.[12] After running unsuccessfully for a congressional seat in 1988 and 1990, he returned to his law practice. In 1991, he became the president of the Indiana Policy Review Foundation, a self-described free-market think tank and a member of the State Policy Network.[13]

Pence left the Indiana Policy Review Foundation in 1993, a year after beginning to host The Mike Pence Show, a talk radio program based in WRCR-FM in Rushville, Indiana.[14][15] Pence called himself “Rush Limbaugh on decaf” since he considered himself politically conservative while not as outspoken as Limbaugh.[16] The show was syndicated by Network Indiana and aired weekdays 9 a.m. to noon (ET) on 18 stations throughout the state, including WIBC in Indianapolis.[14] From 1995 to 1999, Pence also hosted a weekend political talk show out of Indianapolis.[17][18]

U.S. House of Representatives

Pence as a U.S. Congressman

In 1988, Pence ran for Congress against Democratic incumbent Phil Sharp, but lost the election.[19] Pence ran against Sharp again in 1990, quitting his job in order to work full-time in the campaign, but once again lost the election.[19] During the race, Pence used “political donations to pay the mortgage on his house, his personal credit card bill, groceries, golf tournament fees and car payments for his wife.”[20] While the spending was not illegal at the time, it reportedly undermined his campaign.[20]

During the 1990 campaign, Pence ran a television advertisement in which an actor, dressed in a robe and headdress and speaking in a thick Middle Eastern accent, thanked his opponent, Sharp, for doing nothing to wean the United States off imported oil as chairman of a House subcommittee on energy and power.[20][21] In response to criticism, Pence’s campaign responded that the ad was not about Arabs; rather, it concerned Sharp’s lack of leadership.[20][21] In 1991, Pence wrote an essay, “Confessions of a Negative Campaigner”, published in the Indiana Policy Review, in which he apologized for running negative ads against Sharp.[16][20][22]

Mike Pence rejuvinated his political career by running for the U.S. House of Representatives again in 2000, this time winning the seat in Indiana’s 2nd congressional district after six-year incumbent David M. McIntosh opted to run for governor of Indiana. The district (renumbered as Indiana’s 6th congressional district beginning in 2002) comprises all or portions of 19 counties in eastern Indiana. As a Congressman, Pence adopted the slogan he had used frequently on the radio, describing himself as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order.”[23]

In his first year in office Pence established a reputation as one with strong convictions willing to go his own way. He opposed President George W. Bush‘s No Child Left Behind Act in 2001,[24] as well as President Bush’s Medicare prescription drug expansion the following year.[25] Pence was re-elected four more times by comfortable margins. In the 2006 and 2008House elections, he defeated Democrat Barry Welsh.

Pence began to climb the party leadership structure and from 2005 to 2007 served as chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House Republicans.[26] In November 2006, Pence announced his candidacy for leader of the Republican Party (minority leader) in the United States House of Representatives.[27] Pence’s release announcing his run for minority leader focused on a “return to the values” of the 1994 Republican Revolution.[28] However, he lost the bid to Representative John Boehner of Ohio by a vote of 168 for Boehner, 27 for Pence, and one for Representative Joe Barton of Texas).[29] In January 2009, Pence was elected as the Republican Conference Chairman, the third-highest-ranking Republican leadership position. He ran unopposed and was elected unanimously. He was the first representative from Indiana to hold a House leadership position since 1981.[1]

In 2008, Esquire magazine listed Pence as one of the ten best members of Congress, writing that Pence’s “unalloyed traditional conservatism has repeatedly pitted him against his party elders.”[30] Pence was mentioned as a possible Republican candidate for president in 2008[2] and 2012.[31] In September 2010, he was the top choice for president in a straw poll conducted by the Values Voter Summit.[32][33] That same year he was encouraged to run against incumbent Democratic Senator Evan Bayh,[34][35][36] but opted not to enter the race,[37] even after Bayh unexpectedly announced that he would retire.[38]

Governor of Indiana

2012 election

Governor Mike Pence speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland on February 27, 2015

In May 2011, Mike Pence announced that he would be seeking the Republican nomination for governor of Indiana in 2012.[39] Incumbent Republican Governor Mitch Danielswas term-limited. Despite strong name recognition and a popular outgoing governor of the same party, Pence found himself in a heated race, eventually pulling out a close win with just under 50 percent of the vote against Democrat John R. Gregg and Libertarian nominee Rupert Boneham.[40] Pence was sworn in as the 50th governor of Indiana on January 14, 2013.[41]

Fiscal and economic policy initiatives

Pence “inherited a $2 billion budget reserve from his predecessor, Mitch Daniels, and the state has added to that reserve under his watch, though not before requiring state agencies, including public universities, to reduce funding in years in which revenue fell below projections.”[42] The state finished fiscal year 2014 with a reserve of $2 billion; budget cuts ordered by Pence for the $14 billion annual state budget include $24 million cut from colleges and universities; $27 million cut from the Family and Social Services Administration; and $12 million cut from the Department of Correction.[43] During Pence’s term as governor, the unemployment rate reflected the national average.[44] Indiana’s job growth lagged slightly behind the national trend.[45] In 2014, Indiana’s economy was among the slowest-growing in the U.S., with 0.4% GDP growth, compared to the national average of 2.2%; this was attributed in part to sluggish manufacturing sector.[46] Carrier Corp. and United Technologies Electronic Controls (UTEC) announced in 2016 that they would be closing two facilities in Indiana, sending 2,100 jobs to Mexico; Pence expressed “deep disappointment” with the moves.[47][48] Pence was unsuccessful in his efforts to persuade the companies to stay in the state, although the companies agreed to reimburse local and state governments for certain tax incentives that they had received.[48][49]

In 2013, Pence signed a law blocking local governments in Indiana from requiring businesses to offer higher wages or benefits beyond those required by federal law. In 2015, Pence also repealed an Indiana law that required construction companies working on publicly funded projects to pay a prevailing wage.[50][51][52][53] Indiana enacted right-to-work legislation under Pence’s predecessor, Republican governor Mitch Daniels. Under Pence, the state successfully defended this legislation against a labor challenge.[51]

Pence made tax reform, namely a 10% income-tax rate cut, a priority for 2013.[54][55] While he did not get the 10% cut he advocated, Pence did accomplish his goal of cutting state taxes.[54] Legislators cut the income tax by 5% and also killed the inheritance tax.[54] Speaker of the House Brian Bosma said that the legislative package was the “largest tax cut in our state’s history, about $1.1 billion dollars.”[56] By signing Senate Bill 1, the state corporate income tax would be dropped from 6.5% to 4.9% by 2021, which would be the second-lowest corporate income tax in the nation[57]

On June 12, 2013, the Indiana Legislature overrode Pence’s veto of a bill to retroactively authorize a local tax. Lawmakers overrode Pence’s veto in a 68–23 vote in the House and a 34–12 one in the Senate.[58] With an interesting twist, Republican legislators overwhelmingly voted against Pence, while most Democrats supported his veto.[59] The Jackson–Pulaski tax fix, one of three bills vetoed by Pence during the session, addressed a 15-year-old county income tax which had been imposed to fund the construction of jail facilities with the stipulation that the tax be lowered by 1% after the first several years. The reduction was not implemented and thus county residents paid an additional 1% tax that they were legally not required to pay. The bill, which was passed by a huge majority of legislators and subsequently vetoed by Pence, allowed money to be kept and not returned to the tax payers as would have otherwise been necessary.[60][59]

As governor, Pence pressed for a balanced budget amendment to the state’s constitution. He initially proposed the initiative in his State of the State address in January 2015. The legislation passed the state Senate and is progressing through the House.[61] Indiana has had AAA credit ratings with the three major credit-rating agencies since 2010, before Pence took office; these ratings have been maintained throughout Pence’s tenure.[62]

In 2014, Pence supported the Indiana Gateway project, a $71.4 million passenger and freight rail improvement initiative paid for by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the federal stimulus package), which Pence had voted against while a congressman.[63] In October 2015, Pence “announced plans to pay off a $250 million federal loan” to cover unemployment insurance payments that spiked during the recession.[42] In March 2016, Pence signed legislation to fund a $230 million two-year road-funding package.[42]

Education policies

During his tenure as governor, Pence supported significant increases in education funding to pre-schools, voucher programs, and charter schools, but frequently clashed with supporters of traditional public schools.[64][65] In 2014, a little over one year after taking office, Pence helped establish a $10 million state preschool pilot program in Indiana and testified personally before the state Senate Education Committee in favor of the program to convince fellow Republicans (several of whom opposed the proposal) to approve the plan.[64][65] Although the plan was initially defeated, Pence successfully managed to revive it, “getting Indiana off the list of just 10 U.S. states that spent no direct state funds to help poor children attend preschool.”[65] Demand for enrollment in the program “far outstripped” capacity, and Pence at first refused to apply for up to $80 million in federal Health and Human Services Preschool Development Grant program funding,[64] arguing that “Indiana must develop our own pre-K program without federal intrusion.”[66] After coming under sustained criticism for this position, Pence reversed course and sought to apply for the funds.[64][67]

In 2015, Pence secured significant increases in charter-school funding from the Legislation, although he did not get everything he had proposed.[65] Legislation signed into law by Pence in 2013 greatly increased the number of students in Indiana who qualify for school vouchers, making it one of the largest voucher programs in the United States.[68][69] [70][71] The annual cost of the program is estimated to be $53 million for the 2015-16 school year.[70][71]

Pence opposed the Common Core State Standards, calling for the repeal of the standards in his 2014 State of the State address. The Indiana General Assembly then passed a bill to repeal the standards, becoming the first state to do so.[64][65]

Despite successful advocacy for more funding for pre-schools, voucher programs, and charter schools, Pence has frequently clashed with teachers unions and supporters of public schooling.[64][65] In one of his first acts as governor, Pence removed control of the Educational Employment Relations Board, which is in charge of handling conflicts between unions and school boards, from Glenda Ritz, a Democrat who is the Indiana Superintendent of Public Instruction (a separately elected position in the state).[72] Pence created a new “Center for Education and Career Innovation” (CECI) to coordinate efforts between schools and the private sector; Ritz opposed the Center, viewing it as a “power grab” and encroachment on her own duties. Pence eventually disestablished the Center in order to help defuse the conflict.[64][65] In May 2015, Pence signed a bill stripping Ritz of much of her authority over standardized testing and other education issues, and reconstituting the State Board of Education dominated by Pence appointees.[73] The bill also allowed the board to appoint a chairman other than the Superintendent of Public Instruction starting in 2017, and added the State Board of Education (controlled by Pence) as a “state educational authority” along with the Department of Education (controlled by Ritz) for purposes of accessing sensitive student data.[73] Pence and Ritz also clashed over non-binding federal guidelines that advised Indiana public schools must treat transgender students in a way that corresponds to their gender identity, even if their education files indicate a different gender.[74]

Energy and environment

During Pence’s term in office, the Republican-controlled Indiana General Assembly has “repeatedly tried to roll back renewable energy standards and successfully ended Indiana’s energy efficiency efforts.”[75] Pence is an outspoken supporter of the coal industry, declaring in his 2015 State of the State address that “Indiana is a pro-coal state,” expressing support for an “all-of-the-above energy strategy,” and stating: “we must continue to oppose the overreaching schemes of the EPA until we bring their war on coal to end.”[75][76] In 2015, Pence sent a letter to President Obama denouncing the EPA’s Clean Power Plan (which would regulate carbon emissions from existing power plans) and stating that Indiana would refuse to comply with the plan.[75][77] Indiana joined other states in a lawsuit seeking to invalidate the plan.[75] In 2016, Pence stated that even if legal challenges failed, Indiana would continue to defy the rule and would not come up with its own plan to reduce emissions.[78]

Gun policy

In 2014, over the opposition of Indiana school organizations, Pence signed a bill which allows firearms to be kept in vehicles on school property.[79] In 2015, following a shooting in Chattanooga, Pence recruited theNRA to train the Indiana National Guard on concealed carry. Some National Guard officials from other states questioned why a civilian organization would be involved in a military issue.[80] In May 2015, Pence signed into law Senate Bill 98, which limited lawsuits against gun and ammunition manufacturers and sellers and retroactively terminated the City of Gary‘s still-pending 1999 lawsuit against gun manufacturers and retailers that allegedly made illegal sales of handguns.[81][82] The bill was supported by Republicans such as state Senator Jim Tomes, who hoped that the measure would attract more gun-related businesses to Indiana, but opposed by Gary mayor and former Indiana attorney general Karen Freeman-Wilson, who viewed the measure as “an unprecedented violation of the separation of powers between the legislative and judicial branches of state government.”[82] In 2016, Pence signed Senate Bill 109 into law, legalizing the captive hunting of farm-raised deer in Indiana.[83]

Public health issues

Beginning in December 2014, there was an HIV outbreak in Southern Indiana.[84] In 2011, Planned Parenthood ran five rural clinics in Indiana. They tested for HIV and offered prevention, intervention and counseling for better health. The one in Scott County performed no abortions.[85] The Republican controlled legislature and Pence defunded Planned Parenthood.[86] Scott County has been without an HIV testing center for two years.[85] Pence had long been a vocal opponent of needle exchange programs, which allow drug users to trade in used syringes for sterile ones in order to stop the spread of diseases, despite evidence that such programs prevent the spread of AIDS and hepatitis C, and do not increase drug abuse.[84]

In March 2015, after the outbreak began, Pence allowed at least five counties to open needle exchanges, but has not moved to lift the state ban on funding for needle exchanges.[84] Critics say Pence’s compromise has been ineffective because counties had no way to pay for needle exchanges themselves. Indiana State Health Commissioner Jerome Adams defended Pence, saying that publicly-funded needle exchange programs are controversial in many conservative communities. In middle America, Adams said, you can’t “just point your finger at folks and say, ‘You need to have a syringe exchange and we’re going to pay for it with your tax dollars.’”[87]

In 2015, Pence and the Obama administration agreed to expand Medicaid in Indiana, in accordance with the Affordable Care Act.[88][89] As part of the expansion, Pence negotiated modifications to the program for Indiana that included co-payments by participants. The co-payments are linked to healthy behaviors on the part of the participants, so that, for example, a participant who quit smoking would receive a lower co-payment. Participants can lose benefits for failing to make the payments.[90]

Controversies

See also: Indiana SB 101

Mike Pence addressing supporters at a church service at the Living Word Bible Church.

Despite several successful policy initiatives, Pence found himself in several high profile controversies, including some that brought national attention. On March 26, 2015, Pence signed Indiana Senate Bill 101, also known as the Indiana “religious objections” bill (Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA), into law.[91] The law’s signing was met with widespread criticism by people and groups who felt the law was carefully worded in a way that would permit discrimination against LGBT persons.[92][93][94][95] Such organizations as the NCAA, the gamer convention Gen Con, and the Disciples of Christ spoke out against the law. Apple CEO Tim Cook and Salesforce.com CEO Marc Benioff condemned the law, with Salesforce.com saying it would halt its plans to expand in the state.[96][97] Angie’s List announced that they would cancel a $40 million expansion of their Indianapolis based headquarters due to concerns over the law. The expansion would have moved 1000 jobs into the state. The mayors of San Francisco and Seattle banned official travel to Indiana.[98] Thousands protested against the policy.[92] Five GOP state representatives voted against the bill, and Greg Ballard, the Republican mayor of Indianapolis, criticized it as sending the “wrong signal” about the state.[99]

Pence defended the law, stating that it was not about discrimination. In an appearance on the ABC News program This Week with George Stephanopoulos,[100] Pence stated, “We are not going to change this law”, while refusing to answer whether examples of discrimination against LGBT people given by Eric Miller of anti-LGBT group Advance America would be legal under the law.[101] Pence denied the law permitted discrimination and wrote in a March 31, 2015, Wall Street Journal op-ed, “If I saw a restaurant owner refuse to serve a gay couple, I wouldn’t eat there anymore. As governor of Indiana, if I were presented a bill that legalized discrimination against any person or group, I would veto it.”[102] In the wake of the backlash against the RFRA, on April 2, 2015, Pence signed legislation revising the law to prevent potential discrimination.[103]

Another controversy arose in March 2016 when Pence signed into law H.B. 1337, a controversial bill that both banned certain abortion procedures and placed new restrictions on abortion providers. The bill banned abortion if the reason for the procedure given by the pregnant person was the fetus‘ race or gender or a fetal abnormality. In addition, the bill required that all fetal remains from abortions or miscarriages at any stage of pregnancy be buried or cremated, which according to the Guttmacher Institute is not currently required in any other state.[104][105][106] The law was described as “exceptional for its breadth”; if implemented, it would have made Indiana “the first state to have a blanket ban on abortions based solely on race, sex or suspected disabilities, including evidence of Down syndrome.”[105] Days after the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the bill from taking effect, with U.S. District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt determining that the bill was likely to be unconstitutional and that the State of Indiana would be unlikely to prevail at trial.[105]

In June 2013, Pence was criticized for deleting comments of others posted on his official government Facebook page; he apologized.[107]

Pence at the 500 Festival Parade in Indianapolis, 2015

On January 26, 2015 it was widely reported that Pence had planned to launch a state-run, taxpayer-funded news service for Indiana.[108] The service, called “JustIN”, was to be overseen by a former reporter for The Indianapolis Star, and would feature breaking news, stories written by press secretaries, and light features.[108] At the time, it was reported that the two employees who would run the news service would be paid a combined $100,000 yearly salary.[108] The target audience was small newspapers that had limited staff, but the site would also serve to communicate directly with the public. The publisher of the Commercial Review of Portland, Indiana, said, “I think it’s a ludicrous idea … the notion of elected officials presenting material that will inevitably have a pro-administration point of view is antithetical to the idea of an independent press.”[108] There was speculation that the news service would publish pro-administration stories that would make Pence look good in the event of a presidential run.[109]

According to the Associated Press, the idea “of stories prewritten for the media set off a wave of criticism from journalists around the country, who likened the Indiana endeavor to state-run media in Russia and China. Headlines like ‘Pravda in the Plains’ accompanied calls for Pence to scrap the idea.”[110] David A. Graham of The Atlantic regarded the announcement of JustIN as evidence of a disturbing changing trend in how the public gets news.[111] After a week or so of controversy about the idea, Pence scrapped the idea saying, “However well-intentioned, after thorough review of the preliminary planning and careful consideration of the concerns expressed, I am writing you to inform you that I have made a decision to terminate development of the JustIN website immediately.”[112]

As governor, Pence attempted unsuccessfully to prevent Syrian refugees from being resettled in Indiana.[113] In February 2016, a federal judge ruled that Pence’s order to cut off federal funds for a local non-profit refugee resettlement agency was unconstitutional; Pence has appealed.[113] In December 2015, Pence stated that “calls to ban Muslims from entering the U.S. are offensive and unconstitutional”.[114]

Re-election campaign and withdrawal

Pence ran for a second term as governor. He was unopposed in the May 3, 2016, Republican primary for governor. He was to face Democrat John R. Gregg, former speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, in a rematch of the 2012 race. However, Pence filed paperwork ending his campaign on July 15, 2016, as Trump announced his selection of Pence as his vice presidential running mate.[115]

2016 vice presidential campaign

Pence at a town hall and campaign rally in Phoenix, Arizona.

Pence endorsed Senator Ted Cruz of Texas in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries.[2]

Donald Trump considered naming Pence as his vice presidential running mate along with other finalists including New Jersey governor Chris Christie and former House speaker Newt Gingrich. The Indianapolis Star reported July 14 that Pence would end his re-election campaign and accept the Republican vice presidential nomination instead.[116] This was widely reported on July 14, 2016. The following day, Trump officially announced on Twitter that Pence would be his running mate.[117][118][119]

Immediately after the announcement, Pence said that he was “very supportive of Donald Trump’s call to temporarily suspend immigration from countries where terrorist influence and impact represents a threat to the United States”.[120] Pence said that he was “absolutely” in sync with Trump’s Mexican wall proposal, stating that Mexico is “absolutely” going to pay for it.[121]

According to a FiveThirtyEight rating of candidates’ ideology, Pence is the most conservative vice-presidential candidate in the last forty years.[122]

Pence has stated that his role model as vice president would be Dick Cheney.[123]

During Pence’s preparations for the vice presidential debate in October 2016, Scott Walker played the role of Tim Kaine.[124] (In Kaine’s own debate prep, Robert Barnett was selected to play Pence).[125]

Issues

Pence was the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, a group of conservative House Republicans, from 2005 to 2007.[126]

His committee assignments in the House were the following:

While in Congress, Pence belonged to the Tea Party Caucus.[133]

During Pence’s twelve years in the House, he introduced 90 bills and resolutions; none became law.[134]

Abortion and Planned Parenthood

Pence began seeking to defund Planned Parenthood in 2007,[135] by introducing legislation aimed at preventing any organization that provides abortion services from receiving Title X funding.[136]

Birthright citizenship

In 2009, Pence opposed birthright citizenship (the legal principle set forth by the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”). He co-sponsored a bill that would have limited citizenship to children born to at least one parent who is a citizen, immigrants living permanently in the U.S. or non-citizens performing active service in the U.S. Armed Forces.[137]

Campaign finance

Pence praised the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission when it was announced. Pence said:

Freedom won today in the Supreme Court. Today’s ruling in the Citizens United case takes us one step closer to the Founding Fathers’ vision of free speech, a vision that is cherished by all Americans and one Congress has a responsibility to protect. If the freedom of speech means anything, it means protecting the right of private citizens to voice opposition or support for their elected representatives. The fact that the court overturned a 20-year precedent speaks volumes about the importance of this issue.[138]

Pence described the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, known as McCain–Feingold, which regulates the financing of political campaigns, as “oppressive restrictions on free speech.”[139]

Earmarks

Then-U.S. Representative Pence (third from left) standing behind then-governor Mitch Daniels at a 2008 press conference in Martinsville, Indiana

Pence was a supporter of earmark reform. He voted against the $139.7 billion Transportation-Treasury spending bill in June 2006, and in favor of a series of amendments proposed that same month by Jeff Flake which would strip other members’ earmarks from the federal budget.[140] On occasion, however, Pence secured earmarks for projects in his district.[140]

Economy

Pence was a co-sponsor of H.J.Res.73, a 2011 spending limit amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This amendment would limit federal spending to “the average annual revenue collected in the three prior years, adjusted in proportion to changes in population and inflation.”[141] In regards to adopting the gold standard, Pence stated in 2011, “the time has come to have a debate over gold and the proper role it should play in our nation’s monetary affairs”.[142] Pence proposed legislation to end the dual mandate of the Federal Reserve (maximizing employment and stabilizing prices), requiring the Fed to just focus on price stability and not full employment.[143][144]

He has been a proponent of a flat federal tax rate.[145] Pence opposed the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (the “Wall Street bailout”) of 2008.[145] Pence also opposed the auto industry rescue package of 2008–09, which guided General Motors and Chrysler through bankruptcy.[146]

In 2007, Pence voted against the raising of the federal minimum wage to $7.25 (from $5.15) an hour over two years, stating that it would “hurt the working poor.”[50]

While in the House, Pence voted against the Employee Free Choice Act (“card check“).[51]

He voted against the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[147] He had publicly opposed the bill[148] denouncing it as a failure, and called for a federal spending freeze.[149] Nevertheless, several months after voting against the bill, Pence privately sought $6 million in stimulus funds for projects in his district,[150] and in 2010, hosted a job fair for stimulus-backed employers.[151] A Pence spokesperson stated “… once it became law, he had a responsibility to support local efforts to secure funding for projects that could benefit people in his district.”[150]

Pence voted against the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[152]

Education

Pence voted against the No Child Left Behind Act.[153]

Energy and environment

While in the House, Pence “voted to eliminate funding for climate education programs and to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gas emissions.”[75] Pence also “repeatedly voted against energy efficiency and renewable energy funding and rules” and voted “for several bills that supported fossil fuel development, including legislation promoting offshore drilling.”[75] The League of Conservation Voters, an environmentalist group, gave Pence a lifetime rating of 4 percent.[75]

Climate change

Pence “does not accept the scientific consensus that human activity is the primary driver of climate change.”[154] In 2001, Pence wrote in an op-ed that “Global warming is a myth,”[155] saying that “the earth is actually cooler today than it was about 50 years ago”.[156] In 2006 and 2009, Pence expressed the view that it was unclear whether climate change was driven by human activity, and in 2009 he told political commentator Chris Matthews that there was a “growing skepticism in the scientific community about global warming”.[157][158]

In 2009, Pence led the Republican effort to defeat the American Clean Energy and Security Act (Waxman-Markey), a Democratic-backed bill to cut greenhouse gas emissions (and therefore combat climate change) through a cap-and-trade system.[154]

On September 27, 2016, however, Pence said “there’s no question” that human activity affects both the climate and the environment,[159][160] while defending Trump’s position on the matter.[161]

Crime and drug policy

Pence has questioned proposals to decrease penalties for low-level marijuana offenses in Indiana, saying that the state should focus “on reducing crime, not reducing penalties.”[162] In 2013, Pence expressed concern that a then-pending bill to revise the state’s criminal code was not tough enough on drug crimes, and successfully lobbied to limit the reduction in sentencing of marijuana offenses.[163]

In 2016, Pence signed into law a measure that reinstated a ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for certain drug offenders.[164][165]

During 2014, Governor Pence sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder which said that Indiana would not comply with federal prison rape elimination standards because they were too expensive. According to the Indiana Department of Corrections, it would cost the state $15–20 million annually to comply with the guidelines. Pence said that a number of rape prevention measures had already been implemented.[166]

In 2015, Pence signed Senate Bill 94, which lengthened the statute of limitations for rape — continuing for five years after sufficient DNA evidence is uncovered, enough recorded evidence is brought forth or discovered, or the offender confesses to the crime.[167] Pence also signed Senate Bill 8, allowing the death penalty for beheadings was allowed if the victim was alive at the time of the offense.[167]

Foreign policy

Pence supported the Iraq War Resolution, which authorized military action against Iraq.[168]

During the Iraq War, Pence opposed setting a public withdrawal date from Iraq. During an April 2007 visit to Baghdad, Pence and John McCain visited Shorja market, the site of a deadly attack in February 2007, that claimed the lives of 61 people. Pence and McCain described the visit as evidence that the security situation in Iraqi markets had improved.[169] The visit to the market took place under tight security, including helicopters overhead, and the New York Times reported that the visit gave a false indication of how secure the area was because of the extremely heavy security forces protecting McCain.[170]

Pence chaired the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and was a prominent supporter of George W. Bush’s Iraq War troop surge of 2007. At the time, Pence stated that “the surge is working” and defended the initial decision to invade in 2003.[168]

Pence has opposed closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and trying the suspected terrorists in the U.S.[171] As an alternative, Pence has said that the “enemy combatants” should be tried in a military tribunal.[171]

Pence has stated his support of Israel and its right to attack facilities in Iran to prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons, has defended the actions of Israel in its use of deadly force in enforcing the blockade of Gaza, and has referred to Israel as “America’s most cherished ally”.[172] He visited Israel in 2014 to express his support, and in 2016 signed into law a bill which would ban Indiana from having any commercial dealings with a company that boycotts Israel.[173]

Two weeks prior to the NATO intervention in Libya, Pence thanked the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for their efforts to isolate the Gaddafi regime.[174][175][176] Pence expressed support for “a no-fly zone” and stated that “Gaddafi must go.”[174][175][176]

Gambling

Pence is an advocate of federal restrictions of online gambling. In 2006, he was one of 35 cosponsors of H.R. 4411, the Goodlatte–Leach Internet Gambling Prohibition Act,[177] and H.R. 4777, the Internet Gambling Prohibition Act.[178]

Health care

Pence voted against the act that created Medicare Part D, a Medicare prescription-drug benefit.[179]

Pence voted against the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.[180] In June 2012, after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act in NFIB v. Sebelius, Pence likened the ruling to the September 11 terrorist attacks in a closed-door meeting of the House Republican Conference. He immediately apologized for making the statement.[181]

Homosexuality

In 2000, Pence stated “Congress should oppose any effort to recognize homosexuals as a ‘discrete and insular minority‘ entitled to the protection of anti-discrimination laws similar to those extended to women and ethnic minorities.”[182] He called for “an audit to ensure that federal dollars were no longer being given to organizations that celebrate and encourage the types of behaviors that facilitate the spreading of the HIV virus” and instead advocated for resources to be directed toward conversion therapy programs, “[for] those seeking to change their sexual behavior.”[183][184][185][186]

Pence has said that homosexuals should not serve in the military, saying, “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service because the presence of homosexuals in the ranks weakens unit cohesion.”[187] Pence opposed the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell, saying in 2010 that allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military would “have an impact on unit cohesion.”[187][188]

In 2007, Pence voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would have banned workplace discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[189]

Pence opposed the 2009 Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Act,[190] saying that Barack Obama wanted to “advance a radical social agenda”[191] and said that pastors “could be charged or be subject to intimidation for simply expressing a Biblical worldview on the issue of homosexual behavior.”[192]

Pence opposes both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[193] While in the House, he said that “societal collapse was always brought about following an advent of the deterioration of marriage and family”.[194] He has advocated a constitutional same-sex marriage ban but did not champion such a proposed ban for his first year as governor.[195]

Immigration

In June 2006, Pence unveiled an immigration plan (which he described as “No Amnesty Immigration reform”) that would include increased border security, followed by strict enforcement of laws against hiring illegal aliens, and a guest worker program. This guest worker program would have required participants to apply from their home country to government-approved job placement agencies that match workers with employers who cannot find Americans for the job.[196] The plan received support from conservatives such as Dick Armey,[197] but attracted criticism from other conservatives such as Phyllis Schlafly, Richard A. Viguerie, and Pat Buchanan, who viewed Pence as lending “his conservative prestige to a form of liberal amnesty.”[7][198]

In 2010, Pence voted against the DREAM Act, which would grant the undocumented children of illegal immigrants conditional non-immigrant status if they met certain requirements.[199] In 2010, Pence stated thatArizona S.B. 1070, which at the time of passage in 2010 was the U.S.’s broadest and strictest anti-illegal immigration legislation, was “a good faith to try and restore order to their communities”.[200]

Patriot Act

Further information: History of the Patriot Act

Pence supported the USA Patriot Act on its passage in 2001,[201] and in 2005 called the act “essential to our continued success in the war on terror here at home.”[202] Pence was a sponsor of legislation in 2009 to extend three expiring provisions of the Patriot Act (the library records provision, the roving-wiretap provision, and the lone-wolf provision) for an additional ten years.[203]

Science

Embryonic stem cell research

Pence opposed President Obama’s executive order eliminating restrictions on embryonic stem-cell research. Pence stated, “I believe it is morally wrong to create human life to destroy it for research… I believe it is morally wrong to take the tax dollars of millions of pro-life Americans.”[204][205] He asserted that “scientific breakthroughs have rendered embryonic stem-cell research obsolete”.[204][205]

Evolution

When asked if he accepts evolution, Pence answered “I believe with all my heart that God created the heavens and the earth, the seas and all that’s in them. How he did that I’ll ask him about some day.”[158][205] In a 2002 statement on the floor of the House (reported in the Congressional Record), Pence told his colleagues “… I also believe that someday scientists will come to see that only the theory of intelligent design provides even a remotely rational explanation for the known universe.”[206]

Tobacco

In 2001, Pence wrote an op-ed arguing against the tobacco settlement and tobacco regulation, saying that they would create “new government bureaucracies” and encroach on private lives. He stated that “despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn’t kill.”[84][207] Pence asserted, “2 out of every three smokers does not die from a smoking related illness and 9 out of ten smokers do not contract lung cancer,” while acknowledging that “smoking isn’t good for you” and people who smoke should quit.[84][207]

In 2009, Pence voted against the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, which allows the FDA to regulate tobacco products.[208] According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Pence’s state of Indiana has one of the worst smoking problems in America.[205]

Sex education

In 2002, Pence criticized a speech by then-Secretary of State Colin Powell where Powell stated that it was “important for young people… to protect themselves from the possibility of acquiring any sexually transmitted disease” through the use of condoms.[209][210] Pence called Powell’s comments a “sad day” and expressed his support for abstinence education.[209][210] Pence asserted that “condoms are a very, very poor protection against sexually transmitted diseases” and that Powell was “maybe inadvertently misleading millions of young people and endangering lives”.[209][210]

Social Security

Pence supported President George W. Bush’s unsuccessful 2005 proposal to partially privatize Social Security[211] by allowing workers to invest part of their Social Security payroll taxes in private investment accounts and reduce the increase in benefits for high-income participants.[212] Pence had previously proposed a similar but more aggressive reform plan than Bush’s.[212]

When asked in 2010 if he would be willing to make cuts to Social Security, Pence answered, “I think everything has to be on the table.”[212] When asked if he would raise the retirement age, he said, “I’m an all-of-the-above guy. We need look at everything on the menu.”[212]

Trade deals

Pence “has been a longtime, aggressive advocate of trade deals” between the U.S. and foreign countries.[213] Pence is a supporter of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA),[213] and during his tenure in the House, he voted for every free-trade agreement that came before him.[214] Pence voted in favor of the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA); in favor of keeping the U.S. in the World Trade Organization; and in favor of permanent normal trade relations with China.[214] Pence also supported bilateral free-trade agreements with Colombia, South Korea, Panama, Peru, Oman, Chile and Singapore.[214]Pence’s strong stance in favor of free trade sharply differs from the stance of his running mate Trump, who has condemned globalization and the liberalization of trade.[213][214]

Pence voted against the Trade and Globalization Act of 2007, which would have expanded trade adjustment assistance to American workers adversely affected by globalization.[215] However, in 2014 Pence called for the “swift adoption” of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), urging Indiana’s congressional delegation to support the trade deal.[213]

Personal life

Pence, and his wife, Karen, speaking at CPAC 2015 in Washington, D.C.

Pence and his wife Karen Pence have been married since 1985. They have three children: Michael, Charlotte, and Audrey.[216][217] During his service in the U.S. House, the Pence family lived in Arlington, Virginia, when Congress was in session.[5] Michael Pence’s son is a second lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps.[218]

Pence was raised in a Catholic family, serving as an altar boy and attending parochial school.[23][219] Pence became a born-again Christian in college, while a member of anondenominational Christian student group in college, identifying his freshman year—and specifically “a Christian music festival in Asbury, Ky., in the spring of 1978″[220]—as the moment he made a “commitment to Christ.”[23][219] After that point, however, Pence continued to attend Mass (where he met his wife) and was a Catholic youth minister.[219]Pence called himself Catholic in a 1994 news piece, although by 1995, Pence and his family had joined an evangelical megachurch, the Grace Evangelical Church.[23][219] In 2013, Pence said that his family was “kind of looking for a church.”[23] Pence has described himself as “a Christian, a conservative and a Republican, in that order,” and as “a born-again, evangelical Catholic.”[23][219]

Electoral history

U.S. House of Representatives

1988

Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District Election (1988)
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Philip R. Sharp 116, 915 53.20
Republican Mike Pence 102, 846 46.80
Total votes 219, 761 100.00
Voter turnout  %

[221]

1990

Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District Election (1990)
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Philip R. Sharp 93,495 59.37
Republican Mike Pence 63,980 40.63
Total votes 157,475 100.00
Voter turnout  %

[222]

2000

Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District Election (2000)[223]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence 106,023 50.87
Democratic Robert Rock 80,885 38.81
Independent William “Bill” Frazier 19,077 9.15
Libertarian Michael E. Anderson 2,422 1.16
Total votes 208,407 100.00
Voter turnout  %

2002

Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Election (2002)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence 118,436 63.79
Democratic Melina Ann Fox 63,871 34.40
Libertarian Doris Robertson 3,346 1.80
Total votes 185,653 100.00
Voter turnout  %
Republican hold

2004

Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Election (2004)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence* 182,529 67.09
Democratic Melina Ann Fox 85,123 31.29
Libertarian Chad (Wick) Roots 4,397 1.62
Total votes 272,049 100.00
Voter turnout  %
Republican hold

2006

Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Republican Primary Election (2006)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence 52,188 86.13
Republican George Holland 8,406 13.87
Total votes 60,594 100.00
Voter turnout  %
Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Election (2006)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence 115,266 60.01
Democratic Barry A. Welsh 76,812 39.99
Total votes 192,078 100.00
Voter turnout  %
Republican hold

2008

Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Election (2008)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence* 180,549 63.96
Democratic Barry A. Welsh 94,223 33.38
Libertarian George T. Holland 7,534 2.67
Total votes 282,306 100.00
Voter turnout  %
Republican hold

2010

Indiana’s 6th Congressional District Election (2010)
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence* 126,027 66.57
Democratic Barry A. Welsh 56,647 29.92
Libertarian Talmage “T.J.” Thompson, Jr. 6,635 3.51
Total votes 189,309 100.00
Voter turnout 41%
Republican hold

Governor of Indiana

2012

Republican Indiana gubernatorial election primary in Indiana, 2012[224]
Party Candidate Votes %
Republican Mike Pence 554,412 100.00
Total votes 554,412 100.00
2012 Indiana gubernatorial election[225]
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Republican Mike Pence / Sue Ellspermann 1,264,877 49.62% -8.22%
Democratic John Gregg / Vi Simpson 1,183,213 46.42% +6.38%
Libertarian Rupert Boneham / Brad Klopfenstein 101,028 3.96% +1.84%
No party Donnie Harold Harris / George Fish (write-in) 34 0%
Margin of victory 81,664 3.20% -14.61%
Turnout 2,549,152 57.81% -2.08%
Republican hold Swing

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

Conservative Review – Scorecard

Senator Tim Kaine D VA F 0% 4 2018

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard?MyMembers=false&state=VA&party=D&sort=Score&order=Descending&page=1&pageSize=50

Tim Kaine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Tim Kane.
Tim Kaine
Tim Kaine, official 113th Congress photo portrait.jpg
United States Senator
from Virginia
Assumed office
January 3, 2013
Serving with Mark Warner
Preceded by Jim Webb
Chairman of the Democratic National Committee
In office
January 21, 2009 – April 5, 2011
Preceded by Howard Dean
Succeeded by Donna Brazile (interim)[1]
70th Governor of Virginia
In office
January 14, 2006 – January 16, 2010
Lieutenant Bill Bolling
Preceded by Mark Warner
Succeeded by Bob McDonnell
38th Lieutenant Governor of Virginia
In office
January 12, 2002 – January 14, 2006
Governor Mark Warner
Preceded by John Hager
Succeeded by Bill Bolling
76th Mayor of Richmond
In office
July 1, 1998 – September 10, 2001
Preceded by Larry Chavis
Succeeded by Rudy McCollum
Member of the Richmond City Council
from the 2nd District
In office
July 1, 1994 – September 10, 2001
Preceded by Benjamin P.A. Warthen
Succeeded by William J. Pantele
Personal details
Born Timothy Michael Kaine
February 26, 1958 (age 58)
Saint Paul, Minnesota, U.S.
Political party Democratic
Spouse(s) Anne Holton (m. 1984)
Children 3
Residence Richmond, Virginia
Alma mater
Signature
Website kaine.senate.gov

Timothy MichaelTimKaine (born February 26, 1958) is an American attorney and politician serving as the junior United States Senator from Virginia. A Democrat, Kaine was elected to the Senate in 2012 and is the nominee of his party for Vice President of the United States in the 2016 election.

Born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, Kaine grew up in Overland Park, Kansas, graduated from the University of Missouri, and earned a law degree from Harvard Law Schoolbefore entering private practice and becoming a lecturer at the University of Richmond School of Law. He was first elected to public office in 1994, when he won a seat on the Richmond, Virginia, City Council. He was then elected Mayor of Richmond in 1998, serving in that position until being elected Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 2001. Kaine was elected Governor of Virginia in 2005, serving from 2006 to 2010. He was chairman of the Democratic National Committee from 2009 to 2011.

On July 22, 2016, Hillary Clinton announced that she had selected Kaine to be her vice presidential running mate in the 2016 presidential election, and the 2016 Democratic National Convention nominated him on July 27.

Early life

Kaine was born at Saint Joseph’s Hospital in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is the eldest of three sons[2][3] born to Mary Kathleen (née Burns), a home economics teacher, and Albert Alexander Kaine, Jr., a welder and the owner of a small iron-working shop.[3][4][5] He was raised Catholic.[3] One of Kaine’s great-grandparents was Scottish and the other seven were Irish.[4][6][7] Kaine’s family moved to Overland Park, Kansas, when Kaine was two years old, and he grew up in the Kansas City area.[8] In 1976, he graduated from Rockhurst High School, a Jesuit all-boys preparatory school in Kansas City, Missouri.[2][9] At Rockhurst, Kaine joined the debate team and was elected student body president.[3]

Kaine received his B.A. in economics from the University of Missouri in 1979, completing his degree in three years and graduating summa cum laude.[2][3] He was a Coro Foundation fellow in Kansas City in 1978.[10] He entered Harvard Law School in 1979, interrupting his law studies after his first year to work in Honduras[11][12][a] for nine months from 1980 to 1981, helping Jesuit missionaries who ran a Catholic school in El Progreso.[8][15] While running a vocational center that taught carpentry and welding, he also helped increase the school’s enrollment by recruiting local villagers.[3] Kaine is fluent in Spanish as a result of his year in Honduras.[15]

After returning from Honduras, Kaine met his future wife, first-year Harvard Law student, Anne Holton.[3] He graduated from Harvard Law School with a J.D. degree in 1983.[16] Kaine and Holton moved to Holton’s hometown of Richmond, Virginia, after graduation,[3] and Kaine was admitted to the Virginia Bar in 1984.[9]

Legal career and Richmond City Council

After graduating from law school, Kaine served as law clerk to Judge R. Lanier Anderson III of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Macon, Georgia.[9] Kaine then joined the Richmond law firm of Little, Parsley & Cluverius, P.C.[9] In 1987, Kaine became a director with the law firm of Mezzullo & McCandlish, P.C.[9]Kaine practiced law in Richmond for 17 years, specializing in fair housing law and representing clients discriminated against on the basis of race or disability.[17] He was a board member of the Virginia chapter of Housing Opportunities Made Equal, which he represented in a landmark redlining discrimination lawsuit against Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. arising from the company’s practices in Richmond.[18][19] Kaine won a $100.5 million verdict in the case; the judgment was overturned on appeal, and Kaine and his colleagues negotiated a $17.5 million settlement.[19]

Kaine did regular pro bono work.[18] In 1988, Kaine started teaching legal ethics as an adjunct professor at the University of Richmond School of Law.[9][17] Kaine taught at the University of Richmond for six years, and his students included future Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring.[17][20] He was a founding member of the Virginia Coalition to End Homelessness.[18]

Kaine had a largely apolitical childhood, but became interested in politics in part due to the influence of his wife’s family and his experience attending Richmond city council meetings.[8] In May 1994, Kaine was elected to the city council of the independent city of Richmond,[17] from the City’s 2nd District.[21][22] He defeated incumbent city councilman Benjamin P.A. Warthen[9] by 97 votes.[23] Kaine served four terms on the council, the latter two as mayor.[17][24]

Mayor of Richmond (1998–2001)

On July 1, 1998, Kaine was elected mayor of Richmond, succeeding Larry Chavis.[25][26] He was chosen by an 8-1 vote[23] on the majority-black City Council,[b] becoming the city’s first white mayor in more than ten years,[22][24] which was viewed as a surprise.[25] Rudy McCollum, an African-American city councilor also interested in the position of mayor, decided to back Kaine after a private meeting between the two, clearing the way for Kaine to win election.[23] Previous mayors had treated the role as primarily a ceremonial one,[27] with the city manager effectively operating the city; Kaine treated the office as a full-time job, taking a more hands-on role.[25]

As mayor, Kaine used a sale-leaseback arrangement to obtain funds to renovate the historic Maggie L. Walker High School and reopen it in 2000 as a magnet governor’s school, the Maggie L. Walker Governor’s School for Government and International Studies, which “now serves the top students in Central Virginia.”[28] Three elementary schools and one middle school were also built in Richmond under Kaine.[29]

Along with Commonwealth’s Attorney David Hicks, U.S. Attorney James Comey, and Police Chief Jerry Oliver, Kaine was a support of Project Exile, which a reporter described as a “controversial but effective program,” that shifted gun crimes to federal court, where armed defendants faced harsher sentences.[25] The effort “won broad political support” and the city’s homicide rate fell by 55% over Kaine’s tenure in office.[30] Kaine later touted Project Exile during his campaign for lieutenant governor in 2001.[29][30]

On several occasions, Kaine voted in opposition to tax increases, and supported a tax abatement program for renovated buildings, which was credited for a housing renovation boom in the city.[25] Richmond was named one of “the 10 best cities in America to do business” by Forbes magazine during Kaine’s term.[31]

According to John Moeser, a professor emeritus of urban studies and planning at Virginia Commonwealth University and later a visiting fellow at the University of Richmond‘s Center for Civic Engagement, during his time as mayor Kaine “was energetic, charismatic and, most important, spoke openly about his commitment to racial reconciliation in Richmond.”[25] The New York Times wrote that Kaine “was by all accounts instrumental in bridging the city’s racial divide.”[19] In the early part of his term, Kaine issued an apology for the city’s role in slavery;[29][32] the apology was generally well received as “a genuine, heartfelt expression.”[29] In the latter part of his term, a contentious debate took place in the city over the inclusion of a portrait of Confederate general Robert E. Lee in a set of historic murals to be placed on city floodwalls.[23][26] Many African-Americans were outraged that Lee would appear on city walls, while Southern heritage groups demanded that Lee’s picture remain.[23] Kaine proposed a compromise in which Lee would appear as part of a series of murals that also included figures like Abraham Lincoln and Powhatan Beaty.[23] Kaine’s stance drew criticism from the NAACP; Kaine argued that placing Lee on the floodwall made sense in context, and that “Much of our history is not pleasant; you can’t whitewash it.”[19][26] Kaine’s compromise proposal passed the council on a 6-3 vote.[23]

During his tenure as mayor, Kaine drew criticism for spending $6,000 in public funds on buses to the Million Mom March, an anti-gun-violence rally in Washington, D.C.; after a backlash, Kaine raised the money privately and reimbursed the city.[33]

Lieutenant governor of Virginia (2002–2005)

Kaine in an F-14 Tomcat while touring a naval base in 2003

Kaine ran for Lieutenant Governor of Virginia in 2001. Kaine joined the race after state senator Emily Couric dropped out due to pancreatic cancer and endorsed Kaine as her replacement.[34] In the Democratic primary election, Kaine ran against state Delegate Alan A. Diamonstein of Newport News, and state Delegate Jerrauld C. Jones of Norfolk.[35]Kaine won the nomination, garnering 39.7% of the vote to Diamonstein’s 31.4% and Jones’ 28.9%.[36]

In the general election, Kaine won with 925,974 votes (50.35%), of the vote, edging out his Republican opponent, state Delegate Jay Katzen, who received 883,886 votes (48.06%).[37] Libertarian Gary Reams received 28,783 votes (1.57%).[37]

Kaine was inaugurated on January 12, 2002, and was sworn in by his wife Anne Holton, a state judge.[38]

2005 gubernatorial election

Kaine at the Covington
Labor Day Parade in Virginia, September 4, 2006

In 2005, Kaine ran for governor of Virginia against Republican candidate Jerry W. Kilgore, a former state attorney general. Kaine was considered an underdog for most of the race,[39] trailing in polls for most of the election.[40] Two polls released in September 2005 showed Kaine trailing Kilgore—by four percentage points in a Washington Post poll and by one percentage point in a Mason-Dixon/Roanoke Times poll.[41][42] The final opinion polls of the race before the November election showed Kaine slightly edging ahead of Kilgore.[40][43]

Kaine ultimately prevailed, winning 1,025,942 votes (51.7%) to Kilgore’s 912,327 (46.0%).[44] (A third candidate—independent state Senator H. Russell Potts Jr., who ran as an “independent Republican[45][46]—received 43,953 votes (2.2%)[44]).

Kaine emphasized fiscal responsibility and a centrist message.[42][45] He expressed support for controlling sprawl and tackling longstanding traffic issues, an issue that resonated in the exurbs of northern Virginia.[47] He benefited from his association with the popular outgoing Democratic governor, Mark Warner, who had performed well in traditionally Republican areas of the state.[41] On the campaign trail, Kaine referred to the “Warner-Kaine administration” in speeches and received the strong backing of Warner.[45][48] Kilgore later attributed his defeat to Warner’s high popularity and the “plummeting popularity” of Republican President George W. Bush, who held one rally with Kilgore on the campaign’s final day.[43]

The campaign turned sharply negative in its final weeks, with Kilgore running television attack ads that claimed, incorrectly, that Kaine believed that “Hitler doesn’t qualify for the death penalty.”[49] The ads also attacked Kaine for his service ten years earlier as a court-appointed attorney for a death-row inmate.[50] The Republican ad was denounced by the editorial boards of the Washington Post and a number of Virginia newspapers as a “smear” and “dishonest.”[49][50][51] Kaine responded with an ad “in which he told voters that he opposes capital punishment but would take an oath and enforce the death penalty. In later polls, voters said they believed Kaine’s response and were angered by Kilgore’s negative ads.”[52]

In the election, Kaine won by large margins in the Democratic strongholds such as Richmond and Northern Virginia’s inner suburbs (such as Alexandria and Arlington), as well as in the Democratic-trending Fairfax County.[53][54] Kaine also won Republican-leaning areas in Northern Virginia’s outer suburbs, including Prince William County and Loudoun County, where George W. Bush had beat John Kerry in the previous year’s presidential election,[53] and performed “surprisingly well in Republican strongholds like Virginia Beach and Chesapeake.”[54] Kaine also defeated Kilgore in the burgeoning Richmond suburbs.[53] Kilgore led insouthwest Virginia and in the Shenandoah Valley.[53]

Governor of Virginia (2006–2010)

Kaine was sworn in as governor at the colonial Capitol at Williamsburg, on January 14, 2006, the first governor since Thomas Jefferson to be inaugurated there.[17]

Kaine was chairman of the Southern Governors’ Association from 2008 to 2009.[55]

Democratic response to State of the Union address

On January 31, 2006, Kaine gave the Democratic response to President George W. Bush‘s 2006 State of the Union address. In it, Kaine criticized the Bush administration’s No Child Left Behind Act for “wreaking havoc on local school districts”; criticized congressional Republicans for cutting student loan programs; and condemned as “reckless” Bush’s spending increases and tax cuts.[56] Kaine praised bipartisan initiatives in Virginia “to make record investments in education” and to improve veterans’ access to veterans’ benefits.[56] Kaine criticized the Bush administration’s conduct of the Iraq War and treatment of U.S. soldiers; saying that “the American people were given inaccurate information about reasons for invading Iraq”; “our troops in Iraq were not given the best body armor or the best intelligence”; and “the administration wants to further reduce military and veterans’ benefits.”[56]

Energy, the environment, and conservation

As governor, Kaine successfully protected 400,000 acres (1,600 km2) of Virginia land from development, fulfilling a promise that he made in 2005.[57][58] Kaine’s conservation efforts focused on conservation easements (voluntary easements that preserve the private ownership of a piece of land while also permanently protecting it from development); a substantial Virginia land preservation tax credit encouraged easements.[59] From 2004 to 2009, the Virginia Outdoors Foundation (a quasi-governmental entity set up in 1966 to preserve open land in the state) protected more land than it had in the previous forty years, a fact touted by Kaine as his term drew to a close.[59]

As governor, Kaine established the Climate Change Commission, a bipartisan panel to study climate change issues.[60] The panel was shuttered under Kaine’s Republican successor, Governor Robert F. McDonnell, but was revived (as the Governor’s Climate Change and Resiliency Update Commission) under his successor, Democratic Governor Terry McAuliffe.[60][61]

Kaine supported a coal-fired power plant project in Wise County, clashing with environmentalists who opposed the project.[62][63]

In 2009, Kaine expressed support for tighter restrictions on mountaintop removal coal mining imposed by the Obama administration.[64]

Healthcare and public health

In October 2006, Kaine signed an executive order banning smoking in all government buildings and state-owned cars as of January 1, 2007.[65] He signed legislation banning smoking in restaurants and bars, with some exceptions, in March 2009, making Virginia the first Southern state to do so.[66]

In 2007, the Republican-controlled Virginia General Assembly passed legislation, with “overwhelming bipartisan support,” to require girls to receive the HPV vaccine (which immunizes recipients against a virus that causes cervical cancer) before entering high school.[67][68] Kaine expressed “some qualms” about the legislation and pushed for a strong opt-out provision,[67] ultimately signing a bill that included a provision allowing parents to opt out of the requirement without citing a reason.[68]

In 2007, Kaine secured increases in state funding for nursing in the Virginia General Assembly and announced a 10% salary increase for nursing faculty above the normal salary increase for state employees, plus additional funds for scholarships for nursing master’s programs. The initiatives were aimed at addressing a shortage of practicing nurses.[69]

Virginia Tech shooting

Following the 2007 Virginia Tech shooting, in which 32 people were killed by Seung-Hui Cho, Kaine appointed an eight-member Virginia Tech Review Panel,[70] chaired by retired Virginia State Police superintendent W. Gerald Massengill, to probe the event.[71][72] The commission members included specialists in psychology, law, forensics and higher education as well as former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.[71] The commission first met in May 2007,[71] and issued its findings and recommendations in August 2007.[70] Among other recommendations, the panel proposed many mental health reforms. Based on the panel’s recommendations, Kaine proposed $42 million of investment in mental health programs and reforms, included “boosting access to outpatient and emergency mental health services, increasing the number of case managers and improving monitoring of community-based providers.”[73] In April 2007, Kaine signed an executive order instructing state agencies to step up efforts to block gun sales to people involuntarily committed to inpatient and outpatient mental health treatment centers.[74] Kaine, who had been in Japan on a trade mission at the time of the shootings, received widespread praise for his quick return to the state and his handling of the issue .[75]

Budget and economy

Among Kaine’s greatest challenges as governor came during the 2008–09 economic crisis; the Washington Post wrote that “perhaps his greatest success was keeping the state running despite [the crisis].”[75] In the midst of the Great Recession, unemployment in Virginia remained lower than the national average.[76] During Kaine’s tenure as governor, the unemployment rate in Virginia rose from 3.2% to 7.4%, a smaller increase than the national unemployment rate which rose from 4.7% to 9.9% during the same period.[76]

As governor, Kaine approved about $3.31 billion in general fund spending cuts, and after the end of Kaine’s term in office, the Virginia General Assembly adopted about $1.33 billion in additional budget cuts that Kaine had recommended, for a total of $4.64 billion in cuts.[77] The Washington Post noted: “Unable to raise taxes and required by law to balance the budget, he was forced to make unpopular cuts that led to such things as shuttered highway rest stops and higher public university tuition.”[75] Virginia was one of three states to earn the highest grade in terms of management in a report by the non-partisan Pew Center on the States.[78] Virginia took first place each year from 2006 to 2009 in the “Best States For Business” rankings published by Forbes magazine.[78]

Infrastructure and transportation

Governor Kaine with U.S. Senators
John Warner and George Allen

In July 2007, during the debate on the Silver Line of the Washington Metro through Tysons Corner, Kaine supported an elevated track solution in preference to a tunnel, citing costs and potential delays that would put federal funding at risk.[79]

In 2006, early in his term, Kaine pressed the General Assembly to support a legislative package to ease severe traffic congestion by spending about $1 billion annually forhighway construction, repairs to aging roads, mass transit, and other transportation projects. The money would raised through increases in taxes and fees that would have raised an estimated $4 billion in revenue over four years.[80][81][82] The Democratic-controlled Senate supported the plan, but the Republican-controlled House was ultimately unwilling to approve the taxes necessary to carry out the project, however, and the effort failed even after a special session of the Legislature was called over the transportation-funding stalemate.[83][84][85]

In 2007, Republicans in the General Assembly passed their own transportation-funding bill. Rather than a statewide tax increase to finance the transportation improvements, as Kaine and most legislative Democrats favored, the Republican bill called for transportation funding “to come from borrowing $2.5 billion and paying the debt costs out of the general fund”; authorized local tax increase in Northern Virginia; increased fees and taxes on rental cars, commercial real estate, and hotels; and increased traffic infractionfines and driver’s licenses fees.[86][87]

Kaine and most legislative Democrats opposed the Republican legislation, stating that it was inadequate to address traffic congestion and that the withdrawal of funds from the general fund would affect core services such as health care, law enforcement, and education.[87][88] Kaine ultimately signed a bill with amendments reflecting “concerns by local government officials and a bipartisan group of lawmakers who were concerned that the plan took too much money from the state’s general fund.”[89]

Education

In 2008, Kaine backed a $22 million proposal in the Virginia General Assembly to make pre-kindergarten education more accessible to at-risk four-year-olds.[90] Virginia was rated as the best state to raise a child in a 2007 report by Education Week and the Pew Center on the States.[78]

Cabinet and appointments

Kaine made the following appointments to his Virginia Governor’s Cabinet:[91]

  • Chief of Staff — William Leighty (2006–2007), Wayne Turnage (2007–2010)
  • Secretary of Administration – Viola Baskerville (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Agriculture and Forestry – Robert Bloxom (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Commerce and Trade – Patrick Gottschalk (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of the CommonwealthKatherine Hanley (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Education – Thomas Morris (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Finance – Jody Wagner (2006–2008), Richard D. Brown (2008–2010)
  • Secretary of Health and Human Resources – Marilyn Tavenner (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Natural Resources – Preston Bryant (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Public Safety – John W. Marshall (2006–2010)
  • Secretary of Technology – Aneesh Chopra (2006–2009), Leonard M. Pomata (2009–2010)
  • Secretary of Transportation – Pierce Homer (2006–2010)
  • Assistant for Commonwealth Preparedness – Robert P. Crouch (2006–2010)
  • Senior Advisor for Workforce – Daniel G. LeBlanc (2006–2010)

As governor, Kaine made a number of appointments to the Virginia state courts. Kaine made two appointments[c] to the Supreme Court of Virginia,[93] naming Chesapeake Circuit Judge S. Bernard Goodwyn to the Court in 2007[95] and Virginia Court of Appeals Judge LeRoy F. Millette, Jr. to the Court in 2008.[92][d]

On September 27, 2007, just weeks after appointing Esam Omeish to the 20-member Virginia Commission on Immigration, Kaine learned that Omeish had made videos accusing Israel of genocide and calling for the impeachment of President Bush.[96] Kaine immediately requested and received Omeish’s resignation and said that background checks would be more thorough in the future.[97]

2008 vice presidential speculation

Barack Obama campaigned for
Tim Kaine in 2005 for the
gubernatorial election
.

Kaine announced his support for Senator Obama’s presidential bid in February 2007. It was maintained that Kaine’s endorsement was the first from a statewide elected official outside of Illinois.[98] Because Kaine was a relatively popular governor of a Southern state, there was media speculation that he was a potential nominee for vice president.[99]Obama had supported Kaine in his campaign for governor and had said about him: “Tim Kaine has a message of fiscal responsibility and generosity of spirit. That kind of message can sell anywhere.”[100] On July 28, 2008, Politico reported that Kaine was “very, very high” on Obama’s shortlist for vice president,[101] a list which also included then Senator Hillary Clinton of New York, Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas, Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, and Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.[102] Obama ultimately selected Biden to become the vice-presidential nominee.[103]

Democratic National Committee chairman (2009–2011)

In January 2009, Kaine became the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee.[104][e] Kaine had turned down the position the first time it was offered to him, expressing misgivings about accepting a partisan position,[24] but nonetheless took the job at the request of President Obama.[105] During his tenure, he oversaw a significant expansion of the party’s grassroots focus through Organizing for America, the political operation for the White House. In February 2011, after Kaine spoke to union leaders in Madison, Organizing for America got involved in Wisconsin’s budget battle and opposed Republican-sponsored anti-union legislation. They made phone calls, sent emails, and distributed messages via Facebook and Twitter to build crowds for rallies.[106]

After completing his term as governor in January 2010, Kaine taught part-time at the University of Richmond, teaching a course in spring 2010 at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies and another in fall 2010 at the University of Richmond School of Law.[107][108] Kaine explained that he had chosen to teach at a private university, rather than a public university, “because it would not have been right for a sitting governor to be seeking employment at an institution when he writes the budget and appoints the board of the institution.”[109]

United States Senate

2012 election

After Senator Jim Webb‘s decision not to seek reelection, Kaine announced on April 5, 2011, that he would run for Webb’s seat. He was initially reluctant to return to public office, but Webb, Senator Mark Warner, and other Virginia Democrats saw Kaine as the strongest potential Democratic candidate and convinced him to run.[34] Mike Henry was chosen as Kaine’s campaign manager.[110] Kaine filmed announcement videos in English and Spanish[111][112] and was unopposed for the Democratic nomination.[113] He defeated former Senator and Governor George Allen in the general election.[114][115]

Tenure

Kaine was sworn in for a six-year term on January 3, 2013, reuniting him with Mark Warner, the senior senator. Kaine was lieutenant governor when Warner was governor of Virginia.

On June 11, 2013, Kaine delivered a speech on the Senate floor in support of the bipartisan “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. The speech was entirely in Spanish, marking the first time a senator had ever made a speech on the Senate floor in a language other than English.[116]

Kaine speaking in 2016

As a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs, Kaine pushed for a new Congressional authorization of military force for the American operations against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL).[117] Kaine supported the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action with Iran, though he also helped Republican Senator Bob Corker hold a vote on a resolution of disapproval on the deal.[117] Kaine has taken several trips throughout the Middle East, meeting with the leaders of states such as Turkey and Israel.[117]

While in the Senate, Kaine has continued to teach part-time at the University of Richmond, receiving a salary of $16,000 per year.[118]

Kaine voted with his party more than 90% of the time.[119][120] According to the Washington Post, Kaine has “crafted a largely progressive record as a senator.”[121] He reportedly has good relations with both Democratic and Republican senators.[122][123][124][125]

Committee assignments and caucuses

In the 113th Congress (2013–15), Kaine was on the Committee on Armed Services, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on Foreign Relations.[126] In the current (114th) Congress, Kaine serves on the same three committees, plus the Special Committee on Aging.[127][128] In July 2013, Kaine was named chairman of the United States Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia and Counterterrorism.[129]

Within the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kaine serves on the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support (for which he is the ranking member), and the Subcommittee on Seapower.[130]

Within the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, Kaine serves on the Subcommittee on State Department and USAID Management, International Operations, and Bilateral International Development (for which he is the ranking member), the Subcommittee on Europe and Regional Security Cooperation, the Subcommittee on Near East, South Asia, Central Asia, and Counterterrorism, and the Subcommittee on Western Hemisphere, Transnational Crime, Civilian Security, Democracy, Human Rights and Global Women’s Issues.[131]

In January 2014, Kaine, with Republican Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, established the bipartisan Senate Career and Technical Education Caucus (CTE Caucus), which focuses on vocational education and technical education.[132] Kaine and Portman co-chair the caucus.[133][134] In 2014, Kaine and Portman introduced the CTE Excellence and Equity Act to the Senate; the legislation would provide $500 million in federal funding, distributed by competitive grants, to high schools to further CTE programs.[135] The legislation, introduced as an amendment to the omnibus Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, would promote apprenticeships and similar initiatives.[135]

2016 vice presidential campaign

Clinton/Kaine logo

Kaine endorsed Hillary Clinton‘s presidential bid in 2016 and campaigned actively for Clinton in seven states during the primaries. He had been the subject of considerable speculation as a possible running mate for Clinton, with several news reports indicating that he was at or near the top of Clinton’s list of people under consideration alongside figures such as Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro.[136][137]

The New York Times reported that Clinton’s husband, former President Bill Clinton, privately backed Kaine as his wife’s vice-presidential selection, noting his domestic and national security résumé.[138] On July 22, 2016, she picked Kaine to be her running mate in the election.[139] Clinton introduced Kaine as her choice in a joint appearance at a rally at Florida International University in Miami the following day.[140] The 2016 Democratic National Convention nominated him their vice presidential candidate on July 27, 2016.[141]

Kaine is the first Virginian since Woodrow Wilson to be on a major party’s ticket,[142] and is the first Virginian to run for vice president on a major party’s ticket since John Tyler in 1840; he is also the first Senator or former Senator from Virginia to be on a major party’s ticket since Tyler.[143]

In accordance with longstanding political custom in the U.S., upon being nominated for vice president Kaine publicly released his full tax returns for the last ten years.[144][145] Kaine also publicly released medical records; his physician, Dr. Brian P. Monahan, the Attending Physician of the United States Congress, wrote in a letter that Kaine was “in overall excellent health.”[146][147] In September he published a campaign book co-authored with Clinton, Stronger Together.[148]

In Kaine’s preparations for the vice presidential debate in October 2016, lawyer Robert Barnett played the role of Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence.[149] (During Pence’s own debate preparations,Wisconsin governor Scott Walker played the role of Kaine.)[150]

Personality and leadership style

About 145,000 emails from Kaine and his staff during his term as governor are publicly accessible from the Library of Virginia. Politico conducted an analysis of the correspondence and wrote that the messages show Kaine to be a “media-savvy” and detail-oriented “micro-manager” who is also a policy “wonk“.[151]

According to the New York Times, Kaine “is widely described by people in his political orbit as a likable if less than charismatic figure…guided by moral convictions that flow from his deep Christian faith.”[19] Kaine described himself on Meet the Press as “boring.”[19][152]

Political positions

In terms of political ideology, FiveThirtyEight gives Kaine an average score of −37 (−100 is the most liberal, and 100 is the most conservative).[153] FiveThirtyEight characterizes him as a “mainstream Democrat” and notes that his ideology score is very similar to that of Vice President Joe Biden.[153] Three conservative groups—the American Conservative Union, the Club for Growth, and Heritage Action—gave Kaine zero percent ratings in the few years before 2016,[154] while the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action gave Kaine a 90% rating in 2014.[155] The New York Times wrote that “in hyperpartisan Washington, he is often seen as a centrist” while also describing him as an “old-fashioned liberal…driven by Jesuit ideals.”[19]

Abortion, birth control, and sex education

Kaine, a Roman Catholic, is personally against abortion,[156][157] but is “largely inclined to keep the law out of women’s reproductive decisions.”[156] Kaine has said: “I’m a strong supporter of Roe v. Wade and women being able to make these decisions. In government, we have enough things to worry about. We don’t need to make people’s reproductive decisions for them.”[158] Kaine supports some legal restrictions on abortion, such as requiring parental consent for minors (with a judicial bypass procedure) and banning late-term abortions in cases where the woman’s life is not at risk.[159]

In 2009, Kaine signed a bill to create a “Choose Life” license plate, among the more than 200 Virginia specialty plates already offered, the proceeds of which would partly go to Heartbeat International, a Christian organization that operates anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers.[160] Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America expressed disappointment in Kaine’s decision.[160] Kaine considered such license plate messages a matter of free speech and added that the move was “in keeping with the commonwealth’s longtime practice of approving specialty plates with all manner of political and social messages.”[160]

Kaine previously criticized the Obama administration for “not providing a ‘broad enough religious employer exemption'” in the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act, but praised a 2012 amendment to the regulations that allowed insurers to provide birth control to employees when an employer was an objecting religious organization.[161]

In 2005, when running for governor, Kaine said he favored reducing abortions by: (1) “Enforcing the current Virginia restrictions on abortion and passing an enforceable ban on partial birth abortion that protects the life and health of the mother”; (2) “Fighting teen pregnancy through abstinence-focused education”; (3) “Ensuring women’s access to health care (including legal contraception) and economic opportunity”; and (4) “Promoting adoption as an alternative for women facing unwanted pregnancies.”[162]

In 2007, as governor, Kaine cut off state funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, citing studies which showed that such programs were ineffective, while comprehensive sex education programs were more effective.[163] Kaine believes that both abstinence and contraceptives must be taught, and that education should be evidence-based.[163]

As a senator, he has received perfect scores from Planned Parenthood and the abortion-rights advocacy group NARAL.[119][164] He has received a score of zero from the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee.[164]

Campaign finance

Kaine “strongly disagrees” with the ruling in Citizens United v. FEC (2010).[165] In 2015, Kaine joined a group of Senate Democrats in a letter to Securities and Exchange Commission Chairwoman Mary Jo White that said the ruling “reversed long-standing precedent and has moved our country in a different and disturbing direction when it comes to corporate influence in politics.” They urged the SEC to require publicly traded companies to disclose political spending to their shareholders to “increase transparency in the U.S. political process” following the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Citizens United.[165]

Capital punishment

Kaine personally opposes capital punishment, but presided over eleven executions while governor.[166] Kaine said: “I really struggled with [capital punishment] as governor. I have a moral position against the death penalty. But I took an oath of office to uphold it. Following an oath of office is also a moral obligation.”[34] During his time in office he commuted one death sentence in June 2008, that of Percy Levar Walton to life imprisonment without parole on grounds of mental incompetence, writing that “one cannot reasonably conclude that Walton is fully aware of the punishment he is about to suffer and why he is to suffer it” and thus executing him would be unconstitutional.[167] Kaine vetoed a number of bills to expand the death sentence to more crimes, saying: “I do not believe that further expansion of the death penalty is necessary to protect human life or provide for public safety needs.”[168][169] Some of the vetoes were overridden, while others were sustained.[170][f]

Environment, energy, and climate change

Kaine acknowledges the scientific consensus on climate change, and in a 2014 Senate speech criticized climate change deniers, as well as those who “may not deny the climate science, but … deny that the U.S. can or should be a leader in taking any steps” to address the issue.[171]

Kaine has expressed concern about sea level rise (a major consequence of climate change),[134] and in particular its effect on coastal Virginia.[171] In 2014, he partnered with two Virginia Republicans—U.S. Representatives Rob Wittman and Scott Rigell—to hold a conference on sea-level rise and “local adaptation efforts to protect military installations in the Hampton Roads area.”[134]

Kaine endorses making coal energy production cleaner saying that it is imperative “to convert coal to electricity with less pollution than we do today.”[171] He has criticized those who “frame the debate as a conflict between an economy and the environment,” saying that “protecting the environment is good for the economy.”[171] Kaine co-sponsored the Advanced Clean Coal Technology Investment in Our Nation (ACCTION) Act, legislation to increase investment in clean coal technologies.[172] He voted against passage of legislation to approve the Keystone XL pipeline.[173] Kaine supports the use of hydraulic fracturing (fracking) to harvest natural gas from shale formations. He believes this will reduce carbon pollution.[172] Kaine voted against an amendment, introduced by Sen. Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), that would have repealed a provision in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that exempts hydraulic fracturing from the underground injection control provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. As a result, regulation of hydraulic fracturing remains in the hands of state agencies; the U.S. EPA cannot regulate hydraulic fracturing nor require a federal permit.[174][175] Kaine supports exporting liquid natural gas (LNG) to other countries.[176]

Like his fellow senator from Virginia, Mark Warner, Kaine applauded the U.S. Forest Service‘s plan to close most, but not all, of the George Washington National Forest to hydraulic fracturing and other horizontal drilling activities.[177]

In 2013, Kaine supported oil and gas exploration off the coast of Virginia, saying, “I have long believed that the moratorium on offshore drilling, based on a cost-benefit calculation performed decades ago, should be re-examined.”[178][179] In April 2015, Kaine reiterated his opposition to the moratorium on offshore drilling.[180] In March 2016, Kaine signaled that his position was softening, saying he was “particularly struck by the material objections of the Department of Defense to the incompatibility of drilling with naval operations off Virginia’s coast… I have participated in this debate for over a decade as a governor and member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The DOD has been relatively quiet during this public debate and has never shared their objections with me before.”[180] By August 2016, Kaine stated his support for a ban on offshore drilling, bringing his position in line with of Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration.[180]

Kaine supports the development of solar energy and offshore wind turbines.[172]

Based on his votes on environmental issues in the Senate, the League of Conservation Voters has given Kaine a 88% score for 2015, and a 91% lifetime score.[134][175]

Financial regulation

Kaine has said that he is “strongly for the regulation of the financial industry,” and he supports the Dodd–Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.[154] In July 2016, Kaine signed a bipartisan letter that “urged the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to ‘carefully tailor its rulemaking’ [under Dodd-Frank] regarding community banks and credit unions so as not to ‘unduly burden’ these institutions with regulations aimed at commercial banks.”[154] The letter prompted criticism from progressives who viewed it as anti-regulation.[154][181] Charles Chamberlain, executive director of Democracy for America, called the letter “a lobbyist-driven effort to help banks dodge consumer protection standards and regulations designed to prevent banks from destroying our economy.” Kaine responded to the criticism by saying, “it’s important you don’t treat every financial institution the same. It wasn’t credit unions that tanked the economy, it wasn’t local community banks that tanked the economy, generally wasn’t regional banks that did things that tanked the economy.”[154] Kaine also signed a letter urging that a requirement that regional banks report liquidity levels on a daily basis be loosened.[182]

Foreign and defense policy

In the Senate, Kaine has supported the normalization of U.S.–Cuban relations and the international nuclear agreement with Iran.[183]

Kained expressed support for Israel‘s right to defend itself during the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict.[184] Kaine also supported the Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen.[185]

Afghanistan

On the issue of the war in Afghanistan, Kaine’s website states “The main mission in Afghanistan—destroying Al Qaeda—is nearly complete and we should bring our troops home as quickly as we can, consistent with the need to make sure that Afghanistan poses no danger in the broader region.”[186]

War powers

Kaine and Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona introduced the War Powers Consultation Act of 2014,[187] which would replace the War Powers Act of 1973, bringing the Congress back into decisions on the deployment of U.S. military forces.[187] The bill would establish a Congressional Consultation Committee, with which the President would be required to consult regularly regarding significant foreign policy matters; before ordering the deployment of the Armed Forces into a significant armed conflict; and at least every two months for the duration of any significant armed conflict.[187][188] Kaine argued for the bill by citing his “frustration” over the sloppiness of “process and communication over decisions of war”, noting that “Presidents tend to overreach and Congress sometimes willingly ducks tough votes and decisions. We all have to do better.”[187] Kaine has stated that “war powers questions” are a “personal obsession” of his.[189][190]

Syria, Iraq, and ISIL

In 2014, Kaine argued that the U.S. military intervention against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), undertaken by President Obama, was unconstitutional without a new congressional authorization for the use of military force against ISIL.[191] In November 2014, at the Halifax International Security Forum, Kaine, together with Senator John McCain, emphasized the necessity of such a congressional authorization, saying: “You just can’t have a war without Congress. You can’t ask people to risk their lives, risk getting killed, seeing other folks getting killed or injured if Congress isn’t willing to do the job to put their thumbprint on this and say, this is a national mission and worth it.”[192]

On December 11, 2014, after a five-month campaign by Kaine, the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee approved by 10–8 (straight party lines) a measure authorizing military force against ISIL, but barring the use of ground troops.[193][194] In 2015, Kaine criticized Obama’s approach to the Syrian civil war, saying that the establishment of humanitarian no-fly zones would have alleviated the humanitarian crisis in Syria.[195][196]

Guns

Kaine is a gun owner.[183] He has supported expanded background checks for weapons purchases as well as “restrictions on the sale of combat-style weapons and high-capacity magazines.”[183][197] As governor, Kaine oversaw the closing of loopholes in Virginia law that allowed some who had failed background checks to purchase guns.[183] In the Senate, Kaine has supported legislation which would require background checks to be performed for weapons sold via gun shows and via the internet.[183] He also supports legislation to bar weapons sales to suspected terrorists on the No Fly List.[183]

Kaine has a 100% rating from the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence[198] and an “F” rating from the NRA.[199]

Healthcare

Kaine supported passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009 (“Obamacare”), saying in 2012: “I was a supporter and remain a supporter of the Affordable Care Act. I felt like it was a statement that we were going to put some things in the rear-view mirror.”[200] In 2013, Kaine said that he agreed that changes to the ACA should be debated, but criticized Republicans for “wrapping them up with the threat” of afederal government shutdown.[201]

Immigration

Kaine supports President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parental Accountability (DAPA) programs,[202] which would allow up to five million undocumented immigrants to gain deferral of deportation and authorization to legally work in the United States.[183] Alongside fellow Virginia senator Mark Warner and many other members of Congress, Kaine signed on to an amicus brief in support of the program in the Supreme Court case of United States v. Texas.[203][204]

Kaine also supports comprehensive immigration reform, which would allow persons illegally present in the U.S. to earn legal status by paying a fine and taxes.[183]

LGBT rights

In 2006, Kaine campaigned against an amendment to the Virginia State Constitution to bar same-sex marriage,[205] and in March 2013, Kaine announced his support of same-sex marriage.[206][207]

In the Senate, Kaine co-sponsored the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would bar employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.[208]

In 2005, Kaine said: “No couples in Virginia can adopt other than a married couple — that’s the right policy.”[209] In 2011, however, Kaine shifted his position.[210] In 2012, he stated that “there should be a license that would entitle a committed couple to the same rights as a married couple.”[211]

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Kaine noted that his position on same-sex marriage was “at odds with the current doctrine of the church that I still attend.” He predicted that the Roman Catholic Church would someday adopt his view.[212] In response, two bishops heading the doctrine and marriage committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said that the church’s position “cannot change” and reaffirmed their opposition to same-sex marriage.[213]

Taxes

Kaine supports allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for those with incomes above $500,000.[214]

In 2012, Kaine supported raising the cap on income subject for the FICA (Social Security) payroll tax “so that it covers a similar percentage of income as it did in the 1980s under President Reagan, which would greatly extend the solvency of the (Social Security) program.”[215]

In the Senate, Kaine has supported the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow states to require online retailers to collect sales taxes in the same manner as traditional brick-and-mortar retailers.[216][217][218]

Trade

Kaine supported granting President Obama Trade Promotion Authority (TPA or “fast track”) to allow him to negotiate free trade agreements.[219] Kaine stated that the goal should be to “negotiate deals that protect workers’ rights, environmental standards and intellectual property, while knocking down tariffs and other barriers that some countries erect to keep American products out.”[219]

In July 2016, Kaine said that the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) agreement was “an improvement of the status quo” in terms of it being an “upgrade of labor standards… environmental standards… intellectual property protections”, but maintained that he had not yet decided how to vote on final approval of the agreement, citing “significant concerns” over TPP’s dispute resolution mechanism.[220] Later that July, Kaine said that he could not support the TPP in its current form.[221]

Kaine has been a proponent of NAFTA.[222]

Transportation and growth

Kaine supports some smart growth-style policies (which Kaine calls “a balanced approach to growth”) to control sprawl and improve transportation.[223] He favors a transportation policy that includes public transit, bicycles, and pedestrians.[224] As governor, Kaine pushed through a $100 million open-space acquisition initiative.[224] Under Kaine, Amtrak service in Virginia was expanded.[225][226][227] Kaine also participated in a White House roundtable discussion on high-speed rail in 2009.[225]

Workers’ rights and gender equality

Kaine is “generally pro-union” and has received a 96 percent lifetime Senate voting rating from the AFL-CIO,[134] which praised his selection as vice presidential nominee.[228] However, Kaine supports Virginia’s longstanding “right-to-work” law, which “frees union nonmembers from any legal obligation to pay fees to a union that bargains collectively on their behalf”.[134]

Kaine supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which expands the cases in which worker can sue against gender pay discrimination.[229] Following his selection by Clinton as a running mate in 2016, Kaine was praised by the National Organization for Women.[228][230]

Kaine favors an increase in the minimum wage.[134]

Electoral history

Virginia Senate Election 2012[231]
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Democratic Tim Kaine 2,010,067 52.9
Republican George Allen 1,785,542 47.0
Virginia Gubernatorial Election 2005
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Democratic Tim Kaine 1,025,942 51.7
Republican Jerry Kilgore 912,327 46.0
Virginia Lieutenant Governor Election 2001
Party Candidate Votes % ±
Democratic Tim Kaine 925,974 50.4
Republican Jay K. Katzen 883,886 48.0
Libertarian Gary Reams 28,783 1.6
Virginia Lieutenant Governor Democratic Primary Election 2001
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Tim Kaine 64,008 39.7
Democratic Alan Diamonstein 50,753 31.5
Democratic Jerrauld C. Jones 46,640 28.9

Personal life

Anne Holton in 2016

In November 1984, Kaine married Anne Bright Holton, the daughter of A. Linwood Holton Jr., who was the Republican governor of Virginia from 1970 to 1974.[5][232] The couple met while they were both students at Harvard Law School.[16] Holton has been a judge for the Virginia Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court in Richmond.[233] After serving as first lady of Virginia during her husband’s term, she was appointed by Governor Terry McAuliffe in January 2014 to be Virginia’s secretary of education,[233][234] and held that position until July 2016, when she stepped down after her husband was named as the Democratic vice presidential candidate.[235] The couple has three children:[17] Nat (b. 1990), Woody (b. 1992), and Annella (b. 1995).[9] Nat, the eldest son, is a United States Marine.[19][236] Kaine and his wife have been congregants of the St. Elizabeth Catholic Church in Richmond, a mostly black congregation, for 30 years.[236][237]

He has played the harmonica for over twenty years,[238][239] and often travels with several.[19]

Kaine is fluent in Spanish as a result of his year in Honduras.[15]

Awards and honors

Kaine has received the Humanitarian Award from the Virginia Center for Inclusive Communities, then the Virginia Region of the National Conference for Community and Justice(2000),[240] the Virginia Council of Churches’ Faith in Action Award (2009),[241] the University of Richmond School of Law‘s William Green Award for Professional Excellence (2012),[242]the Appalachian Trail Conservancy‘s Congressional Award (2015),[243] and the Center for the National Interest‘s Distinguished Service Award (2016).[244]

Notes

  1. Jump up^ Many news reports say that Kaine worked in Honduras as part of the Jesuit Volunteer Corps,[11][13] a U.S.-based organization that did not sponsor overseas programs until 1984.[14] By his own account, while a high school student in 1974 Kaine visited a Jesuit mission in Honduras that had ties to his Jesuit high school. In 1980, after completing his first year of law school and without the support of any organization, he contacted that mission and arranged to work at its vocational training school as a volunteer teacher.[12]
  2. Jump up^ Until 2004, the mayor of Richmond was chosen by the city council from among its membership; under the present system, the mayor is chosen by popular vote.[22]
  3. Jump up^ The Virginia Constitution gives the Virginia General Assembly the power to appoint state judges, but gives the governor of Virginia to power to make judicial appointments when the General Assembly is out of session.[92][93]Once the General Assembly convenes, it has thirty days to confirm the appointments; if it does not, the seats become vacant.[94] The General Assembly typically confirms the governor’s choices, as it did with both of Kaine’s appointments.[92][93]
  4. Jump up^ Millette was formerly a Prince William County Circuit Judge whom Kaine had previously elevated to the Court of Appeals of Virginia via an interim appointment. Nine months later, Kaine elevated Millette to the Supreme Court via an interim appointment.[92][93]
  5. Jump up^ Introducing Kaine, President Obama refers repeatedly to the “chairman”, not “chair”, of the Democratic National Committee.
  6. Jump up^ Virginia remains second only to Texas in the number of executions since capital punishment was reinstated in 1976.[34]

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-770

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 706, June 23, 2016, Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Posted on June 24, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

 

Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Presidential Oath of Office

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

Article II, Section 3 of U. S. Constitution

 “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 

gun_control_works

 gunsitin lewis sitin tiny tryants sit in

Gun-control-dictators

2ndAmendment

if-more-people-were-armed

1st-american-rev-gun-rights

guncontroljapaneseamericans

crusades

2million2

to-conquer-a-nation-first-disarm-its-citizens

Real_Man's_Workstation

an_armed_man_is_a_citizen_an_unarmed_man_is_a_bumper_sticke

usa israel

gun free zones 2

gun-free-zone-clrgn free zones 4bomb free zones

no call 911

weapons

Medias-Guide

gun free zones

gun-free-zone

gun_free_zones_kill_people_tshirtsself-preservation

Paul Ryan: Gun sit-in a publicity stunt

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

GOP Representatives Attemptig To Thwart Democratic Gun Control Sit-In

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Reality Check: The True Intent Of The Second Amendment

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

The Judge on no-fly list gun ban push

Is a no-fly list gun ban legal?

Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control

Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List

No Fly List, No Guns?

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List is Unconstitutional

No Fly But You Can Buy Called ‘Insane’ By Obama

U.S. to Tell Americans Why They’re on No-Fly List

An “Assault” Weapons Ban Will Do Nothing to Prevent Murders & Simply Allows the Terrorists a Victory

Analyzing Obama’s response to the Supreme Court immigration ruling

Trump Endorses No Fly List Gun Ban

John Lott, Sheriff David Clarke, Bo Dittle on Hannity to discuss new push for gun control

John Lott on One America News Network to discuss Senate votes on gun control after Orlando

CPRC on the Glenn Beck TV Show to discuss debate over banning AR-15s

How’s It Goin’, Eh? With guests comedian Ian Bagg and gun expert John Lott

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

John Lott: At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?

John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”

John Lott: Myths of gun crime

Napolitano on constitutionality of Obama immigration actions

President Obama slams GOP for blocking Supreme Court nominee

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama’s Immigration Plan

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan

Obama Expresses Disapointment In Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Affirmative Action – LoneWolf Sager(◑_◑)

President Obama on Supreme Court Immigration Executive Actions Ruling (C-SPAN)

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immigration

WATCH: Paul Ryan Says Democrats #NoBillNoBreak Sit-In Was Publicity Stunt to Raise Money

Rep. John Lewis Leads Sit-In on House Floor

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

U. S. Supreme Court immigration decision: what you need to know

Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether the Obama administration could implement two immigration programs offering deportation halts to up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants.

The main initiative would have protected the foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, included renewable work permits.

The Obama administration also extended a 2012 executive action to cover more unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. The initiatives were the most sweeping immigration actions taken by President Obama in his two terms — and executed without a vote from Congress.

This is what you need to know after Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160623-u.-s.-supreme-court-immigration-decision-what-you-need-to-know.ece

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.”

Unfortunately, efforts of states to recoup costs resulting from the current invasion of illegal aliens have so far failed. An Arizona case on this matter was rejected in 1997. The Arizona Republic article Justices reject state bid to recoup costs of illegals, Oct. 7, 1997 states:

Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison…

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an “invasion” of illegal border crossers…

“Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona’s borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government’s example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona’s unprotected borders,” Arizona argued in its high court appeal.

An October 7, 1997 LA Times article Court Rejects Claim That U.S. Is Liable for Immigrant Costs states:

The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion.” But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being “invaded” by a hostile, foreign power.

The issue of who pays… is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.

 

It is abundantly clear that our politicans lack the will to honor our Constitution. We encourage you to ask your public officials, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution:

  • if they support this provision;
  • what they plan to do to ensure implementation of this provision;
  • and then hold them to their commitment.

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html

 

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

  • Nick Wing Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
  • Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.

    Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.

    Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

    While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist:

    1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.

    This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections.

    In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?

    2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

    According to the document, “postings on social media sites … should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe.

    3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

    The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list.

    4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

    The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established.

    5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

    Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.”

    But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism … but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.”

    6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.

    The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.

    7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

    The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.

    The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.

    But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.”

    And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.

    The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

     

    No Fly List

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government‘s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), of people who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of theUnited States. The list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that is not flying to or from the U.S. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting.[citation needed] There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

    The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, orracial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

    The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[2][3]

    History

    Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[4][5] The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[5] In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[4][5] By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.[4] For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.[4]

    The No Fly List program came to public light “when prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”[4] In October 2006, CBS News‘s 60 Minutes reported on the program after it obtained a March 2006 copy of the list containing 44,000 names.[6]

    Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;[7] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[8] In January 2006, the FBI and ACLU settled a federal lawsuit, Gordon v. FBI, brought by Gordon and Adams under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain information about how names were added to the list.[8] Under the settlement, the government paid $200,000 in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.[9] A separate suit was brought as a class action “filed by people caught in the name game.”[7] In response, “TSA created an ombudsperson process, whereby individuals now can download and print out a Passenger Identity Verification Form and mail it, along with certain notarized documents, to the TSA “so the agency can differentiate the individual from others who may be on the list.”[7]

    In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI,[10] contained 700,000 records.[11] A year later, the ACLUestimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[12][13][14] However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees” who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”[15]

    As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[16][17] In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names.[18] In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list.[19][20]

    Weapons purchases by listed persons

    In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[21] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[22]

    Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[21][22][23] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[21]

    Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[21] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[24]

    The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: “There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.”[25] Specifically, the ACLU’s position is that the government’s current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause because the process does not “provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”[25]

    In December 2015, Feinstein’s amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[26] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, put forth a competing proposal to “give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.”[26] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[26] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Coryn measure were largely along party lines.[26]

    Vulnerabilitie

    False positives

    A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.[citation needed]

    When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in the reservation that prevents the passenger from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not he or she is the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use either check-in method will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.[citation needed]

    In order to be issued a boarding pass, “false positive” passengers must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, he or she will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.[citation needed]

    Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.[citation needed]

    In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[27] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.[citation needed]

    Notable cases

    False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

    • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[28][29][30]
    • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[31]
    • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit, has been arrested and detained because his name was on the No Fly List.[32]
    • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly. He has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[33][34] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[35] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[36]
    • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[6]
    • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[38] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[39]
    • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[40]
    • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[41][42]
    • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” Replied Murphy, “I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[43]
    • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[44][45]
    • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [46] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
    • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[47]
    • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[44][48]
    • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[49]
    • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[50]
    • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[51]
    • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[52]
    • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[53]
    • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities; they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[54]
    • On 19 August 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into US airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU’s policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into US airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On 20 March 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Mssr. Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
    • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009 because, as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed that he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[56]
    • In June 2010, The New York Times reported that Yahya Wehelie, a 26-year-old Muslim-American man, was being prevented from returning to the United States, and was stranded in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him on the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to fly. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[57] In July 2010, Wehelie was permitted to fly to New York under a federal waiver.[58]
    • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[57]
    • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[59] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items, including a cell phone and media player.[60]
    • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [61]
    • In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed “to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.” Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62]

    DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

    The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

    Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

    DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk.[citation needed] It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

    However, DHS TRIP has not been very helpful to travelers who accidentally end up on the No Fly List, as their efforts to clear their names are often futile to the extent that they are not told why they are on the list.[63]

    Lawsuits

    On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union “filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government’s No Fly List”, in which they charge that “many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names.”[64] The case was settled in 2006, when “the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the ACLU of Northern California” and to “[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government’s secret ‘no fly’ list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001.”[8] On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[65] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[66] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[65]

    A Malaysian academic has been the first to successfully bring a suit involving the No Fly List to trial. On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, overturning a lower court decision and allowing her case against inclusion in the No Fly List to proceed through the court system.[67] A public trial began on December 2, 2013 in San Francisco in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup.[68] The judge frequently cleared the courtroom following the requests of government lawyers (even though the judge himself once declared that the reasons “don’t make much sense sometimes.”)[69][not in citation given] After the government revealed that Ibrahim had ended up on the list because of human error by the FBI,[70] Alsup ruled on January 14, 2014 “that Ibrahim did have the right to sue and ordered the government to tell Ibrahim whether she is still on the list.”[71]

    Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[72] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[73]Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.[74] On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Mohamed’s lawsuit.[75] On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.[76]

    Controversy and criticism

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long criticized the No Fly List and similar list because of the lack of notification to persons included on such lists. The ACLU’s stance is that the government has not provided a constitutionally adequate means of allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion on the list[77] and that “constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.”[78]

    Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[79]

    The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[by whom?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.

    The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.[69]

    In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[80] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.

    In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[81] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[82]

    No fly lists in other countries

    The government of Canada has created its own no fly list as part of a program called Passenger Protect.[83] The Canadian list incorporates data from domestic and foreign intelligence sources, including the U.S. No Fly List.[84] It contains between 500 and 2,000 names.[85]

    See also

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

    Is It an Invasion? — Constitution’s Invasion Clause Won’t Work

    By Barnaby Zall
    Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)

    In the recent movie Mars Attacks, President Jack Nicholson calls out the American military to battle aliens invading from Mars. The earthlings can’t do anything about the invasion for most of the movie. All their advanced technology is ineffective until a donut maker discovers that ancient recordings of yodeling literally explode the aliens. It may feel like the middle of that movie in some communities on our southern border.

    Residents of southern border areas certainly feel that they are being invaded. At a July 24, 2000, meeting of the Cochise County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mike Palmer estimated that 60 percent of the sheriff’s patrol division resources are spent responding to problems related to illegal immigration. Murphy, “Supes award grant funds to ease local border woes,” Sierra Vista [Arizona] News, Aug. 10, 2000, p.1, col. 2-3. The direct costs to the sheriff’s department were $2,900,798. Id. There were other costs in health care, legal defense for indigents, and additional firearms needed to deal with high-powered arsenals used by smugglers. Id.,p.3. With unreim-bursed health care costs driving her hospital into bankruptcy, one administrator reported that the costs to Copper Queen Community Hospital have tripled in less than a year. The federal government generously reimbursed the County only one-fifth of its costs a measly $778,000. Id.,p.1.

    Perhaps Arizona ranchers beset by hordes of illegal immigrants crossing their lands could ask for federal assistance to set up huge speaker systems playing yodels or modern rock music? Music aside, it isn’t likely that the afflicted ranchers and counties can easily make a federal case of it. The courts have repeatedly held that immigration and border protection decisions are “political,” and they won’t interfere.

    At first blush, it seems clear that the U.S. Constitution should protect the ranchers, health care workers, and county governments against this heavily-armed invasion. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution known as the “Invasion Clause” says: “The United States … shall protect [the States] against Invasion.” So why doesn’t the Invasion Clause protect border areas from this invasion?

    There are three highly-technical legal reasons:

    1. It’s not the right kind of invasion;

    2. The federal government can choose not to act; and

    3. It’s a “political question” which the courts won’t touch.

    INVASION

    The Invasion Clause in the U.S. Constitution says “invasion,” but it doesn’t say what an invasion is. In a way this is odd, since, among the Founders, the topic of protection against invasion was one of the most important reasons to discard the old Articles of Confederation in favor of the new Constitution with a federal government. See, e.g., “Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 24 July 1788,” Elliot 4:15-26 (Statement of Mr. Davie: “The general objects of the union are, 1st, to protect us against foreign invasion; 2d, to defend us against internal commotions and insurrections; 3d, to promote the commerce, agriculture, and manufacturers, of America. These objects are requisite to make us a safe and happy people, and they cannot be attained without a firm and efficient system of union.”); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston, 1833, � 481.

    But the lack of a definition may have been because all the Founders knew, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the predatory antics of States under the Articles of Confederation, what “invasion” meant. One of the few statements by the Founders about the Invasion Clause was by James Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788. Madison said:

    “A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”

    Thus, Madison included both invasions from foreign powers and from other States. This view was reiterated by Founder William Rawle, who used the example of a State which refused to “refer its controversies with another state to the judicial power of the Union.” Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1829.

    Later the new Congress enacted a law providing for a militia, to be called up in the event of an invasion. Act of February 28, 1795, c. 101. That Act provided

    “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Id.

    This description of invasion was more narrow, dealing only with foreign nations and Indian tribes.

    The Supreme Court interpreted this Act, following the War of 1812, in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827), a case brought by a man who refused to enter the militia as required, but the actual issues involved the declarations by the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut that they had the power to judge for themselves whether the militia should be called out. The Supreme Court held unanimously that

    “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. . . . The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.” Id.

    The Supreme Court noted that any abuse of the President’s power would be corrected by elections or Congress’s “watchfulness.” Id. Thus, the definition of invasion was left to the President alone, and the Supreme Court said that any errors in judgment would have to be corrected by the political process.

    Of course, not everyone is enamored of the views of the Founders. Some people believe that invasion includes pollution and “greed.” (See, e.g. http://www.article4.com, citing Diamond, “If You Can Keep It: A Constitutional Roadmap to Environmental Security,” Brass Ring Press, 1996.) Others believe that right now there is an “ongoing clandestine invasion” by space aliens who abduct and assault Arizonans. Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. United States, U.S. District Court for Arizona, filed Sept. 1, 1999.

    Courts, on the other hand, take a much more narrow view of the term “invasion,” usually referring to Madison’s Federalist No. 43. See, e.g., Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause “offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term �invasion’ to mean anything other than a military invasion.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: “there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.”).

    Thus, except as described below, it would be unlikely that the afflicted areas in Arizona could get courts to consider the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants as an “invasion.”

    FEDERAL DECISION

    As noted above, it is the President’s decision to call something an invasion. The Founders considered calling federal protection into a State to be such an important decision that it was to be left to the President alone. Martin v. Mott. Oversight was to be by Congress and the people (through an election) Id.

    The President does have the power to stop the influx of illegal immigration. Although Congress has “plenary” (complete) power over immigration, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977), it has delegated the administration of immigration policy to the President and the Attorney General, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. �� 1101 et seq. The Attorney General is principally charged with enforcing the immigration laws, with some duties undertaken by the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. � 1103. Under Section 212(f) of that Act, the President may “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds that the entry of any aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. � 1182(f).

    In 1997, Attorney General Reno announced a new policy to block illegal immigration by shifting more resources to border enforcement in “traditional illegal crossing and drug smuggling traffic patterns along the southern border.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Strategic Plan, 1997-2002,” September 1997, 17. The new policy was successful in blocking many traditional illegal entry patterns, but the policy did not provide enough resources to block nontraditional entry points. The results were that illegal migration shifted heavily to the ranches and deserts of southern Arizona.

    But it’s not as if the federal government is doing nothing, or is doing the wrong thing in stopping illegal immigration. The budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is over three billion dollars a year, with much of that money going to the Border Patrol. And the new border control policy has reduced illegal immigration (though by how much is still a matter of some contention).

    So it’s not likely that the border communities will be able to claim that the federal government is not doing anything to help them.

    POLITICAL ISSUE

    But the most important roadblock to using the Invasion Clause to force more federal assistance to border communities is the “political question” doctrine. Courts will not get involved in matters that are too political. And every court which has reviewed Invasion Clause claims has refused to intervene because the questions are too political.

    At heart, the courts won’t consider political questions because of the constitutional structure separating the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial. Where the Constitution commits a policy area to the political branches of government, the courts won’t step in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

    As noted above, immigration is committed to the political branches, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. at 792. Every court to have considered whether immigration comes within the Invasion Clause has declared the question to be political and refused to step in. See, e.g., Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994)(rejecting claim that federal government permit-ted “economic invasion” of Hawaii by Japanese); Chiles v. U.S., 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1674 (1996)(rejecting Florida’s attempt at same claim for reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration as other states mentioned above).

    IS THERE A WAY TO PROCEED?

    So are the border communities simply out of luck? Can they ever get any relief from the federal government for the massive influx of illegal immigrants suddenly streaming across their property?

    It would be a difficult road, but the way is not entirely blocked. There are two possible avenues available to them. The first, and most obvious, is political pressure. If, as the courts have decreed, this is a political question, then the solution is also political. There is no active constituency for illegal immigration in Washington (as opposed to those who either ignore or like illegal immigration or those who promote legal immigration), and a well-organized attempt to increase border resources might return some semblance of peace to the border communities.

    The second method is to find a sympathetic judge who will let the border communities tell their tale and allow them some relief. This was the method used by the Haitian community in past years; the immigration laws blocked attempts by Haitian refugees themselves to get judicial review of federal policies requiring their deportation. But federal Judge James Lawrence King ignored the ban on judicial review on the basis of a fiction that he was really hearing the claims of American citizens whose constitutional rights were violated by low-level officials. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), aff’g, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984). Perhaps the border communities could convince another judge that their claims for violations are just as great as the Haitian communities’.

    There are also legal grounds for this review which do not rely on the Invasion Clause. For example, the border communities might challenge the new enforcement policy as an illegal taking of their property, or as having failed a required procedural or environmental review. These constitutional or statutory rights will be mixed up with the political and policy questions which courts refuse to consider, but they might also entice an appropriate federal judge to take a chance on reviewing them. And a little-known secret of American constitutional law is that the choice of the original judge is critically important to establishing or contesting constitutional doctrines; federal judges’ decisions are usually sustained on appeal. Thus, if the border communities can craft an appropriate and appealing legal case and find a sympathetic judge, they may well find some relief in the courts.

    But as for using the Invasion Clause itself, it’s not likely to be a fruitful exercise.

    Finally, our trade policies do not discourage American employers from following a low-skill, low-wage strategy. We should imbed labor standards in all our trade rules, requiring nations that export to us to respect the freedom to organize and bargain collectively, to maintain a safe and healthful work place, to prohibit forced labor and the exploitation of children. These labor standards would put a floor under international wage competition and help US managers to manage better rather than trying to compete by reducing labor standards. We have inserted these standards in every US trade bill passed in the 1980s, but to be effective, we need to make them a part of the GATT system. ?

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_123.shtml

    KEY POINTS

    1. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    2. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
    3. Presidents must not be allowed to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore
    4. When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but both houses of Congress must act together.
    5. Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
    6. The House of Representatives will bring a lawsuit challenging the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of Obamacare.
    7. This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm constitutional principles, including the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.

    The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

    A‌braham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way ‌to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating.

    In 1838, early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. It was entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In it, he said:

    Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

    He went on to say:

    When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.

    When Lincoln refers to religiously observing the law “for the sake of example,” he is referring also to the example of the American Republic itself as an example to the world. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy.

    We in the House of Representatives, who face reelection every two years under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means we can successfully avail ourselves of.

    The President and the Take Care Clause

    Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

    The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

    Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.[1]

    When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.

    Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is the electoral process. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

    As Lincoln said, “Let reverence for the laws be … enforced in courts of justice.” It is the courts’ duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.

    A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn’t say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore it under the Constitution. Whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this President and, in all likelihood, future Presidents will continue to nullify Congress’s legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment, in court, of a clear principle to the contrary.

    Challenging the President’s Failure to Faithfully Execute the Laws

    The stakes for inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House.

    Unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years—including the Federal Reserve Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tax Reform Act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century—the Obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. Indeed, and uniquely, it had none. There was no bipartisan political compromise.

    What provisions of Obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections: How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.

    Imagine the future if this new, unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which his unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply.

    In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President’s political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.

    Sign one bill into law; enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat—until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. Whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to pursue it.

    Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

    The Supreme Court and Presidential Power

    The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the authority of the President to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. As early as the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon executive branch officials by law, as well as the official’s corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive.

    The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in an 1838 case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, involving the President’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that “[t]o contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution; is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”[2] The Court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute “would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”[3]

    A century later, in what has become the seminal case on executive power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court reasoned as follows:

    In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute…. The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.… The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.[4]

    And as the Court stated just this past term in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, “The power of executing the laws … does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[5]

    While the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: The Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House of Representatives as an institution. It has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past, and each time it has refused.

    Individual Members of Congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury, butRaines v. Byrd, the leading Supreme Court case on legislator standing, “does not stand for the proposition that Congress can never assert its institutional interests in court,” as it has been described by one federal district court judge.[6] Indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies.”[7]

    In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Raines itself that it “attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [plaintiffs] have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suits.”[8] In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the Members in that case did not initiate the lawsuit on behalf of their respective house of Congress.

    Further, the courts routinely hear lawsuits involving the enforcement of subpoenas approved by federal legislative bodies. They do so because the subpoena power of each house of Congress derives from its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution, and if Congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. When the executive branch refuses to give a congressional body the information it requests, it impedes the legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases.

    But today, the President is not only impeding the legislative power; he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation. And if the federal courts can hear cases in which Congress’s legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with a subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which its legislative power is completely nullified.

    Finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts’ weighing in on separation of powers disputes. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.[9]

    The Court has also stated that:

    Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.[10]

    The federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separation of powers concerns. Those cases include Bowsher v. Synar, regarding the execution of the laws; INS v. Chadha, regarding the legislative veto; Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, and Myers v. United States, regarding the removal of appointed officials; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Supreme Court just last term unanimously rejected the President’s recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had announced it was in session.[11]

    Conclusion

    The House of Representatives—the branch of our federal government closest to the people—has voted many times to repeal Obamacare, which remains as unpopular as ever, but the Senate and the President have ignored Americans’ dislike for the law. They have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the obverse of the paraphrase of Lincoln that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” is true as well and aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current Administration: The best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement. The House of Representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws off the books.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2014/the-presidents-duty-to-faithfully-execute-the-law

    BREAKING: Supreme Court Splits On Immigration, Voiding Obama Protection For Millions [VIDEO]

    Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

    List of United States immigration laws

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted in the United States.

    Year Name of Legislation/Case Major Highlights
    1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
    1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
    1798 Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

    Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

    Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

    • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
    • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
    • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
    1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
    • Extended the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
    • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per theNaturalization Act of 1790
    1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
    • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
    • The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
    • strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
    • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
    1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
    • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
    • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
    • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
    • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
    • The Act was “a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China].” [2]
    1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
    1891 Immigration Act of 1891
    • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
    • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
    • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
    • Empowered “the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws”.[4]
    1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
    1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
    1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
    1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
    • Standardized naturalization procedures
    • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
    • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
    1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
    1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
    1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
    1921 Emergency Quota Act
    • Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

    “An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]

    1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
    1924 Immigration Act(Johnson Act)
    • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
    • Began a national-origin quota system.
    1924 National Origins Formula
    • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
    • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
    • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
    • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
    • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
    1934 Equal Nationality Act of 1934
    • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
    • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
    1930s Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
    1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”
    1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
    1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act)
    • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
    • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected ofCommunist sympathies.
    1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596 The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
    1954 A wave of illegal immigration came from Mexico in the early 1950s, but it was dampened by President Eisenhower.[10]
    1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
    • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
    • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
    • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
    • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
    1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
    1970s The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.[11]
    1980s
    • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.[12]
    1982 Plyler v. Doe,[13] 457 U.S. 202 (1982)The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, receive 14th amendment protections and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
    1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
    • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
    • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[14]
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
    1990s Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[15] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[16]
    1990 Immigration Act
    • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
    • Created a diversity admissions category.
    • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed] [17]
    1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[18] the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
    1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA)
    • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
    • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[19]
    1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
    Post 9/11/2001
    • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[17]
    • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[20]
    2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
    • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
    • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
    • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[21]
    2005 REAL ID Act
    • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
    • Created more restrictions on political asylum
    • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
    • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
    • Altered judicial review
    • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
    • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.

     

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-706

    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 679, May 13, 2016, Story 1: Airlines and Airports Should Be Responsible For Security Not The Federal Government — TSA (Thousand Standing Around) While Millions Wait In Long Lines — A Case of Government Failure — Privatize Airport and Airline Security — Stop The Two Party Tyranny — Secret Security Surveillance State — Videos

    Posted on May 13, 2016. Filed under: Airlines, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Economics, Elections, Empires, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Progressives, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    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

    Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 632: February 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 631: February 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 630: February 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 629: February 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 628: February 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 627: February 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 626: February 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 625: February 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 624: February 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 623: February 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 622: February 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 621: February 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 620: February 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 619: February 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 618: February 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 617: February 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 616: February 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 615: February 1, 2016

     

     

     Story 1: Airlines and Airports Should Be Responsible For Security Not The Federal Government — Privatize The TSA (Thousand Standing Around) While Millions Wait In Long Lines — Videos

     

    FILE - In this March 17, 2016, file photo, a K-9 handler with the Transportation Security Administration walks his dog through lines of travelers approaching a security screening checkpoint at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport in Seattle. Facing a growing backlash over extreme airport security lines, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and Transportation Security Administration Administrator Peter Neffenger will address the upcoming summer travel season Friday, May 13, 2016, and what steps they’re taking to alleviate waits. (AP Photo/Ted S. Warren, File)

    airportsecurityairport-security-tsa-line

    FILE - In this Jan. 4 2010 file photo, TSA officer Robert Howard signals an airline passenger forward at a security check-point at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, in SeaTac, Wash. The Transportation Security Administration will allow you to keep your laptop in your bag during the screening process if the bag will produce a clear and unobstructed image of the laptop when undergoing X-ray screening.(AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, file)

    airport_security_terrorairport_securityairport_security_toonscartoons checkIn-The-Mood-For-TSA

    private security slogan tsa bombs patdown terrorists wontsa_airport_security TSA-linestsa-line

    TSA are you f***ing kidding me?

    TSA Devises Plan After Passengers Post Photos of Ridiculously Long Lines

    TSA makes “aggressive” plan to fix long security lines at airports across the country

    #iHatetheWait campaign calls attention to long lines, slow screening at airports

    TSA Wants More Bomb-Sniffing LoneWolf Dogs Help Alleviate Long airport security lines – LoneWolf

    Long Lines At Airport TSA Security Checks

    Fmr. TSA official on the lack of security checks for employees at U.S. airports

    Airports Dealing With Long Lines & “Woefully Understaffed” TSA

    TSA Long Airport Lines Fake News and Grand Social Experiments

    The TSA is demanding more overtime pay ahead of the busy summer travel season.

    New Report Shows Frequent TSA Failures, Tells Same Old Story

    Public Reaches Breaking Point With TSA – #NewWorldNextWeek

    John Stossel – TSA Vs Private Airport Screeners

    TSA losing out as Florida airports move to private screeners for security

    Adam Ruins Everything – Why the TSA Doesn’t Stop Terrorist Attacks

    TSA starts stopping people on US highways without warrants or probable cause

    Flawless Airline Security on Israeli Planes

    El Al Airlines in Israel has had a 100% success rating on its airline security for more than three decades: No hijackings, no bombings, no failed attempts aboard a flight.

    TSA Harasses Little Girl For Dangerous Capri Sun

    Investigation Proves TSA Screeners Are HORRIBLE At Their Jobs

    Girl in Wheelchair, 3, Detained by TSA: Caught on Tape

    TSA Singles Out Sexy Women for Multiple Body Scans?

    Israel Airport Security

    Israel’s national airline hasn’t had a terror incident for decades – it’s considered one of the safest worldwide. That’s because Israel employs unconventional methods that include profiling. When the U.S. TSA began implementing body scans and searches, a call for Israeli tactics to be implemented arose.

    Critics Call To Privatize The TSA After Agency Fails New “Secret Security Tests” – Bulls & Bears

    TSA Security Failures Lead to Calls for Privatization

    States Should Reject the REAL ID Law

    REAL ID: TSA WILL FORCE AIRLINE PASSENGERS TO SHOW NATIONAL ID BEFORE FLYING IN 2016

    Abolish the Transportation Security Administration (David Rittgers)

    TSA is A Joke says Former Head of Israeli Airport Security

    REAL ID: Fear, Federalism, and the U.S. National ID Program (Jim Harper)

    The REAL ID Act is a law that Congress passed without hearings in 2005, which sought to make state driver licensing into a national ID system. The law tries to coerce state compliance with federal identification standards by threatening that the Transportation Security Administration will refuse driver’s licenses and IDs from noncompliant states when Americans go to travel. This fall, a Department of Homeland Security campaign to stir up fears that the TSA will refuse drivers licenses at airports across America was so successful that passport offices in New Mexico were swamped, and a DHS official recently published a piece in the Albuquerque Journal backtracking on a widely reported January 2016 deadline for state compliance.

    Mission Creep at the TSA and the Case for Privatization (Khaliah Barnes)

    Sen. Rand Paul in TSA Pat-Down Standoff Video- wake up it’s time to get rid of the tsa!!!

    Ron Paul: Get rid of the TSA, “Privatize Airport Security”.

    DHS: Progress in 2015, Goals for 2016 — Secretary Jeh C. Johnson

    Jeff Sessions Shreds Jeh Johnson DHS Immigration Policy…

    Greyson Chance – Waiting Outside The Lines

    The Transportation Security Administration’s FY2017 Budget Request

    Nightmarish Lines Continue At Airport Security Checkpoints

    Travelers flying out of Chicago just can’t catch a break. With increasingly long lines to get through security at the city’s airports, many travelers have been missing their flights, and some ended up sleeping at O’Hare International Airport on Sunday.

    American Airlines put out cots for fewer than 100 travelers who missed their flights Sunday night due to the long lines at TSA security checkpoints.

    Adrian Petra said he missed his flight after standing in line for 2 hours and 20 minutes.

    The TSA has been urging passengers to get to the airport at least two hours early for domestic flights, and three hours early for international flights. However, some passengers have said that is not enough time to get through security and still make their flight.

    American Airlines said some 4,000 passengers have missed flights at O’Hare since February because of the long wait times.

    ohare security line Nightmarish Lines Continue At Airport Security Checkpoints

    The TSA has blamed the long waits at security on a shortage of screeners, due to federal budget cuts. The agency also has said airlines are seeing record travel volume, meaning more passengers in lines.

    American Airlines spokeswoman Leslie Scott sounded off on the security issues.

    “We are frustrated. We know our passengers are frustrated, and our employees are really frustrated,” she said.

    Scott said, on Sunday alone, American had to delay 30 flights, and about 450 passengers missed their flights due to the security lines.

    Nearly 800 people missed American flights from O’Hare in the last week alone, the most of any airport where American operates.

    Lines have been so bad at Terminal 3 in the mornings and afternoons that American Airlines workers have removed some kiosks to make room.

    Scott said the company plans to hire people this week to try to help reduce the excruciatingly long waits for security.

    “We will be hiring employees who will do non-security TSA functions; so, the people who tell you to take the liquids out of your bags, take your laptop out,” she said.

    American Airlines said passengers who get through security but miss their flights will be rebooked for no charge.

    U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has urged the TSA to increase the number of dogs at security checkpoints. He said they could cut wait times in half.

    The head of the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the TSA, said it will immediately increase the use of overtime and work to bring in more security officers.

    The TSA also has been urging travelers to enroll in its Precheck pgrogram, or other similar programs, which can significantly reduce wait times.

    Nightmarish Lines Continue At Airport Security Checkpoints

    Complaints Over Airport Security Delays Surged 10-Fold in March

    By Alan Levin

    Frustrated travelers are turning to the complaint box in growing numbers as long lines and delays getting through airport security result in missed flights.
    Complaints filed on such topics as courtesy and processing time surged in March to the highest levels in the past year, according to the Department of Transportation’s monthly Air Travel Consumer Report released Monday.
    Reports filed over the time it took U.S. Transportation Security Administration to screen passengers grew more than 10-fold, to 513 this past March from 48 in March 2015. Concern about lack of courtesy by TSA screeners increased more than three-fold, to 1,012 in March from 294 a year ago.
    Other categories of complaints on the screening process and travelers’ personal property were also at the highest levels recorded in the past year, according to DOT. A spokesman for the TSA didn’t immediately respond to an e-mailed request for comment on Monday’s report.
    The TSA is trying to get 500 new airport screeners through training and onto the job by the end of June as a growth in travelers has led to longer lines at airports. Almost 6,800 people traveling on American Airlines missed flights in March due to delays at TSA checkpoints, airline spokesman Casey Norton said in an interview earlier this month.
    The issue has been exacerbated because the TSA was forced to revamp and tighten security after a series of reports last year showing it missed weapons and explosives in bags.
    Some members of Congress have complained that TSA failed to plan for the longer lines, while the agency has said its screener workforce has declined under its annual budget.
    Staffing authorized by Congress for the TSA, which operates security at airports across the country, has fallen almost 10 percent from 47,147 full-time employees in 2013 to 42,525 this year, according to agency data. At the same time, the volume of passengers rose 15 percent from 643 million to an estimated 740 million this year, according to TSA.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-16/complaints-over-airport-security-delays-surged-10-fold-in-march

    TSA blames you for longer lines at airport security checkpoints

    WASHINGTON (WCMH/AP) — Facing a growing backlash over extremely long airport security lines, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Friday asked fliers “to be patient” as the government takes steps to get them onto planes more quickly.

    Travelers across the country have endured lengthy lines, some snaking up and down escalators, or through food courts, and into terminal lobbies. At some airports, lines during peak hours have topped 90 minutes. Airlines have reported holding planes at gates to wait for passengers to clear security.

    Johnson said the government has a plan to deal with the lines but won’t neglect its duty to stop terrorists.

    “Our job is to keep the American people safe,” Johnson told reporters at a news conference. “We’re not going to compromise aviation security in the face of this.”

    The comments reflect a statement released earlier this week after long lines were reported at Newark, JFK and LaGuardia airport security checkpoints. When asked about those long lines, the TSA essentially blamed you in a press release, specifically passengers who bring too many carry-on items:

    There are several factors that have caused checkpoint lines to take longer to screen passengers… including more people traveling with carry-on bags, in many cases bringing more than the airline industry standard of one carry-on bag and one personal item per traveler;

    Passenger preparedness can have a significant impact on wait times at security checkpoints nationwide…Individuals who come to the TSA checkpoint unprepared for a trip can have a negative impact on the time it takes to complete the screening process.”

    In response, some airport authorities are now threatening to dump the TSA and hire their own private security firms.

    The Transportation Security Administration has fewer screeners and has tightened security procedures. Meanwhile, more people are flying. Airlines and the TSA have been warning customers to arrive at the airport two hours in advance, but with summer travel season approaching even that might not be enough.

    In the past three years, the TSA and Congress cut the number of front-line screeners by 4,622 — or about 10 percent — on expectations that an expedited screening program called PreCheck would speed up the lines. However, not enough people enrolled for TSA to realize the anticipated efficiencies.

    Congress this week did agree to shift $34 million in TSA funding forward, allowing the agency to pay overtime to its existing staff and hire an extra 768 screeners by June 15 to bring it up to the congressionally mandated ceiling of 42,525.

    But that might barely make a dent on the lines. This week, the president of the union representing the TSA officers sent a letter to congressional leaders suggesting that 6,000 additional screeners are needed. J. David Cox, Sr. wrote that the $34 million just provides “a small amount of temporary relief for travelers” and defers dealing with the long-term, larger problem.

    Additionally, the agency loses about 100 screeners a week through attrition.

    Airlines and airports have hired extra workers to handle non-security tasks at checkpoints — such as returning empty bins to the beginning of the line — as part of an effort to free up as many TSA employees to handle passenger screening.

    The help can’t come quickly enough.

    Friday morning, American Airlines held at least five flights at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport because of passengers stuck at security lines, according to airline spokesman Ross Feinstein.

    On the 7:20 a.m. flight to Las Vegas, 52 of the 160 passengers were not onboard 10 minutes before departure. American held the plane an extra 13 minutes past its scheduled pushback from the gate, allowing 23 passengers to hop onboard. However, 29 still missed the jet and arrived on later flights.

    A few gates away, 27 passengers missed their flight to Orlando.

    At another American hub, Chicago’s O’Hare International Airport, security lines peaked at one hour and 45 minutes on Thursday.

    Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian told The Associated Press Thursday that “the longer lines get the more passengers are going to miss flights and there’s not much you can do about that.”

    File- This Oct. 22, 2013, file photo shows passengers walking through the pre-check lane at Milwaukee's Mitchell International Airport. The PreCheck program allows previously vetted fliers to use special lanes at the checkpoint. Shoes, belts and light jackets stay on. Laptops and liquids stay in bags. And these fliers go through standard metal detectors rather than the explosive-detecting full-body scanners most pass through. (Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP)
    File- This Oct. 22, 2013, file photo shows passengers walking through the pre-check lane at Milwaukee’s Mitchell International Airport. The PreCheck program allows previously vetted fliers to use special lanes at the checkpoint. Shoes, belts and light jackets stay on. Laptops and liquids stay in bags. And these fliers go through standard metal detectors rather than the explosive-detecting full-body scanners most pass through. (Mike De Sisti/Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel via AP)

    The biggest help to ease lines is to have more fliers enroll in the PreCheck program.

    Launched nationwide in 2012, PreCheck gives previously vetted passengers special screening. Shoes, belts and light jackets stay on. Laptops and liquids stay in bags. And these fliers go through standard metal detectors rather than the explosive-detecting full-body scanners most pass through.

    PreCheck security lanes can screen 300 passengers an hour, twice that of standard lanes.

    The TSA offered Congress a lofty goal of having 25 million fliers enrolled in the program. But as of March 1, only 9.3 million people were PreCheck members. Applicants must pay $85 to $100 every five years. Most must also trek to the airport for an interview before being accepted. Getting once-a-year fliers to join has been a challenge.

    Johnson Friday said that 10,000 people applied for PreCheck Thursday, up from 8,500 a day in April and 7,500 in March. Still, at that pace, it will take more than four years to reach 25 million members.

    TSA blames you for longer lines at airport security checkpoints

    Help is coming for long airport security lines

    Expect epic lines at the airport this summer

    Transportation Security Administration

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Transportation Security Administration
    — TSA —
    Transportation Security Administration Logo.svg
    Agency overview
    Formed November 19, 2001; 14 years ago
    Preceding agency
    Jurisdiction Transportation systems inside, and connecting to the United States of America
    Headquarters Pentagon City, Arlington County, Virginia
    Employees 55,600+ (2014)
    Annual budget $7.39 billion (2014)
    Agency executive
    Parent agency Department of Homeland Security
    Website www.tsa.gov

    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is an agency of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that has authority over the security of the traveling public in the United States.[1]

    The TSA was created as part of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, sponsored by Don Young in the United States House of Representatives[2] and Ernest Hollings in the Senate,[3] passed by the 107th U.S. Congress, and signed into law by President George W. Bush on November 19, 2001. Originally part of the United States Department of Transportation, the TSA was moved to the Department of Homeland Security on March 9, 2003.

    History and organization

    Seal when under theDepartment of Transportation

    The TSA was created as a response to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Its first administrator, John Magaw, was nominated by President Bush on December 10, 2001, and confirmed by the Senate the following January. The agency’s proponents, including Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta, argued that only a single federal agency would better protect air travel than the private companies who operated under contract to single airlines or groups of airlines that used a given terminal facility.

    The organization was charged with developing policies to protect U.S. transportation, especially in airport security and the prevention of aircraft hijacking.

    With state, local, and regional partners,[who?] the TSA oversees security for highways, railroads, buses, mass transit systems, pipelines and ports. However, the bulk of the TSA’s efforts are in aviation security. The TSA is responsible for screening passengers and baggage at more than 450 U.S. airports.[4]

    Private screening did not disappear under the TSA, which allows airports to opt out of federal screening and hire firms to do the job instead. Such firms must still get TSA approval under its Screening Partnership Program (SPP) and follow TSA procedures.[5]Among the U.S. airports with privately operated checkpoints are San Francisco International Airport; Kansas City International Airport; Greater Rochester International Airport; Tupelo Regional Airport; Key West International Airport; Charles M. Schulz – Sonoma County Airport; and Jackson Hole Airport.[6][7]

    Administration

    TSA headquarters located inPentagon City, Arlington County, Virginia.

    TSA Administrators have included John Magaw (2002), Admiral James Loy (2002–2003), Rear Admiral David M. Stone (2003–2005), Kip Hawley (2005–2009) and John Pistole (2010–2014). In April 2015 President Obama nominated Coast Guard Vice Admiral Peter Neffenger to succeed Pistole.[8] On July 6, 2015, Neffenger was sworn as TSA’s sixth administrator.[9]

    Organizational structure

    • Administrator
      • Deputy Administrator
      • Chief Risk Officer
        • Office of Acquisition
        • Office of Civil Rights and Liberties, Ombudsman and Traveler Engagement
        • Office of Chief Counsel
        • Office of Finance and Administration
        • Office of Global Strategies
        • Office of Human Capital
        • Office of Information Technology
        • Office of Inspection
        • Office of Intelligence and Analysis
        • Office of Law Enforcement / Federal Air Marshal Service
        • Office of Legislative Affairs
        • Office of Professional Responsibility
        • Office of Security Capabilities
        • Office of Security Operations
        • Office of Security Policy and Industry Engagement
        • Office of Strategic Communications and Public Affairs
        • Office of Training and Development

    Employees

    Among the types of TSA employees are:[10]

    • Transportation Security Officers: The TSA employs around 47,000 Transportation Security Officers (TSOs), often referred to as screeners or agents. They screen people and property and control entry and exit points in airports. They also watch several areas before and beyond checkpoints.[11][12] TSOs carry no weapons, and are not permitted to use force, nor do they have the power to arrest.[13]
    As of September 2014 the starting salary for a TSO is $25,773 to $38,660[14] per year, not including locality pay (contiguous 48 states) or cost of living allowancein Hawaii and Alaska. A handful of airports also have a retention bonus of up to 35%.[15] This is more than what private screeners were paid.[16]

    TSA security search

    • Behavior Detection Officers: In 2003, the TSA implemented the Screening of Passengers by Observation Technique (SPOT), which expanded across the United States in 2007. In this program, Behavior Detection Officers (BDOs), who are TSOs, observe passengers as they go through security checkpoints, looking for behaviors that might indicate a higher risk. Such passengers are subject to additional screening.[17]
    This program has led to concerns about, and allegations of racial profiling.[18][19] According to the TSA, SPOT screening officers are trained to observe behaviors only and not a person’s appearance, race, ethnicity or religion.[20]
    The TSA program was reviewed in 2013 by the federal government’s Government Accountability Office, which recommended cutting funds for it because there was no proof of its effectiveness.[21] The JASON scientific advisory group has also said that “no scientific evidence exists to support the detection or inference of future behavior, including intent.”[22]
    The FAM role, then called “sky marshalls”, originated in 1961 with U.S. Customs Service (now U.S. Customs and Border Protection) following the first US hijacking.[24] It became part of the TSA following the creation of the TSA following the September 11 attacks,[23] was transferred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in 2003, and back to the TSA in fiscal 2006.[citation needed]
    • Transportation Security Inspectors (TSIs): They inspect, and investigate passenger and cargo transportation systems to see how secure they are. TSA employs roughly 1,000 aviation inspectors, 450 cargo inspectors,[25] and 100 surface inspectors.[10]

    VIPR team working cars waiting to board a ferry in Portland, Maine

    • National Explosives Detection Canine Teams Program: These trainers prepare dogs and handlers to serve as mobile teams that can quickly find dangerous materials. As of June 2008, the TSA had trained about 430 canine teams, with 370 deployed to airports and 56 deployed to mass transit systems.[26]
    • Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) teams: VIPR teams started in 2005 and involved Federal Air Marshals and other TSA crew working outside of the airport environment, at train stations, ports, truck weigh stations, special events, and other places. There has been some controversy and congressional criticism for problems such as the July 3, 2007 holiday screenings. In 2011, Amtrak police chief John O’Connor moved to temporarily ban VIPR teams from Amtrak property. As of 2011, VIPR team operations were being conducted at a rate of 8,000 per year.[27]

    The TSA also oversees the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, which gives some pilots permission to carry firearms in the cockpit as a defense against hijackers.

    Uniforms

    In 2008, TSA officers began wearing new uniforms that have a blue-gray 65/35 polyester/cotton blend duty shirt, black pants, a wider black belt, and optional short-sleeved shirts and black vests (for seasonal reasons).[28] The first airport to introduce the new uniforms was Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Starting on September 11, 2008, all TSOs began wearing the new uniform. One stripe on each shoulder board denotes a TSO, two stripes a Lead TSO, and three a Supervisory TSO.

    TSOs are issued badges similar to those carried by police officers, which has led to complaints from the latter group.[29]

    2013 LAX shooting

    On Friday, November 1, 2013, TSA officer Gerardo I. Hernandez, age 39, was shot and killed by a lone gunman at the Los Angeles International Airport. Law enforcement officials identified the suspect as 23-year-old Paul Anthony Ciancia who was shot and wounded by law enforcement officers before being taken into custody.[30] Ciancia was wearing fatigues and carrying a bag containing a hand-written note that said he “wanted to kill TSA and pigs”. Hernandez is the first TSA officer to be killed on the job.

    2015 New Orleans airport attack

    On March 21, 2015 63-year-old Richard White entered the Louis Armstrong New Orleans International Airport armed with Molotov cocktails, a gasoline lighter, and a machete. White promptly began assaulting passengers and Transportation Security Administration officers by spraying them with a can of wasp killer, then drew his machete and ran through a metal detector. Jefferson Parish‘s deputy sheriff shot and killed White as he was chasing a TSA officer with his machete.[31]

    Funding

    For fiscal year 2012, the TSA had a budget of roughly $7.6 billion.

    Budget[32] $ Million Share
    Aviation Security 5,254 70%
    Transportation Security Support & Intelligence 1,032 14%
    Federal Air Marshals 966 13%
    Transportation Threat Assessment & Credentialing 165 2%
    Surface Transportation Security 135 2%
    Total 7,552 101%

    Part of the TSA budget comes from a $2.50 per-passenger tax. The Obama administration has proposed tripling this fee by 2019, with most of the increase going to reduce the national debt.[33]

    Travelers left about half a million dollars behind at airport checkpoints in 2012 and 2013.[34] TSA keeps the money for security operations.[35]

    Screening processes and regulations

    TSA agent screening luggage

    Passenger and carry-on screening

    Identification requirements

    See also: No Fly List

    The TSA requires that passengers show a valid ID at the security checkpoint before boarding their flight. Valid forms of identification include passports from the U.S. or a foreign government, state-issued photo identification, or military ID. Passengers that do not have ID may still be allowed to fly if their identity can be verified through an alternate way.[36]

    Passenger names are compared against the No Fly List, a list of about 21,000 names of suspected terrorists who are not allowed to board.[37] Passenger names are also compared against a longer list of “selectees”, passengers whose names match names from this list receive a more thorough screening before being potentially allowed to board.[38] The effectiveness of the lists has been widely criticized on the basis of errors in how those lists are maintained,[39] for concerns that the lists are unconstitutional, and for its ineffectiveness at stopping Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate plastic explosives in his underwear, from boarding an aircraft.[40] At the airport security checkpoint, passengers are screened to ensure they are not carrying prohibited items. These include most sorts of sharp objects, many sporting goods such as baseball bats and hockey sticks, guns or other weapons, many sorts of tools, flammable liquids (except for conventional lighters), many forms of chemicals and paint.[41] In addition, passengers are limited to 3.4 US fluid ounces (100 ml) of almost any liquid or gel, which must be presented at the checkpoint in a clear, one-quart zip-top bag.[42] These restrictions on liquids were a reaction to the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.

    The number of passengers who have attempted to bring firearms onto airplanes in their carry-on bags has increased in recent years, from 976 in 2009 to 1,813 in 2013, according to the TSA. This is part of the reason security measures, which travelers often find cumbersome, are so thorough.[43] Up to 70 percent of the weapons passengers attempt to bring on-board are never found by screeners.[44] Firearms can be legally checked in checked luggage on domestic flights.[45]

    In some cases, government leaders, members of the US military and law-enforcement officials are allowed to bypass security screening.[46][47]

    In a program begun in October 2011, the TSA’s Precheck Program allows selected members of the American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, Alaska Airlines, Hawaiian Airlines, Virgin America, Southwest Airlines, Air Canada, JetBlue Airlines, and Sun Country Airlinesfrequent flyer programs, members of Global Entry, NEXUS, and SENTRI and active duty members of the US military[citation needed] to receive expedited screening for domestic and select international itineraries.[48] As of August 2015, this program was available at 156 airports.[49] TSA currently only allows US citizens and permanent residents to apply[50] for Precheck. After completing a background check, being fingerprinted,[51] and paying an $85 fee, travelers will get a Known Traveler Number. The program has led to complaints of unfairness and longer wait lines.[52]

    In October 2013, the TSA announced that it had begun searching a wide variety of government and private databases for information about passengers before they arrive at the airport. They did not say which databases were involved, but TSA has access to past travel itineraries, property records, physical characteristics, law enforcement and intelligence information, among others.[53]

    Large printer cartridges ban

    After the October 2010 cargo planes bomb plot, in which cargo containing laser printers with toner cartridges filled with explosives were discovered on separate cargo planes, the U.S. prohibited passengers from carrying certain printer cartridges on flights.[54] The TSA said it would ban toner and ink cartridges weighing over 16 ounces (453 grams) from all passenger flights.[55][56] The ban applies to both carry-on bags and checked bags, and does not affect average travelers, whose toner cartridges are generally lighter.[56]

    November 2010 enhanced screening procedures

    Beginning in November 2010, TSA added new enhanced screening procedures. Passengers are required to choose between an enhanced patdown, allowing TSOs to more thoroughly check areas on the body such as waistbands, groin, and inner thigh.[46] or instead to be imaged by the use of a full body scanner (that is, eitherbackscatter X-ray or millimeter wave detection machines) in order to fly. TSA encouraged flyers to choose scanners by emphasizing the “intrusive” nature of the “enhanced” patdown. These changes were said to be made in reaction to the Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab bombing attempt.[57]

    Pat-downs
    See also: Frisking

    The new pat-down procedures, which were originally not made public,[58] “routinely involve the touching of buttocks and genitals”[59][60][61] as well as breasts.[62]These procedures were controversial, and in a November poll, 50% of those polled felt that the new pat-down procedures were too extreme, with 48% feeling them justified.[63] A number of publicized incidents created a public outcry against the invasiveness of the pat-down techniques,[64][65][66] in which women’s breasts and the genital areas of all passengers are patted.[67] Pat-downs are carried out by agents of the same gender the passenger presents at the screening.[68]

    Concerns were raised as to the constitutionality of the new screening methods by organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union.[69] As of April 2011, at least six lawsuits were filed for violation of the Fourth Amendment.[70][71]George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen has supported this view, saying “there’s a strong argument that the TSA’s measures violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.”[72] Concerns were also raised about the effects of these pat-downs on survivors of sexual assault.[73] In January 2014, Denver police launched a sexual assault investigation against a screener at Denver International Airport over what the passenger stated was an intrusive patdown.[74]

    Full body scanners
    Main article: Full body scanner

    Screenshot from an active millimeter wave scanner

    X-ray backscattertechnology produces an image that resembles a chalk etching.[75]

    A backscatter unit.

    In November 2010, the TSA began putting backscatter X-ray scanners and millimeter wave scanners machines into airports. The TSA refers to these two technologies as Advanced Imaging Technologies, or AIT. Critics sometimes refer to them as “naked scanners”.[76]

    Passengers are directed to hold their hands above their heads for a few seconds while front and back images are created.[77] If the operator sees an anomaly on the scanner, or if other problems occur, the passenger will also have to receive the pat-down.

    Full body scanners have also proven controversial due to privacy and health concerns.

    The American Civil Liberties Union has called the scanners a “virtual strip search.”[78] Female passengers have complained that they are often singled out for scanning, and a review of TSA records by a local CBS affiliate in Dallas found “a pattern of women who believe that there was nothing random about the way they were selected for extra screening.”[79]

    The TSA, on their website, states that they have “implemented strict measures to protect passenger privacy which is ensured through the anonymity of the image,”[80] and additionally states that these technologies “cannot store, print, transmit or save the image, and the image is automatically deleted from the system after it is cleared by the remotely located security officer”.[81] This claim, however, was proven false after multiple incidents involving leaked images. The machines do in fact have the ability to “save” the images and while this function is purported to be “turned off” by the TSA in screenings, TSA Air Marshalls and training facilities have the save function turned on.[82][83][84]

    As early as 2010, the TSA began to test scanners that would produce less intrusive “stick figures”.[85] In February 2011, the TSA began testing new software on the millimeter wave machines already used at Amsterdam’s Schiphol Airport that automatically detects potential threats on a passenger without the need for having an officer review actual images. Instead, one generic figure is used for all passengers and small yellow boxes are placed on areas of the body requiring additional screening.[86] The TSA announced in 2013 that the Rapiscan’s backscatter scanners would no longer be used, due to the fact that the manufacturer of the machines could not produce “privacy software” to abstract the near-nude images that agents view and turn them into stick like figures. The TSA will continue to use other full body scanners.[87]

    Health concerns have been raised about both scanning technologies.

    With regards to exposure to radiation emitted by backscatter X-rays, and there are fears that people will be exposed to a “dangerous level of radiation if they get backscattered too often” A petition by both scientists and pilots argue that the screening machines are safe.[88] Ionizing radiation is considered a non-threshold carcinogen, but it is difficult to quantify the risk of low radiation exposures.[89]Active millimeter wave scanners emit radiation which is non-ionizing, does not have enough energy to directly damage DNA, and is not known to begenotoxic.[90][91][92]

    Reverse screenings

    In April 2016, TSA Administrator, Peter V. Neffenger told a Senate committee that small airports had the option to use “reverse screening” – a system where passengers are not screened before boarding the aircraft at departure, but instead are screened upon arrival at the destination. The procedure is intended to save costs at airports with a limited number of fights.[93]

    Reactions

    After the November 2010 initiation of enhanced screening procedures of all airline passengers and flight crews, the US Airline Pilots Association issued a press release stating that pilots should not submit to full body scanners because of unknown radiation risks and calling for strict guidelines for pat-downs of pilots, including evaluation of their fitness for duty after the pat-down, given the stressful nature of pat-downs.[67][94] Two airline pilots filed suit against the procedures.[95]

    In March 2011, two New Hampshirestate representatives introduced proposed legislation that would criminalize as sexual assault invasive TSA pat-downs made without probable cause.[96][97][98] In May 2011, the Texas House of Representatives passed a bill that would make it illegal for Transportation Security Administration officials to touch a person’s genitals when carrying out a patdown. The bill failed in the Senate after the Department of Justice threatened to make Texas a no-fly zone if the legislation passed.[99][100] In Congress, United States House of Representatives by Ron Paul (R-Texas) introduced the American Traveler Dignity Act(H.R.6416).[101]

    On July 2, 2010, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) filed a lawsuit in federal court asking to halt the use of full body scanners by the TSA on Fourth amendment grounds, and arguing that the TSA had failed to allow a public notice and rule making period. In July 2011, the D.C. Circuit court of appeals ruled that the TSA did violate the Administrative Procedure Act by failing to allowing a public notice and comment rule making period. The Court ordered the agency to “promptly” undertake a public notice and comment rule making. In July 2012, EPIC returned to court and asked the court to force enforcement; in August, the court granted the request to compel the TSA to explain its actions by the end of the month.[102] The agency responded on August 30, saying that there was ““no basis whatsoever for (The DC Circuit Court’s) assertion that TSA has delayed implementing this court’s mandate,” and said it was awaiting approval from the Department of Homeland Security before the hearings take place. The TSA also said that it was having “staffing issues” regarding the issue, but expects to begin hearings in February 2013.[103] The comment period began on March 25, 2013[104][105] and closed on June 25, 2013, with over 90% of the comments against the scanners.[105]As of October, 2015, no report has been issued.

    Two separate Internet campaigns promoted a “National Opt-Out Day,” the day before Thanksgiving, urging travelers to “opt out” of the scanner and insist on a pat-down.[106] The enhanced pat-down procedures were also the genesis of the “Don’t touch my junkmeme“.[107]

    Checked baggage

    Luggage locks

    TSA lock with symbol and general key access

    3D printed master keys for Travel Sentry locks

    In order to be able to search passenger baggage for security screening, the TSA will cut or otherwise disable locks they cannot open themselves. The agency authorized two companies to create padlocks, lockable straps, and luggage with built-in locks that can be opened and relocked by tools and information supplied by the lock manufacturers to the TSA. These areTravel Sentry and Safe Skies Locks.[108] TSA agents sometimes cut these locks off instead of opening them, and TSA received over 3500 complaints in 2011 about locks being tampered with.[109] Travel journalist and National Geographic Traveler editor Christopher Elliott describes these locks as “useless” at protecting the goods within,[110] whereas SmarterTravel wrote in early 2010 that the “jury is out on their effectiveness”, while noting how easy they are to open.[111]

    In November 2014, The Washington Post inadvertently published a photograph of all seven of the TSA master keys in an article[112] about TSA baggage handling. The photograph was later removed from the original Washington Post article, but it still appears in some syndicated copies of the article.[113] On August 22, 2015, Twitter user Luke Rudkowski (@Lukewearechange) noticed the photograph and posted it on Twitter,[114] and from there it quickly spread across social media, gaining the attention of news sites.[115] Using the photograph, security researchers and members of the public have been able to reproduce working copies of the master keys using 3D printing techniques.[116][117] The incident has prompted discussion about the security implications of using master keys.[115]

    Baggage theft[edit]

    Notice of Baggage Inspection

    The TSA has been criticized[118] for an increase in baggage theft after its inception. Reported thefts include both valuable and dangerous goods, such as laptops, jewelry[119] guns,[120] and knives.[121] Such thefts have raised concerns that the same access might allow bombs to be placed aboard aircraft.[122]

    In 2004, over 17,000 claims of baggage theft were reported.[119] As of 2004, 60 screeners had been arrested for baggage theft,[119] a number which had grown to 200 screeners by 2008.[123] 11,700 theft and damage claims were reported to the TSA in 2009, a drop from 26,500 in 2004, which was attributed to the installation of cameras and conveyor belts in airports.[124] A total of 25,016 thefts were reported over the five-year period from 2010 to 2014.[125]

    As of 2011, the TSA employs about 60,000 screeners in total (counting both baggage and passenger screening)[126] and approximately 500 TSA agents have been fired or suspended for stealing from passenger luggage since the agency’s creation in November 2001. The airports with the most reported thefts from 2010 to 2014 were JFK, followed by LAX and MCO.[125]

    In 2008 an investigative report by WTAE in Pittsburgh discovered that despite over 400 reports of baggage theft, about half of which the TSA reimbursed passengers for, not a single arrest had been made.[127] The TSA does not, as a matter of policy, share baggage theft reports with local police departments.[127]

    In September 2012, ABC News interviewed former TSA agent Pythias Brown, who has admitted to stealing more than $800,000 worth of items during his employment with the agency. Brown stated that it was “very convenient to steal” and poor morale within the agency is what causes agents to steal from passengers.[128]

    The TSA has also been criticized for not responding properly to theft and failing to reimburse passengers for stolen goods. For example, between 2011 and 2012, passengers at Hartsfield–Jackson Atlanta International Airport reported $300,000 in property lost or damaged by the TSA. The agency only reimbursed $35,000 of those claims.[129] Similar statistics were found at Jacksonville International Airport – passengers reported $22,000 worth of goods missing or damaged over the course of 15 months. The TSA only reimbursed $800.[130]

    Screening effectiveness

    Undercover operations to test the effectiveness of airport screening processes are routinely carried out by the TSA’s Office of Investigations[131] and the Department of Homeland SecurityInspector General‘s office.

    A report by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General found that TSA officials had collaborated with Covenant Aviation Security (CAS) at San Francisco International Airport to alert screeners to undercover tests.[132] From August 2003 until May 2004, precise descriptions of the undercover personnel were provided to the screeners. The handing out of descriptions was then stopped, but until January 2005 screeners were still alerted whenever undercover operations were being undertaken.[133] When no wrongdoing on the part of CAS was found, the contract was extended for four years. Some CAS and TSA workers received disciplinary action, but none were fired.[134][135]

    A report on undercover operations conducted in October 2006 at Newark Liberty International Airport was leaked to the press. The screeners had failed 20 of 22 undercover security tests, missing numerous guns and bombs. The Government Accountability Office had previously pointed to repeated covert test failures by TSA personnel.[136][137] Revealing the results of covert tests is against TSA policy, and the agency responded by initiating an internal probe to discover the source of the leak.[138]

    In July 2007, the Times Union of Albany, New York reported that TSA screeners at Albany International Airport failed multiple covert security tests conducted by the TSA. Among them was a failure to detect a fake bomb.[139]

    In December 2010, ABC News Houston reported in an article about a man who accidentally took a forgotten gun through airport security, that “the failure rate approaches 70 percent at some major airports”.[44]

    In June 2011 TSA fired 36 screeners at the Honolulu airport for regularly allowing bags through without being inspected.[140]

    In May 2012, a report from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General stated that the TSA “does not have a complete understanding” of breaches at the nation’s airports, with some hubs doing very little to fix or report security breaches. These findings will be presented to Congress.[141]

    A 2015 investigation by the Homeland Security Inspector General revealed that undercover investigators were able to smuggle banned items through checkpoints in 95% of their attempts.[142]

    Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. John Mica, chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, have had several joint hearings concerning the cost and benefits of the various safety programs including full body scanners, theTransportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC), and the behavior detection program, among others.[143]

    Some measures employed by the TSA have been accused of being ineffective and fostering a false sense of safety.[144][145] This led security expert Bruce Schneierto coin the term security theater to describe those measures.[146]

    Unintended consequences of 2002 screening enhancements

    Two studies by a group of Cornell University researchers have found that strict airport security has the unintended consequence of increasing road fatalities, as would-be air travelers decide to drive and are exposed to the far greater risk of dying in a car accident.[147][148] In 2005, the researchers looked at the immediate aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, and found that the change in passenger travel modes led to 242 added driving deaths per month.[147] In all, they estimated that about 1,200 driving deaths could be attributed to the short-term effects of the attacks. The study attributes the change in traveler behavior to two factors: fear of terrorist attacks and the wish to avoid the inconvenience of strict security measures; no attempt is made to estimate separately the influence of each of these two factors.

    In 2007, the researchers studied the specific effects of a change to security practices instituted by the TSA in late 2002. They concluded that this change reduced the number of air travelers by 6%, and estimated that consequently, 129 more people died in car accidents in the fourth quarter of 2002.[148] Extrapolating this rate of fatalities, New York Times contributor Nate Silver remarked that this is equivalent to “four fully loaded Boeing 737s crashing each year.”[149] The 2007 study also noted that strict airport security hurts the airline industry; it was estimated that the 6% reduction in the number of passengers in the fourth quarter of 2002 cost the industry $1.1 billion in lost business.[150]

    Data security incidents

    Employee records lost or stolen

    In 2007, an unencrypted computer hard drive containing Social Security numbers, bank data, and payroll information for about 100,000 employees was lost or stolen from TSA headquarters. Kip Hawley alerted TSA employees to the loss, and apologized for it. The agency asked the FBI to investigate. There were no reports that the data was later misused.[151][152]

    Unsecured website

    In 2007, Christopher Soghoian, a blogger and security researcher, said that a TSA website was collecting private passenger information in an unsecured manner, exposing passengers to identity theft.[153] The website allowed passengers to dispute their inclusion on the No Fly List. The TSA fixed the website several days after the press picked up the story.[154] The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated the matter,[155] and said the website had operated insecurely for more than four months, during which more than 247 people had submitted personal information.[156] The report said the TSA manager who awarded the contract for creating the website was a high-school friend and former employee of the owner of the firm that received the contract.[157] It noted:

    neither Desyne nor the technical lead on the traveler redress Web site have been sanctioned by TSA for their roles in the deployment of an insecure Web site. TSA continues to pay Desyne to host and maintain two major Web-based information systems. TSA has taken no steps to discipline the technical lead, who still holds a senior program management position at TSA.[158]

    In December 2009, someone within the TSA posted a sensitive manual titled “Screening Management SOP” on secret airport screening guidelines to an obscure URL on the FedBizOpps website. The manual was taken down quickly, but the breach raised questions about whether security practices had been compromised.[159] Five TSA employees were placed on administrative leave over the manual’s publication, which, while redacted, had its redaction easily removed by computer-knowledgeable people.[160]

    Other criticisms

    Insignia

    Common criticisms of the agency have also included assertions that TSA employees slept on the job,[161][162][163][164] bypassed security checks,[165] and failed to use good judgment and common sense.[166][167][168]

    TSA agents are also accused of having mistreated passengers, and having sexually harassed passengers,[169][170][171][172] having used invasive screening procedures, including touching the genitals, including those of children,[173] removing nipple rings with pliers,[174] having searched passengers or their belongings for items other than weapons or explosives,[175] and having stolen from passengers.[127][176][177][178][179][180][181][182] The TSA fired 28 agents and suspended 15 others after an investigation determined they failed to scan checked baggage for explosives.[183]

    The TSA was also accused of having spent lavishly on events unrelated to airport security,[184] having wasted money in hiring,[185]and having had conflicts of interest.[186]

    The TSA was accused of having performed poorly at the 2009 Presidential Inauguration viewing areas, which left thousands of ticket holders excluded from the event in overcrowded conditions, while those who had arrived before the checkpoints were in place avoided screening altogether.[187][188]

    In 2013 dozens of TSA workers were fired or suspended for illegal gambling at Pittsburgh International Airport,[189] and eight TSA workers were arrested in connection with stolen parking passes at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.[190]

    A 2013 GAO report showed a 26% increase in misconduct among TSA employees between 2010 and 2012, from 2,691 cases to 3,408.[191] Another GAO report said that there is no evidence that the Screening of Passengers by Observation Techniques (SPOT) behavioral detection program, with an annual budget of hundreds of millions of dollars, is effective.[192]

    A 2013 report by the Homeland Security Department Inspector General’s Office charged that TSA was using criminal investigators to do the job of lower paid employees, wasting millions of dollars a year.[193]

    On December 3, 2013, the United States House of Representatives passed the Transportation Security Acquisition Reform Act (H.R. 2719; 113th Congress) in response to criticism of the TSA’s acquisition process as wasteful, costly, and ineffective.[194][195] If the bill became law, it would require the TSA to develop a comprehensive technology acquisition plan and present regular reports to Congress about its successes and failures to adhere to this plan. An April 2013 report from the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General indicated that the TSA had 17,000 items with an estimated cost of $185.7 million stored in its warehouses on May 31, 2012.[196] The auditors found that “TSA stored unusable or obsolete equipment, maintained inappropriate safety stock levels, and did not develop an inventory management process that systematically deploys equipment.”[196]

    In January 2014, Jason Edward Harrington, a former TSA screener at O’Hare International Airport, said that fellow staff members assigned to review body scan images of airline passengers routinely joked about fliers’ weight, attractiveness, and penis and breast sizes. According to Harrington, screeners would alert each other to attractive female passengers with the code phrase “Hotel Papa” so that staff would have an opportunity to view the passengers’ nude form in body scanner monitors and retaliated against rude flyers by delaying them at the checkpoint. TSA Administrator John Pistole responded by saying that all the scanners had been replaced and the screening rooms disabled. He did not deny that the behaviors described by Harrington took place.[197]

    In May 2016, actress Susan Sarandon revealed that during the entire time of the Bush administration she was “harassed everytime I came into the country”. She said that she hired two lawyers to contact the TSA to determine why she had been targeted, but that she assumed it was because she was critical of the Bush administration. She said the harassment stopped after her attorneys followed up a second time with the TSA.[198]

    Public opinion

    A CBS telephone poll of 1137 people published on November 15, 2010 found that 81% percent of those polled approved TSA’s use of full-body scans.[199] An ABC/Washington Post poll conducted by Langer Associates and released November 22, 2010 found that 64% of Americans favored the full-body X-ray scanners, but that 50% think the “enhanced” pat-downs go too far; 37% felt so strongly. In addition the poll states opposition is lowest among those who fly less than once a year.[200] A later poll by Zogby International found 61% of likely voters oppose the new measures by TSA.[201] In 2012, a poll conducted by the Frequent Business Traveler organization found that 56% of frequent fliers were “not satisfied” with the job the TSA was doing. 57% rated the TSA as doing a “poor job,” and 34% rated it “fair.” Only 1% of those surveyed rated the agency’s work as excellent.[202]

    Calls for abolition

    Numerous groups and figures have called for the abolition of the TSA in its current form, primarily persons and groups holding conservative or libertarian views.[203]These include Sen. Rand Paul,[204] (R-KY), Rep. John Mica,[205] (R-FL), The Cato Institute,[206]Downsize DC Foundation,[207]FreedomWorks,[208] and opinion columnists from Forbes,[209]Fox News,[210]National Review,[211]USA Today,[212]Vox,[213]The Washington Examiner,[214] and The Washington Post.[215]

    The TSA’s critics frequently cite the agency as “ineffective, invasive, incompetent, inexcusably costly, or all four”[216] as their reasons for seeking its abolition. Those seeking to abolish the TSA have cited the improved efficacy and cost of screening provided by qualified private companies in compliance with federal guidelines.[217]

    See also

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

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-679

    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 01-09

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

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