Pro Life

The Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017, Story 1: Big Government Interventionist and Open Borders Advocate President George W. Bush Speech Insults American People Who Wanted Immigration Laws Fully Enforced By Both Him and Former President Obama By Calling American Citizens “Nativists” –While The United States Was Invaded By 30-60 Million Illegal Aliens — American Citizens First — Illegal Aliens Please Go Home — Videos — Story 2: Actual Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Deficits — $666 Billion — Big Government Two Party Tyranny — Spending Addiction Disorder Continues Until 2027! — Videos

Posted on October 25, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Barack H. Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Fast and Furious, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, James Comey, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Science, Social Security, Spying, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Clause 8: Oath or affirmation

Presidential Oath of Office

“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.”

Clause 5: Caring for the faithful execution of the law

“take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

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.”

Bush warns of nationalism becoming nativism, people failing to see image of God in one another

George W. Bush: Nativism ‘Casual Cruelty’ Pulling Us Apart 10/19/17 FULL Speech

Karl Rove, With A Straight Face, Just Said George W. Bush’s Speech Was Not About Trump

Rush Limbaugh: What most troubles me about President Bush’s speech (audio from 10-20-2017)

Mark Levin Show: George W. Bush gave a speech criticizing Donald Trump and his policies (10-19-2017)

Laura Ingraham Reacts to George W. Bush Speech

LIMBAUGH: George W. Bush Is Calling Out Trump Voters With ‘Bush Version Of Hillary’s DEPLORABLES’

Michael Savage reacts to George W. Bush his attack on Trump

Steve Bannon: President George W. Bush ‘Embarrassed Himself’

Coulter Discusses George W. Bush Speech & Steve Bannon

President George W. Bush Jr betrays conservatives on immigration

George W. Bush on Immigration

GW Bush on immigration: 24 may07 @ 37th Press Conf.

Bush fields a question from the Wall St Journal on the pending immigration bill at his 37th Press Conference since comming into office in 2001 held at the White House Rose Garden May 24, 2007

George W Bush Takes a Shot at Trump, Nationalism

George W. Bush speech takes down Trump without even mentioning his name

George W. Bush Full Speech at the George W. Bush Institute in New York City (10 19 17)

George W. Bush Attacks Trump

State Of The Union Address 2007 on Illegal Immigration

Pres. Bush Pushes for Immigration Reform

From the Vault: President Bush pushes for immigration reform

Comprehensive immigration reform was a key issue for President George W. Bush during his second term. On May 15, 2006 President Bush laid out his vision for the country’s immigration law during a primetime address to the nation. Gwen Ifill explored the debate over comprehensive immigration reform, the ethnic tensions surrounding the issue and the pushback the president faced from some fellow Republicans with Gebe Martinez of the Houston Chronicle and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal.

“100 Million Immigrants on the Way??” Tucker Reacts to Latest Projections

Tucker: Illegal immigration is literally costing US big-time

Rush Limbaugh on George W. Bush [11.12.2008]

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

A startling look at how U.S. immigration will add 300 million people to the country this century if immigration policies are not changed. This dramatic presentation of the latest Census data raises serious immigration questions about the ability of the country to achieve environmental sustainability and to meet the quality-of-life infrastructure needs of the national community considering current immigration policy. Presented by immigration author/journalist Roy Beck

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1. Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million. On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States. This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments: Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR… Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW… Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY… James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV… James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun… Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ… Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf… For complete articles on the topic, see the Summer, 2007 issue of The Social Contract at

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

Immigration Crisis Exposes Failed Central America Program

Obama’s Amnesty & How Illegal Immigration Affects Us

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

Immigrants! Don’t Vote for What You Fled

How to solve the illegal immigration problem

Ann Coulter On Illegal Immigrant Amnesty

Democrat vs. Republican is Outdated – Learn Liberty

Making Sense Of “Trumpism” – Learn Liberty

Exposing The Religion of Government

G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy

G. Edward Griffin: Donald Trump is an Amazing Phenomenon

George W. Bush Breaks Silence With Stunning Confession About President Trump – Hot News

Media pressures Bush to attack Trump, backfires

Trump Won’t Win – Funniest before and after clips of Liberals getting it WRONG

The only 3 who predicted Trump would win!

Professor stands by prediction that Trump will win

Miller Time: Trump victory reaction

Dissecting Donald Trump’s win over Hillary Clinton

Judge Jeanine: This wasn’t an election, it was a revolution

Tucker Carlson: The point of Trump movement is democracy

Tucker Carlson: Trump owes nothing to lobbyist community

The people revolt, Trump wins

Hannity: The American people have finally been heard

Full text: George W. Bush speech on Trumpism

Below is a transcript of George W. Bush’s speech delivered Oct. 19, 2017 at the at the “Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World” event in New York.

Thank you all. Thank you. Ok, Padilla gracias. So, I painted Ramon. I wish you were still standing here. It’s a face only a mother could love – no, it’s a fabulous face. (Laughter.) I love you Ramon, thank you very much for being here.

I am thrilled that friends of ours from Afghanistan, China, North Korea, and Venezuela are here as well. These are people who have experienced the absence of freedom and they know what it’s like and they know there is a better alternative to tyranny.

Laura and I are thrilled that the Bush Center supporters are here. Bernie [Tom Bernstein], I want to thank you and your committee. I call him Bernie. (Laughter.)

It’s amazing to have Secretary Albright share the stage with Condi and Ambassador Haley. For those of you that kind of take things for granted, that’s a big deal. (Laughter and Applause.) Thank you.

We are gathered in the cause of liberty this is a unique moment. The great democracies face new and serious threats – yet seem to be losing confidence in their own calling and competence. Economic, political and national security challenges proliferate, and they are made worse by the tendency to turn inward. The health of the democratic spirit itself is at issue. And the renewal of that spirit is the urgent task at hand.

Since World War II, America has encouraged and benefited from the global advance of free markets, from the strength of democratic alliances, and from the advance of free societies. At one level, this has been a raw calculation of interest. The 20th century featured some of the worst horrors of history because dictators committed them. Free nations are less likely to threaten and fight each other.
And free trade helped make America into a global economic power.

For more than 70 years, the presidents of both parties believed that American security and prosperity were directly tied to the success of freedom in the world. And they knew that the success depended, in large part, on U.S. leadership. This mission came naturally, because it expressed the DNA of American idealism.

We know, deep down, that repression is not the wave of the future. We know that the desire for freedom is not confined to, or owned by, any culture; it is the inborn hope of our humanity. We know that free governments are the only way to ensure that the strong are just and the weak are valued. And we know that when we lose sight of our ideals, it is not democracy that has failed. It is the failure of those charged with preserving and protecting democracy.

This is not to underestimate the historical obstacles to the development of democratic institutions and a democratic culture. Such problems nearly destroyed our country – and that should encourage a spirit of humility and a patience with others. Freedom is not merely a political menu option, or a foreign policy fad; it should be the defining commitment of our country, and the hope of the world.

That appeal is proved not just by the content of people’s hopes, but a noteworthy hypocrisy: No democracy pretends to be a tyranny. Most tyrannies pretend they are democracies. Democracy remains the definition of political legitimacy. That has not changed, and that will not change.

Yet for years, challenges have been gathering to the principles we hold dear. And, we must take them seriously. Some of these problems are external and obvious. Here in New York City, you know the threat of terrorism all too well. It is being fought even now on distant frontiers and in the hidden world of intelligence and surveillance. There is the frightening, evolving threat of nuclear proliferation and outlaw regimes. And there is an aggressive challenge by Russia and China to the norms and rules of the global order – proposed revisions that always seem to involve less respect for the rights of free nations and less freedom for the individual.

These matters would be difficult under any circumstances. They are further complicated by a trend in western countries away from global engagement and democratic confidence. Parts of Europe have developed an identity crisis. We have seen insolvency, economic stagnation, youth unemployment, anger about immigration, resurgent ethno-nationalism, and deep questions about the meaning and durability of the European Union.

America is not immune from these trends. In recent decades, public confidence in our institutions has declined. Our governing class has often been paralyzed in the face of obvious and pressing needs. The American dream of upward mobility seems out of reach for some who feel left behind in a changing economy. Discontent deepened and sharpened partisan conflicts. Bigotry seems emboldened. Our politics seems more vulnerable to conspiracy theories and outright fabrication.

There are some signs that the intensity of support for democracy itself has waned, especially among the young, who never experienced the galvanizing moral clarity of the Cold War, or never focused on the ruin of entire nations by socialist central planning. Some have called this “democratic deconsolidation.” Really, it seems to be a combination of weariness, frayed tempers, and forgetfulness.

We have seen our discourse degraded by casual cruelty. At times, it can seem like the forces pulling us apart are stronger than the forces binding us together. Argument turns too easily into animosity. Disagreement escalates into dehumanization. Too often, we judge other groups by their worst examples while judging ourselves by our best intentions – forgetting the image of God we should see in each other.

We’ve seen nationalism distorted into nativism – forgotten the dynamism that immigration has always brought to America. We see a fading confidence in the value of free markets and international trade – forgetting that conflict, instability, and poverty follow in the wake of protectionism.

We have seen the return of isolationist sentiments – forgetting that American security is directly threatened by the chaos and despair of distant places, where threats such as terrorism, infectious disease, criminal gangs and drug trafficking tend to emerge.

In all these ways, we need to recall and recover our own identity. Americans have a great advantage: To renew our country, we only need to remember our values.

This is part of the reason we meet here today. How do we begin to encourage a new, 21st century American consensus on behalf of democratic freedom and free markets? That’s the question I posed to scholars at the Bush Institute. That is what Pete Wehner and Tom Melia, who are with us today, have answered with “The Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World,” a Call to Action paper.

The recommendations come in broad categories. Here they are: First, America must harden its own defenses. Our country must show resolve and resilience in the face of external attacks on our democracy. And that begins with confronting a new era of cyber threats.

America is experiencing the sustained attempt by a hostile power to feed and exploit our country’s divisions. According to our intelligence services, the Russian government has made a project of turning Americans against each other. This effort is broad, systematic and stealthy, it’s conducted across a range of social media platforms. Ultimately, this assault won’t succeed. But foreign aggressions – including cyber-attacks, disinformation and financial influence – should not be downplayed or tolerated. This is a clear case where the strength of our democracy begins at home. We must secure our electoral infrastructure and protect our electoral system from subversion.

The second category of recommendations concerns the projection of American leadership – maintaining America’s role in sustaining and defending an international order rooted in freedom and free markets.

Our security and prosperity are only found in wise, sustained, global engagement: In the cultivation of new markets for American goods. In the confrontation of security challenges before they fully materialize and arrive on our shores. In the fostering of global health and development as alternatives to suffering and resentment. In the attraction of talent, energy and enterprise from all over the world. In serving as a shining hope for refugees and a voice for dissidents, human rights defenders, and the oppressed.

We should not be blind to the economic and social dislocations caused by globalization. People are hurting. They are angry. And, they are frustrated. We must hear them and help them. But we can’t wish globalization away, any more than we could wish away the agricultural revolution or the industrial revolution. One strength of free societies is their ability to adapt to economic and social disruptions.
And that should be our goal: to prepare American workers for new opportunities, to care in practical, empowering ways for those who may feel left behind. The first step should be to enact policies that encourage robust economic growth by unlocking the potential of the private sector, and for unleashing the creativity and compassion of this country.

A third focus of this document is strengthening democratic citizenship. And here we must put particular emphasis on the values and views of the young.

This means that people of every race, religion, and ethnicity can be fully and equally American. It means that bigotry or white supremacy in any form is blasphemy against the American creed. (Applause.)
And it means that the very identity of our nation depends on the passing of civic ideals to the next generation.

We need a renewed emphasis on civic learning in schools. And our young people need positive role models. Bullying and prejudice in our public life sets a national tone, provides permission for cruelty and bigotry, and compromises the moral education of children. The only way to pass along civic values is to first live up to them.

Finally, the Call to Action calls on the major institutions of our democracy, public and private, to consciously and urgently attend to the problem of declining trust.

For example, our democracy needs a media that is transparent, accurate and fair. Our democracy needs religious institutions that demonstrate integrity and champion civil discourse. Our democracy needs institutions of higher learning that are examples of truth and free expression.

In short, it is time for American institutions to step up and provide cultural and moral leadership for this nation.

Ten years ago, I attended a Conference on Democracy and Security in Prague. The goal was to put human rights and human freedom at the center of our relationships with repressive governments. The Prague Charter, signed by champions of liberty Vaclav Havel, Natan Sharansky, Jose Maria Aznar, called for the isolation and ostracism of regimes that suppress peaceful opponents by threats or violence.

Little did we know that, a decade later, a crisis of confidence would be developing within the core democracies, making the message of freedom more inhibited and wavering. Little did we know that repressive governments would be undertaking a major effort to encourage division in western societies and to undermine the legitimacy of elections.

Repressive rivals, along with skeptics here at home, misunderstand something important. It is the great advantage of free societies that we creatively adapt to challenges, without the direction of some central authority. Self-correction is the secret strength of freedom. We are a nation with a history of resilience and a genius for renewal.

Right now, one of our worst national problems is a deficit of confidence. But the cause of freedom justifies all our faith and effort. It still inspires men and women in the darkest corners of the world, and it will inspire a rising generation. The American spirit does not say, “We shall manage,” or “We shall make the best of it.” It says, “We shall overcome.” And that is exactly what we will do, with the help of God and one another.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/19/full-text-george-w-bush-speech-trump-243947

 

What Is a Nativist?

And is Donald Trump one?

Carlo Allegri / Reuters 
To understand the ideas shaping the Trump administration, the political scientist Cas Mudde once told me, you have to understand populism, authoritarianism, and nativism, because Donald Trump “fires on all three cylinders.” I’ve previously explored the definitions of populism and authoritarianism. But what is nativism? How is it different from “nationalism” or “patriotism”—words that the alleged nativists themselves typically use to describe their ideology? Is Trump, the man who just ordered air strikes against a foreign leader for attacking people in a foreign country, really a nativist? And why, when it would seem to raise valid questions about the rights of natives versus non-natives, does nativism have such negative associations?

What is a nativist?

There’s a reason the word “nativism” appears regularly in the U.S. media and not elsewhere: According to Mudde, a professor at the University of Georgia, nativism is an almost exclusively American concept that is rarely discussed in Western Europe. The term’s origins lie with mid-19th century political movements in the United States—most famously the Know Nothing party—thatportrayed Catholic immigration from countries such as Germany and Ireland as a grave threat to native-born Protestant Americans. (Never mind that the Protestant “natives” were themselves migrants relative to another native population.) Nativism arose in a natural place: a nation constructed through waves of migration and backlashes to migration, where the meaning of “native” is always evolving.

Europeans tend to talk about “ultra-nationalism” or “xenophobia” or “racism” rather than nativism, said Mudde, who is Dutch. But this language, in his view, doesn’t fully capture the phenomenon, which “isn’t just a prejudice [against] non-natives” but also “a view on how a state should be structured.”

Nativism, Mudde told me, is “xenophobic nationalism.” It is “an ideology that wants congruence of state and nation—the political and the cultural unit. It wants one state for every nation and one nation for every state. It perceives all non-natives … as threatening. But the non-native is not only people. It can also be ideas.” Nativism is most appealing during periods when people feel the harmony between state and nation is disappearing.

Eric Kaufmann, a political scientist at the University of London’s Birkbeck College, calls nativism a “crude” term and prefers something more precise: “majority-ethnic nationalism,” which applies to people who consider themselves native to or settlers of a country and want to protect their “demographic predominance in that territory.”

Some types of nationalism are concerned with ideology (America as the leader of the free world) or status (American as the most powerful country in the world). But ethnic nationalism is “less concerned with getting to the moon and being number one,” Kaufmann said. It’s a “boundary-based nationalism.”

Nativists typically spend more time defining “them” (non-natives) than “us” (natives), Mudde added, because the more specific the “us,” the more it raises thorny questions of national identity and excludes segments of the population who might otherwise support the nativist politician. The native is often depicted as the unspoken inverse of The Other: “The other is barbarian, which makes you modern. The other is lazy, which makes you hardworking. The other is Godless, which makes you God-fearing.”

Long before Trump embraced the slogan “America First,” Elisabeth Ivarsflaten taught her students at the University of Bergen in Norway to think of nativist politicians as the “my-country-first party.” All political leaders should (theoretically) put their country’s interests first. But nativism goes beyond that logic. “The idea that these parties roughly engage is that too much emphasis is being put on internationalization and accommodating people who want to come into the country” but aren’t originally from there, Ivarsflaten said. Whether nativism involves opposing the European Union because Germans have to bail out Greeks, or opposing multiculturalism because it means accepting forms of Islamic dress, the idea is that “there is a native population or a native culture that should be given priority over other kinds of cultures.”Ivarsflaten places nativism in the broader category of right-wing populism, an ideology premised on representing the virtuous “people” against a corrupt “elite.” She has found that all the populist-right parties that performed well in Western European elections in the early 2000s had one thing in common: They tapped into people’s complaints about immigration. Other grievances—regarding the European Union, economic policy and the state of the economy, or political elitism and corruption—did not account for the success of these parties as consistently or powerfully as immigration issues did. “As immigration policy preferences become more restrictive, the probability of voting for the populist right increases dramatically,” she wrote at the time.

Is Donald Trump a nativist?

Mudde argues that nativism was one of the first features of Trump’s “core ideology” as a presidential candidate, though he acknowledges that Trump isn’t a consistent ideologue. (Mudde believes Trump adopted populism more recently, under the influence of White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon.)

And Trump quickly learned that nativism was popular; Mudde notes that Trump’s campaign speeches were initially quite boring—with lengthy digressions about his real-estate deals—but that crowds erupted in applause when he spoke about building a border wall with Mexico or barring radical Islamic terrorists from the country.

Several top officials in the Trump administration, including Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, could be described as nativist, Mudde added, and a number of the administration’s early policies, including the travel ban and the creation of an office focused on crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, could be as well.

Asked whether Trump qualifies as a nativist, Kaufmann focused on Trump’s supporters rather than the man himself. He cited findings that Americans who were worried about immigrants threatening U.S. values and eroding the white majority in the United States were more likely to enthusiastically back Trump during the campaign. Kaufmann interprets Trump’s “Make America Great Again” nationalism as less about reasserting American power in the world than “about restoring a kind of cultural particularism and identity.” Trump’s core supporters, in Kaufmann’s view, are “people who feel that they’ve become disoriented culturally,” not people who are alarmed by a loss of American prestige overseas.

Still, Trump is the leader of the Republican Party, not some small, European-style nativist party, Ivarsflaten points out. “He can’t really reinvent the whole Republican ideology through a nativist lens.” She also suggested that Trump isn’t so much an ideologue as a blank canvas onto which others project ideologies. The president’s decision to bomb the Syrian military for using chemical weapons against civilians, for example, seems to represent a victory for traditional Republican internationalists over the Bannonite wing of the Trump administration, though the triumph might prove temporary. It’s also difficult to square Trump the America-First nativist with Trump the globe-trotting businessman.“I have no idea what the ideological lens of Donald Trump is actually,” Ivarsflaten said. “You tell me.”

So what if Trump is a nativist?

One reason Donald Trump’s presidency is so momentous is that, if he is indeed a nativist, he would be one of the first of his ilk to come to power in the West since 1980. In a 2012 paper on nativism in Europe and North America, Mudde observed that in the rare instances in which nativist parties had been part of government—in European countries such as Austria, Italy, and Switzerland—they had played a significant role in introducing restrictive immigration policies. But the story was different in the United States and Canada.

“In the United States,” Mudde wrote at the time, “nativist actors have had indirect effects on policy at best, as the nativist voices within the Republican Party, for example, have not made it into prominent positions in government.” The closest America had come to having a viable nativist party, Mudde noted, was with Pat Buchanan’s Reform Party in the 2000 presidential election. (Buchanan’s slogan? “America First!”)

Now nativism, conceived in the United States and revived in Europe, has returned with force to its native land.“Nativism is the core feature of the radical right today,” Mudde told me, and the other ideological dimensions of contemporary radical-right politicians—like populism and authoritarianism—tend to pass through a nativist filter. In terms of populism, he said, “the elite is considered to be corrupt because it works in the interest of the non-natives or it undermines the native group.” In terms of authoritarianism, which emphasizes the enforcement of law and order, “crime is almost always linked” to outsiders. While nativist movements have long argued that immigrants pose a multifaceted threat to the culture, security, and economic well-being of natives, Mudde writes in his 2012 paper, in the post-9/11 era the cultural and security threats have become intertwined with religion. “Increasingly the immigrant is seen as a Muslim, not a Turk or Moroccan,” he notes.Some studies indicate that as levels of immigration to a country rise, so does support for nativist, radical-right politicians. But Mudde contends that the connection is more complicated than that: It’s not sufficient for the ranks of the foreign-born in a nation to swell; immigration also has to be turned into a political issue. It has to be made visible to a large part of the population. He pointed out that labor-migration flows to Western Europe increased in the years before the 1973 oil crisis, but that immigration wasn’t politicized there until the 1980s and ’90s, when asylum-seekers flocked to the region, efforts to integrate immigrants and their children into society and the labor market sputtered, and radical-right parties like the National Front in France began achieving political success.
Trump, for his part, rose to power at a time when more Mexican immigrants were leaving than arriving in the United States, and when the number of undocumented immigrants in the U.S. was flatlining. “This doesn’t mean that Trump [made] people xenophobic or nativist,” Mudde said. “A large portion of the population everywhere in the world is nativist.” But those people might have based their vote in previous elections on other issues. When a politician manages to shift the debate to matters of security and immigration, it can change how people vote.Nativists, like populists, “raise some important questions,” Mudde said. “The argument that borders should be controlled” shouldn’t be controversial, “and it’s definitely not undemocratic. It’s the democratic right of a state and its population to decide who can come in [to the country] and under which conditions.”But nativists, like populists, give “highly problematic” answers, according to Mudde. “Populism sees the people as one and pure. Nativism sees the people as one in a cultural, ethnic, predetermined sense. And that nation doesn’t exist. The nation is changing virtually on a daily basis.” This singular vision threatens a central component of liberal democracies like the United States: pluralism, which holds that society is composed of different groups with different interests that must all be considered legitimate.Yet what is also legitimate, according to Kaufmann, is for people to try and shore up their ethnic group’s culture and share of the population, so long as they are open to processes like assimilation and intermarriage. He cited the contrast that the Brookings scholar Shadi Hamid has made between racism and racial self-interest. “There is an important distinction between disliking other groups, treating them badly, or seeking some kind of racial purity, all of which would be dangerous and things that I think you’d call racism, from racial self-interest, which could be just trying to maintain the vitality of your group and even perhaps seeking for your group not to decline,” Kaufmann said. “If the majority feels that it can’t express those views without being tarred as racist, I’m not sure that’s a good state of affairs.”Kaufmann referenced a poll he helped conduct showing that 73 percent of white Hillary Clinton voters say a white American who wants to reduce immigration to maintain his or her group’s share of the population is being racist, while only 11 percent of white Trump voters agree. (A similar but narrower difference was observed between white British “Remain” and “Leave” voters in the United Kingdom’s recent referendum on the European Union.) “There’s a much wider definition of racism among Clinton voters and a much narrower definition among Trump voters,” Kaufmann told me.Nativism is currently gaining traction across the Western world because ethnic majorities are under demographic pressure, Kaufmann explained. Fertility rates are falling, which, in aging societies, creates a need for immigration. (This is the dynamic the Republican congressman Steve King recently referred to in his widely condemnedtweet that “culture and demographics are our destiny” and that “we can’t restore our civilization with somebody else’s babies.”) And the message from political leaders, Kaufmann said, is often, “‘If you’re the majority, you’re kind of the past. And you’ve got to embrace diversity.’ The subtext of that is, ‘You’re shrinking.’”If politicians want to blunt the appeal of nativism, Kaufmann argued, they need to highlight the successes of assimilation—the signs of continuity and not just change—and tone down the diversity talk (he believes this rhetoric about multiculturalism is in part responsible for people overestimating the size of minority populations in their country). They need to reassure ethnic majorities that they have a future and offer a vision of what that future might look like.https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/what-is-nativist-trump/521355/

Story 2: Actual Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Deficit — $666 Billion — Big Government Two Party Tyranny — Spending Addiction Disorder — Will Fiscal Year 2018 Be Greater — Yes — If U.S. Economy Goes Into Recession — Videos

Senate republicans pass budget with $1.5 trillion deficit, in step closer to tax reform

Breaking New 24h: Senate Approves Budget Plan That Smooths Path Toward Tax Cut

Senate Passes Budget Blueprint Key To Trump Tax Effort

Senator Rand Paul On Republicans Reducing The National Debt

 

 

GOP Congress Presides Over Highest Spending Since Obama’s Stimulus

By Terence P. Jeffrey | October 20, 2017 | 2:09 PM EDT

(Screen Capture)

(CNSNews.com) – Real federal spending in fiscal 2017, which ended on Sept. 30, was higher than in any year in the history of the United States other than fiscal 2009, which was the year that President Barack Obama’s $840 billion stimulus law was enacted.

Fiscal 2017 also saw the second highest real federal individual income tax totals of any year in U.S. history, according to the Monthly Treasury Statement released today.

Total federal tax revenues were the third highest in U.S. history.

While it was collecting the third highest total tax revenues in U.S. history, the federal government ran a deficit $665,712,000,000 because of its high total spending.

Republicans have controlled the House of Representatives since 2011, after winning a majority of seats in the 2010 election. They have controlled the Senate since 2015, after winning a majority in the 2014 election. In fiscal years 2016 and 2017, a Congress in which the Republican Party controls both houses was responsible for enacting all federal spending legislation.

Total federal spending in fiscal 2017, according to the Treasury, was $3,980,605,000,000. Total federal tax revenue was $3,314,893,000,000.

Prior to this year, the highest level of real federal spending was the $4,024,794,600,000 in constant 2017 dollars (adjusted using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator) that the Treasury spent in fiscal 2009.

In the years after 2009, real federal spenpding hit its lowest level ($3,633,572,490,000 in constant 2017 dollars) in fiscal 2014. In fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 federal spending has been on the rise again—reaching $3,980,605,000,000 this year, the second highest spending level in the nation’s history.

On the tax side, federal individual income taxes hit their all-time peak in fiscal 2015, when the Treasury took in $1,598,265,180,000 in constant 2017 dollars in individual income taxes.

In fiscal 2016, individual income tax collections dropped to $1,580,598,300,000 in 2017 dollars.

Then, in fiscal 2017, individual income tax collections climbed back up to $1,587,119,000,000, the second largest sum in individual income taxes the federal government has ever collected.

Total federal tax revenue also peaked in 2015 at $3,369,881,960,000 in 2017 dollars. It then dropped to $3,339,631,960,000 in fiscal 2016, and dropped again to $3,314,894,000,000 in fiscal 2017.

According to a study by the Congressional Budget Office, the largest budgetary impact of President Obama’s 2009 stimulus law hit in fiscal 2010, which began on Oct. 1, 2009. The three first fiscal  years under the law–2009, 2010, 2011–saw the biggest spending increases from it. “By CBO’s estimate, close to half the impact occurred in fiscal 2010, and more than 95 percent of ARRA’s budgetary impact was realized by the end of December 2014,” said the CBO study.

According to the CBO, Obama’s stimulus increased federal spending by $114 billion in fiscal 2009, $235 billion in fiscal 2010, and $147 billion in fiscal 2011. In fiscal 2012, the spending increase caused by the stimulus dropped to $59 billion. The CBO estimates that in the four fiscal years from 2016 through 2019, the Obama stimulus will only add a total of $28 billion to federal spending.

[Correction: This story originally reported that real federal spending hit an all-time high in fiscal 2010, when spending from the Obama stimulus peaked. In fact, real federal spending hit an all-time high in fiscal 2009, the year that the Obama stimulus was enacted.]

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/gop-congress-presides-over-highest-spending-obamas-stimulus

 

The FY 2018 Senate Budget and Budget Gimmicks

OCT 18, 2017 |BUDGETS & PROJECTIONS

The Senate Budget Committee recently passed a Fiscal Year (FY) 2018 budget resolution that proposes a path to on-budget balance after ten years exclusively by cutting spending. Unfortunately, the budget relies on several gimmicks to achieve these savings.

Prior to the budget’s release, we warned of eight possible “budget gimmicks” that could be used to make the budget appear more responsible than it actually is. This budget unfortunately relies on a number of these gimmicks, including rosy growth assumptions and “magic asterisks” (unspecified savings). At the same time, the budget does include small positive steps to reduce the use of certain gimmicks.

The budget claims $4.7 trillion of on-budget savings over a decade versus its chosen baseline that assumes a quick drawdown in war spending, and $6 trillion of savings compared to current law (see our summary at Senate Budget Committee Releases FY 2018 Budget). As a result, debt would fall from 77 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) today to 70 percent by 2027. However, half of this $6 trillion in savings comes from budget gimmicks rather than real policy choices.

Without the budget’s rosy economic assumptions and unspecified savings, the debt would rise to 81 percent of GDP and roughly stabilize there, rather than falling to 70 percent. Making matters worse, the legitimate savings are not included in reconciliation. While the budget claims trillions of savings, its reconciliation instructions would actually facilitate a $1.5 trillion increase in deficits.

Specifically, the budget includes a large process gimmick by exempting a deficit-increasing reconciliation bill from the Senate Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) rule, while attempting to strengthen the rule otherwise. Though not a gimmick, the budget also creates some confusion by focusing on “on-budget” deficits instead of unified budget deficits.

The budget’s positive steps crack down on other gimmicks that would affect legislation, including by restricting the use of phony Changes in Mandatory Programs (CHIMPs) as offsets and creating a point of order against use of the Overseas Contingency Operations designation. These improvements would affect actual legislation and should be included in any future conferenced budget.

The budget’s gimmicks, however, should be removed.

Rosy Growth Assumptions ($1.2 trillion on-budget)

For the past 25 years, every budget resolution but one has based their assumptions for economic growth on the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projections. Given an aging population, CBO projects real economic growth will average a modest 1.8 percent over the decade, while other forecasters estimate growth rates between 1.6 and 2.1 percent per year.

In contrast, this resolution (like its <a< span=””></a<>< span=””> href=”http://www.crfb.org/papers/fy-2018-house-budget-and-budget-gimmicks”>House companion) assumes 2.6 percent average real GDP growth after its enacted policies, well outside of the mainstream and over 40 percent (0.8 percentage points) higher than CBO’s baseline. The budget does not include important details on tax, immigration, or regulatory reforms to explain its growth assumption. CBO estimated the growth from the budget’s deficit reduction, but it only explains less than one-tenth of the additional growth claimed by the budget. Actually getting to 2.6 percent sustained growth will require many pro-growth policy changes and significant luck.

These rosy assumptions make the budget’s deficit numbers look $1.2 trillion better by assuming higher revenue collection and GDP, thus decreasing debt and deficits as a share of the economy. The budget does not provide any information to support this large of an effect on growth or what effects that growth might have on the off-budget portions of revenue.

To be sure, a few previous budget resolutions have incorporated some economic feedback as do all President’s budgets. But this feedback has always been calculated by official scorekeepers at the CBO and generally been modest. Indeed, this budget also counts that feedback, resulting in a further $178 billion of deficit reduction on top of the $1.2 trillion.

Congress should not simply make a rosy economic growth assumption and build its budget based on that (nor should the President). To be credible, the Congressional budgets should instead rely on CBO’s growth assumptions and make the tough choices from there to achieve its fiscal goal.

Magic Asterisks and Unspecified Savings ($1.8 trillion)

We’ve warned about “magic asterisks” in the past, when a budget takes credit for savings without specifying the policies that produce them. Savings levels in each budget function (like defense, transportation, and education) should be backed up with specific policies that could legitimately be expected to produce those savings. More egregious in budget resolutions are undistributed cuts. Undistributed cuts should be used only sparingly to reflect policies that may cut across multiple functions or legitimate rescissions, not as a mechanism to make the numbers add up without providing substance behind them.

Unfortunately, the Senate budget contains $1.6 trillion in undistributed outlay savings (of which about $1 trillion are from mandatory spending and $600 billion are from discretionary spending). After accounting for the interest cost, the unspecified cuts account for $1.8 trillion over ten years.

Thought of another way, of the $6.2 trillion of spending cuts and related interest savings in the budget, only $4.4 trillion are specified in terms of where they would apply. Making matters worse, only a minimum of $1 billion need to be “reconciled,” suggesting the Senate may only intend to enact 0.02 percent of its claimed spending reductions.

Exempting Reconciliation from Senate PAYGO

The Senate budget resolution contains changes to the existing Senate PAYGO rules. Senate PAYGO is a Senate-only rule that provides for a 60-vote point of order against legislation that increases the deficit over the first five or ten years following a bill’s enactment. Senate PAYGO is in place to remind Senators that they should pay for legislation and to prohibit actions that do add to the debt unless they get 60 votes to waive the point of order.

The Senate budget in some ways strengthens PAYGO by adding a first-year test. But at the same time, it substantially weakens PAYGO by exempting a $1.5 trillion reconciliation package from enforcement.

The $1.5 trillion exemption from Senate PAYGO comes in the form of a reserve fund allowing the Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee to essentially clear PAYGO consideration for the bill. While this provision does not change the numbers in the budget itself, it allows policymakers to evade the rules that help ensure a bad debt situation does not continue to get worse.

Any positive gains from adding one-year PAYGO would be more than wiped out by clearly and blatantly avoiding PAYGO rules.

Other Issues and Improvements

Though the Senate budget resolution uses several gimmicks, it also contains a couple praiseworthy provisions to limit specific budget gimmicks in future legislation. If the proposed budget were to be adopted, these limits would restrict this year’s legislation from using these gimmicks. These provisions should be contained in a future concurrent budget resolution.

The budget resolution limits the use of two gimmicks. First, it continues to phase down the use of phony CHIMPs with no outlay savings as offsets for appropriations. The limits were originally in place for 2018 and 2019 and are now extended to 2020 as well. Limits were first established in the FY 2016 budget. Additionally, there is a separate point of order against CHIMPs in excess of $11.2 billion from the Crime Victims Fund in FY 2018.

Second, the budget adds a point of order against spending that is designated as war spending, also known as Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO). While there are many legitimate uses of the OCO designation, in pastyears it has been abused as a way of backfilling capped defense and non-defense discretionary spending. The point of order applies to any designation of OCO and thus will force appropriators to take an extra look to evaluate how reasonable the OCO funding is. One such test might be to see if OCO funding is larger than the President’s request for that year.

On the other hand, the budget does make one internal change that – while not a gimmick – could create confusion. In the past, budgets have measured the “unified” budget deficit, which includes the “on-budget” deficit as well as “off-budget” deficits attributable to Social Security and the Post Office. This year, the budget switched to only focusing on the “on-budget” deficit. As a result, the budget claims to achieve balance but actually leaves a unified budget deficit of $149 billion. This level of deficit is not particularly problematic as a fiscal matter, but it does create some confusion and misperception.

Adding It All Up – How Much Does the Budget Really Reduce Deficits and Debt?

In total, gimmicks reduce the Senate budget resolution’s projected deficit reduction by half, from $6.0 trillion to $2.9 trillion. This means debt would rise to and then essentially stabilize at around 81 percent of GDP by 2027 rather than fall to 70 percent with all of the on-budget claimed savings. This would still be an improvement over CBO’s June projection that debt will rise to 91 percent of GDP by 2027.

It also means the budget would not reach on-budget balance in 2027, instead showing a $416 billion on-budget deficit. This translates to a $767 billion unified deficit at 2.7 percent of GDP. Still, this is a noticeable improvement over CBO’s projection of a $1.5 trillion deficit in 2027 (5.2 percent of GDP).

Importantly, even these numbers may paint a misleading picture of what the Senate budget would do. While the budget shows real deficit reduction relative to current law, it facilitates large deficit increases through $1.499 trillion of net deficit-increasing reconciliation instructions. If these instructions were followed, debt would rise to 97 percent of GDP by 2027 and unified deficits would reach $1.66 trillion (5.9 percent of GDP).

*    *    *    *    *

The United States faces serious fiscal challenges, with high and rising debt for the foreseeable future. Gimmicks make it difficult to take Congress’s commitment to fiscal responsibility seriously. The Senate budget is not fiscally responsible as it relies on gimmicks to artificially improve its numbers and contains very real reconciliation instructions that could add up to $1.5 trillion to the deficit.

http://www.crfb.org/papers/fy-2018-senate-budget-and-budget-gimmicks

 

2018 United States federal budget

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2018 Budget of the United States federal government
Submitted March 16, 2017
Submitted by Donald Trump
Submitted to 115th Congress
Total revenue $3.654 trillion
Total expenditures $4.094 trillion[1]
Deficit $440 billion
GDP $20,237 billion
Website https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget
‹ 2017

The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2018, named America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again, was the first budget proposed by newly-elected President Donald Trump, submitted to the 115th Congress on March 16, 2017. If passed, the $4.1 trillion budget will fund government operations for fiscal year 2018, which runs from October 1, 2017 to September 30, 2018.[2][3]

Background

Donald Trump was elected as President of the United States during the November 8, 2016 elections, campaigning for the Republican Party on a platform of tax cuts and projects like the Mexican border wall. During his campaign, Trump promised to cut federal spending and taxes for individuals and corporations.

Trump administration budget proposal

The Trump administration proposed its 2018 budget on February 27, 2017, ahead of his address to Congress, outlining $54 billion in cuts to federal agencies and an increase in defense spending.[4] On March 16, 2017, President Trump sent his budget proposal to Congress, remaining largely unchanged from the initial proposal.[5]

CBO scoring of the budget

CBO chart explaining the impact of the 2018 budget on spending, tax revenue, and deficits over the 2018–2027 periods.

The Congressional Budget Office reported its evaluation of the budget on July 13, 2017, including its effects over the 2018–2027 period.

  • Mandatory spending: The budget cuts mandatory spending by a net $2,033 billion (B) over the 2018–2027 period. This includes reduced spending of $1,891B for healthcare, mainly due to the proposed repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA/Obamacare); $238B in income security (“welfare”); and $100 billion in reduced subsidies for student loans. This savings would be partially offset by $200B in additional infrastructure investment.
  • Discretionary spending: The budget cuts discretionary spending by a net $1,851 billion over the 2018–2027 period. This includes reduced spending of $752 billion for overseas contingency operations (defense spending in Afghanistan and other foreign countries), which is partially offset by other increases in defense spending of $448B, for a net defense cut of $304B. Other discretionary spending (cabinet departments) would be reduced by $1,548B.
  • Revenues would be reduced by $1,000B, mainly by repealing the ACA, which had applied higher tax rates to the top 5% of income earners. Trump’s budget proposal was not sufficiently specific to score other tax proposals; these were simply described as “deficit neutral” by the Administration.
  • Deficits: CBO estimated that based on the policies in place as of the start of the Trump administration, the debt increase over the 2018–2027 period would be $10,112B. If all of President Trump’s proposals were implemented, CBO estimated that the sum of the deficits (debt increases) for the 2018–2027 period would be reduced by $3,276B, resulting in $6,836B in total debt added over the period.[6]
  • CBO estimated that the debt held by the public, the major subset of the national debt, would rise from $14,168B (77.0% GDP) in 2016 to $22,337B (79.8% GDP) in 2027 under the President’s budget.[7]

Department and program changes

The proposed 2018 budget includes $54 billion in cuts to federal departments, and a corresponding increase in defense and military spending.[8][9]

Department Budget Amount change Percent change Notes
Department of Agriculture $17.9 billion $-4.7 billion −21% Includes the elimination of food for education and water and wastewater loan programs. Decreases funding for the United States Forest Service by $118 million.[10]
Department of Commerce $7.8 billion $−1.4 billion −16% Includes cuts to coastal research programs at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the elimination of the Economic Development Administration
Department of Defense $574 billion $52 billion +9% Includes an increase in the size of the Army and Marine Corps, as well as the Naval fleet
Department of Education $68.2 billion $−9.2 billion −14% Cuts programs and grants for teacher training, after-school and summer care, and aid to low-income students. Eliminates $1.2 from the 21st Century Community Learning Center program and cuts $732 million from the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant. Eliminates Striving Readers/Comprehensive Literacy Development Grants as well as cuts funding for Supporting Effective Instruction State grants by $2.3 billion[11].
Department of Energy $28 billion $−1.7 billion −6% Largest cuts go to the Office of ScienceARPA-E and Departmental Loan Programs eliminated. Increases spending on National Nuclear Security Administration by 11.4% while slashing high energy physics and almost all other science programs (Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, Fusion Energy Sciences, High Energy Physics, Nuclear Physics, Infrastructure and Administration, Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists) by 18%. The only science program not to receive a cut is the Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which is to receive a small budget increase of $101 million. Money spent on the NNSA would go to the modernization and upkeep of nuclear weapons as well as $1.5 billion going to naval nuclear reactors. The budget cuts funding for energy programs by over 50% reducing the funding by $2.4 billion. Energy programs cut include: Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Nuclear Energy, Fossil Energy Research and Development.[12][13]
Department of Health and Human Services $65.1 billion $−15.1 billion −18% Cuts funding for the National Institutes of Health and training programs
Department of Homeland Security $44.1 billion $2.8 billion +7% Increases spending on border security and immigration enforcement and builds a wall on the US-Mexico border. Cuts funding for certain FEMA grant programs.
Department of Housing and Urban Development $40.7 billion $−6.2 billion −13% Eliminates grant programs for community development, investment partnerships, home-ownership, and Section 4 affordable housing
Department of the Interior $11.7 billion $−1.6 billion −12% Eliminates over 4000 jobs. Eliminates funding for 49 National Historic Sites and decreases funding for land acquisition. Decreases funding for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. Cuts funding by $2 million for dealing with invasive species.[14][15]
Department of Justice $27.7 billion $−1.1 billion −4% Reduces spending on prison construction and reimbursements to state and local governments for incarceration of undocumented immigrants
Department of Labor $9.6 billion $−2.6 billion −21% Eliminates funding for senior-work programs, grants for non-profits and public agencies used for health training, and closes some Job Corps centers
State Department $27.1 billion $−10.9 billion −29% Eliminates funding for United Nations programs, including peacekeeping and climate change mitigation
Department of Transportation $16.2 billion $−2.4 billion −13% Eliminates funding for the Federal Transit Administration‘s New Starts grant program, long-distance Amtrak service, cuts the TIGER grant program and eliminates funding for the Essential Air ServiceAir traffic control would be shifted to private service under the proposal.
Treasury Department $11.2 billion $−0.5 billion −4% Reduces funding for the Internal Revenue Service
Department of Veteran Affairs $78.9 billion $4.4 billion +6% Expands health services and the benefit claims system. Slashes disability benefits to 225,000 elderly veterans. The VA currently provides additional disability compensation benefits to Veterans, irrespective of age, who it deems unable to obtain or maintain gainful employment due to their service-connected disabilities through a program called Individual Unemployability (IU). The IU program is a part of VA’s disability compensation program that allows VA to pay certain Veterans disability compensation at the 100 percent rate, even though VA has not rated their service-connected disabilities at the total level. These Veterans have typically received an original disability ratings between 60 and 100 percent. Under this proposal, Veterans eligible for Social Security retirement benefits would have their IU terminated upon reaching the minimum retirement age for Social Security purposes, or upon enactment of the proposal if the Veteran is already in receipt of Social Security retirement benefits.These Veterans would continue to receive VA disability benefits based on their original disability rating, at the scheduler evaluation level. IU benefits would not be terminated for Veterans who are ineligible for Social Security retirement benefits, thus allowing them to continue to receive IU past minimum retirement age. Savings to the Compensation and Pensions account are estimated to be $3.2 billion in 2018, $17.9 billion over five years, and $40.8 billion over ten years.[16]
Environmental Protection Agency $5.7 billion $−2.5 billion −31% Eliminates more than 50 programs and 3,200 jobs
National Aeronautics and Space Administration(NASA) $19.1 billion $-0.1 billion −1% Cuts funding for Earth science programs and missions, and eliminates the Office of Education. Cuts funding for the Aeronautics Research Mission Directorate by $166 million (−21%). Cuts funding for Space Technology research by $148.4 million (−18%). Cuts funding for Human Exploration Operations by $4478.9 million (−53%). Cuts funding for the Education program by $62.7 million (−62.7%).[17][18]
Small Business Administration $.8 billion $−0.1 billion −5% Eliminates technical-assistance grant programs

The $971 million budget for arts and cultural agencies, including the Corporation for Public BroadcastingNational Endowment for the Arts, and National Endowment for the Humanities, would be eliminated entirely.

Criticism

Economist Joseph Stiglitz said about the 2018 budget proposal: “Trump’s budget takes a sledgehammer to what remains of the American Dream”. Senator Bernie Sanders also criticized the proposal: “This is a budget which says that if you are a member of the Trump family, you may receive a tax break of up to $4 billion, but if you are a child of a working-class family, you could well lose the health insurance you currently have through the Children’s Health Insurance Program and massive cuts to Medicaid”.[19]

Related fiscal legislation

115th Congress

On September 8, 2017, Trump signed the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2018 and Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Requirements Act, 2017. The bill contained a continuing resolution and a suspension of the debt ceiling lasting until December 8, as well as additional disaster funding for FY2017.[20][21]

On October 17, 2017, the Senate started to debate the 2018 proposed budget.[22] On October 19, 2017, Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) proposed an amendment to prevent tax increases on people making less than $250,000 a year. It would have also required the Senate to approve a tax-reform bill with 60 votes rather than a simple majority. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) called this language a “poison pill,” and the amendment was defeated 51-47.[23] Several Republican amendments were adopted with broad support. Senator Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) proposed language to make the “American tax system simpler and fairer for all Americans,” which passed 98-0. Senator Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) proposed an amendment in support of increasing the child tax credit, which passed by voice vote, meaning it was approved without any Senator raising an issue.[23] The Senate approved the 2018 Republican-proposed budget, a step forward for the GOP’s effort to enact tax cuts. The budget, which now moves to the House, is projected to expand the deficit by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. Its passage will allow the GOP to use a procedural maneuver to pass tax legislation through the Senate with 50 or more votes, removing the need for support from Democratic senators. Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, offered an amendment to ensure increases in federal defense spending are prioritized over increases in spending in other areas. “Defense and nondefense are not of the same urgency,” he told reporters Thursday. “We have men and women serving in the military today who are being wounded and killed because they’re not sufficiently funded, armed, trained and equipped.”[23] At the end of the debates and amendments, the Senate narrowly voted 51-49 to pass the fiscal year 2018 budget. All 48 Senate Democrats and Senator Rand Paul voted no. By passing the 2018 budget, it gives way for the tax reform the Republicans want.[24][25]

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_United_States_federal_budget

 

 

http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-messenger-2009

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-988

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017, Story 1: The Enablers of Sexual Predators Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton Both Blame The Victims While Defending Them — Hillary Hypocrisy — Videos — Story 2: Meet Nicholas Dudich Liar for Big Lie Media New York Times — Project Veritas Strikes Again — Videos

Posted on October 10, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for cartoons on harvey weinstein and bill clintonImage result for harvey weinstein girlsImage result for Bill Clinton and harvey weinsteinImage result for cartoons about harvey weinstein

Statement from Secretary Clinton on Harvey Weinstein:

 

Story 1: Pleading Progressive Predator Harasser Harvey (Girl & Gun Grabber & Baby Killer Supporter) Caught on Tape  — The Enablers of Sexual Predators Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton Both Blame The Victims While Defending Them — Hillary Hypocrisy — Videos —

Harvey Weinstein Caught On Tape Pressuring Model In Hotel Room

Tucker Carlson 10/10/17 | Tucker Carlson Fox News October 10, 2017

Tucker Carlson Thinks Hollywood Is Protecting Harvey Weinstein

Live From E! – The Latest on the Harvey Weinstein Scandal and More | E! News

DISGUSTING! New Massive Allegations Expose Years of Abuse! Explaining The Harvey Weinstein Scandal

HILARIOUS! RUSH: Bill Clinton’s Statement On The Rehabilitation Of Harvey Weinstein

Rush Limbaugh: Sexual harassment accusations against Harvey Weinstein; Everybody knew about harvey

Michael Savage reacts to Harvey Weinstein bombshell allegations

How to deal with sexual harassment

The Best of Workplace Harassment

NOW on PBS | Teen Sexual Harassment at Work | PBS

Sexual Harassment in Public, Guys vs Girls (Social Experiment)

Hollywood Hypocrisy: Harvey Weinstein Edition

NRA leader calls Hollywood ‘hypocrites’ on gun control

Harvey Weinstein | Real Biz with Rebecca Jarvis | ABC News

Harvey Weinstein Interviewed by Scott Feinberg

Harvey Weinstein: ‘I’m still the underdog’

Harvey Weinstein is a fat man with ice cream on GTV!

The Fall of Harvey Weinstein

Sexual Predator Harvey Weinstein Is The Tip of The Iceberg of Hollywood Degenerates

Inside The Weinstein Sex Scandal That Threatens To Bring Down Hollywood

CLINTON’S 5-DAY SILENCE ON WEINSTEIN SPEAKS VOLUMES

Hillary ‘Appalled’ By Hollywood Rapist Harvey Weinstein, Forgets 1 Very Important Detail

Hillary Clinton calls Bill Clinton’s sexual assault victims “Bimbo Eruptions”

CLINTON TERROR: Hillary and Her War on Women. Victims describe the terror of being silenced.

The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 195 – Everybody’s a Hypocrite About Sexual Assault

Women who accuse Bill Clinton of assault share their stories

Bill Clinton’s accusers: We’re ignored by mainstream media

Hillary Clinton laughed about defending a rapist of a 12 year old – lawyers shocked

Clinton stands by defense of child rapist in the 1970s

Bill Clinton rape accuser: Hillary tried to “silence” me

Child Rape Victim Speaks Out Against Hillary Clinton

Kathy Shelton speaks out about rape case involving Clinton

Hillary Clinton Breaks Silence On Harvey Weinstein Allegations | News Flash | Entertainment Weekly

Will Hollywood Speak Up On Harvey Weinstein Controversy? | Morning Joe | MSNBC

HILLARY AND OBAMA KEEPING MILLIONS IN DONATIONS FROM HOLLYWOOD MOGUL ACCUSED OF SEX HARASSMENT

Hillary Clinton “admires” Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Celebrities Praise Racist Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood | Louder With Crowder

The Abortion Debate | Steven Crowder and Stefan Molyneux

Ben Shapiro on Abortion

Ben Shapiro Destroys The Abortion Argument

Ben Shapiro Destroys College Pro-Choicer on Abortion

Planned Parenthood: What They Aren’t Telling You!

The Sickening Double Standard of Alt-Left in Protecting Sexual Predator DNC Donor #HarveyWeinstein

Ex-Times reporter: Paper killed Weinstein sex story in 2004

Harvey Weinstein Is A Bad Person

What to know about Harvey Weinstein’s wife

Harvey Weinstein: A Look At The Hollywood Movie Head Honcho’s History | Access Hollywood

Harvey Weinstein Gets Slammed By Jennifer Lawrence And Other Stars | TODAY

Hollywood’s reaction to Harvey Weinstein allegations sparks online debate

Harvey Weinstein Fired

Meryl Streep Weighs In On Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Harassment Allegations | Morning Joe | MSNBC

James O’Keefe: Donna Brazille told me herself that agitator was fired

How ONE undercover video shook the entire US election – With James O’Keefe

Harvey Weinstein Donated $100K to Planned Parenthood in May

Scandal-ridden Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinsteinattended Planned Parenthood’s gala fundraising event in May and donated $100,000 to the abortion chain that claims to be at the forefront of women’s rights.

Weinstein was fired by The Weinstein Company Sunday after the New York Timesexposed allegations of sexual harassment by several actresses. Subsequently, he was also accused of rape by several women featured in a New Yorker article.

The producer and his wife – fashion designer Georgina Chapman – were present at the event on May 2 that celebrated the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood, reportsMRCNewsBusters. At an art auction to benefit the abortion vendor, Weinstein purchased a Cecily Brown painting, for $100,000.

Artnet says about Brown’s artistic style:

Characterized by overt sexual imagery and an Abstract Expressionist gestural style, Brown’s work has emerged some of the most influential of her generation. Her large-scale canvases often feature figures engaging in sexual acts under a veil of color, as seen in Sweetie (2001), a semi-abstracted couple captured mid-coitus and rendered in bright pinks and purples.

The gala fundraiser, held in New York City, featured the presentation of the organization’s “Champion of the Century” award to failed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein was joined by female celebrity attendees Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Scarlett Johansson, and Chelsea Handler in giving Clinton a standing ovation.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton criticized the Trump administration for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood because it continues to perform abortions. The former secretary of state has said unborn babies have no constitutional rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/10/harvey-weinstein-donated-100k-planned-parenthood/

From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories

Multiple women share harrowing accounts of sexual assault and harassment by the film executive.

ince the establishment of the first studios a century ago, there have been few movie executives as dominant, or as domineering, as Harvey Weinstein. As the co-founder of the production-and-distribution companies Miramax and the Weinstein Company, he helped to reinvent the model for independent films, with movies such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “The English Patient,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Crying Game,” “Shakespeare in Love,” and “The King’s Speech.” Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business, inspiring both fear and gratitude. His movies have earned more than three hundred Oscar nominations, and, at the annual awards ceremonies, he has been thanked more than almost anyone else in movie history, just after Steven Spielberg and right before God.

For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.

The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.

Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

Weinstein admits to groping a woman, in a recording secretly captured during an N.Y.P.D. sting operation.

Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace. They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models. All sixteen said that the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Messages sent by Irwin Reiter, a senior company executive, to Emily Nestor, one of the women who alleged that she was harassed at the company, described the “mistreatment of women” as a serial problem that the Weinstein Company was struggling with in recent years. Other employees described what was, in essence, a culture of complicity at Weinstein’s places of business, with numerous people throughout the companies fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way. Some employees said that they were enlisted in subterfuge to make the victims feel safe. A female executive with the company described how Weinstein assistants and others served as a “honeypot”—they would initially join a meeting, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman.

Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation. “If Harvey were to discover my identity, I’m worried that he could ruin my life,” one former employee told me. Many said that they had seen Weinstein’s associates confront and intimidate those who crossed him, and feared that they would be similarly targeted. Four actresses, including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette, told me they suspected that, after they rejected Weinstein’s advances or complained about them to company representatives, Weinstein had them removed from projects or dissuaded people from hiring them. Multiple sources said that Weinstein frequently bragged about planting items in media outlets about those who spoke against him; these sources feared that they might be similarly targeted. Several pointed to Gutierrez’s case, in 2015: after she went to the police, negative items discussing her sexual history and impugning her credibility began rapidly appearing in New York gossip pages. (In the taped conversation with Gutierrez, Weinstein asks her to join him for “five minutes,” and warns, “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”)

Several former employees told me that they were speaking about Weinstein’s alleged behavior now because they hoped to protect women in the future. “This wasn’t a one-off. This wasn’t a period of time,” an executive who worked for Weinstein for many years told me. “This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”

It’s likely that women have recently felt increasingly emboldened to talk about their experiences because of the way the world has changed regarding issues of sex and power. These disclosures follow in the wake of stories alleging sexual misconduct by public figures, including Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump. In October, 2016, a month before the election, a tape emerged of Trump telling a celebrity-news reporter, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” This past April, O’Reilly, a host at Fox News, was forced to resign after Fox was discovered to have paid five women millions of dollars in exchange for silence about their accusations of sexual harassment. Ailes, the former head of Fox News, resigned last July, after he was accused of sexual harassment. Cosby went on trial this summer, charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. The trial ended with a hung jury.

On October 5th, in an initial effort at damage control, Weinstein responded to the Times piece by issuing a statement partly acknowledging what he had done, saying, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.” In an interview with the New York Post, he said, “I’ve got to deal with my personality, I’ve got to work on my temper, I have got to dig deep. I know a lot of people would like me to go into a facility, and I may well just do that—I will go anywhere I can learn more about myself.” Weinstein went on, “In the past I used to compliment people, and some took it as me being sexual, I won’t do that again.” In his statement to the Times, Weinstein claimed that he would “channel that anger” into a fight against the leadership of the National Rifle Association. He also said that it was not “coincidental” that he was organizing a foundation for women directors at the University of Southern California. “It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”

Sallie Hofmeister, a spokesperson for Weinstein, issued a statement in response to the allegations in this article. It reads in full: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”

While Weinstein and his representatives have said that the incidents were consensual, and were not widespread or severe, the women I spoke to tell a very different story.

2.

Lucia Stoller, now Lucia Evans, was approached by Weinstein at Cipriani Upstairs, a club in New York, in 2004, the summer before her senior year at Middlebury College. Evans wanted to be an actress, and although she had heard rumors about Weinstein she let him have her number. Weinstein began calling her late at night, or having an assistant call her, asking to meet. She declined, but said that she would do readings during the day for a casting executive. Before long, an assistant called to set up a daytime meeting at the Miramax office, in Tribeca, first with Weinstein and then with a casting executive, who was a woman. “I was, like, ‘Oh, a woman, great, I feel safe,’ ” Evans said.

When Evans arrived for the meeting, the building was full of people. She was led to an office with exercise equipment and takeout boxes on the floor, where she met with Weinstein alone. Evans said that she found him frightening. “The type of control he exerted, it was very real,” she told me. “Even just his presence was intimidating.”

In the meeting, Evans recalled, “he immediately was simultaneously flattering me and demeaning me and making me feel bad about myself.” Weinstein told her that she’d “be great in ‘Project Runway’ ”—the show, which Weinstein helped produce, premièred later that year—but only if she lost weight. He also told her about two scripts, a horror movie and a teen love story, and said one of his associates would discuss them with her.

“At that point, after that, is when he assaulted me,” Evans said. “He forced me to perform oral sex on him.” As she objected, Weinstein took his penis out of his pants and pulled her head down onto it. “I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’ ” she said. “I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.” In the end, she said, “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.” At a certain point, she said, “I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault.”

Weinstein appeared to find the encounter unremarkable. “It was like it was just another day for him,” Evans said. “It was no emotion.” Afterward, she said, he acted as if nothing had happened. She wondered how Weinstein’s staff could not know what was going on.

After the encounter, she met with the female casting executive, who sent her the scripts, and also came to one of her acting-class readings a few weeks later. (Evans does not believe that the executive was aware of Weinstein’s behavior.) Weinstein, Evans said, began calling her again late at night. Evans told me that the entire sequence of events had a routine quality. “It feels like a very streamlined process,” she said. “Female casting director, Harvey wants to meet. Everything was designed to make me feel comfortable before it happened. And then the shame in what happened was also designed to keep me quiet.”

Evans said that, after the incident, “I just put it in a part of my brain and closed the door.” She continued to blame herself for not fighting harder. “It was always my fault for not stopping him,” she said. “I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing.” Evans told friends some of what had happened, but felt largely unable to talk about it. “I ruined several really good relationships because of this. My schoolwork definitely suffered, and my roommates told me to go to a therapist because they thought I was going to kill myself.”

In the years that followed, Evans encountered Weinstein occasionally. Once, while she was walking her dog in Greenwich Village, she saw him getting into a car. “I very clearly saw him. I made eye contact,” she said. “I remember getting chills down my spine just looking at him. I was so horrified. I have nightmares about him to this day.”

3.

Asia Argento, an actress born in Rome, played the role of a glamorous thief named Beatrice in the crime drama “B. Monkey,” which was released in the U.S. in 1999. The distributor was Miramax. In a series of long and often emotional interviews, Argento told me that Weinstein assaulted her while they worked together.

At the time, Argento was twenty-one and a rising actress who had twice won the Italian equivalent of the Oscar. Argento said that, in 1997, one of Weinstein’s producers invited her to what she understood to be a party thrown by Miramax at the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc, on the French Riviera. Argento felt professionally obliged to attend. When the producer led her upstairs that evening, she said, there was no party—only a hotel room, empty but for Weinstein: “I’m, like, ‘Where is the fucking party?’ ” She recalled the producer telling her, “Oh, we got here too early,” before he left her alone with Weinstein. (The producer denies bringing Argento to the room that night.) At first, Weinstein was solicitous, praising her work. Then he left the room. When he returned, he was wearing a bathrobe and holding a bottle of lotion. “He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, ‘Look, man, I am no fucking fool,’ ” Argento said. “But, looking back, I am a fucking fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.”

Argento said that, after she reluctantly agreed to give Weinstein a massage, he pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop. Weinstein “terrified me, and he was so big,” she said. “It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.”

At some point, Argento said, she stopped saying no and feigned enjoyment, because she thought it was the only way the assault would end. “I was not willing,” she told me. “I said, ‘No, no, no.’ . . . It’s twisted. A big fat man wanting to eat you. It’s a scary fairy tale.” Argento, who insisted that she wanted to tell her story in all its complexity, said that she didn’t physically fight him off, something that has prompted years of guilt.

“The thing with being a victim is I felt responsible,” she said. “Because, if I were a strong woman, I would have kicked him in the balls and run away. But I didn’t. And so I felt responsible.” She described the incident as a “horrible trauma.” Decades later, she said, oral sex is still ruined for her. “I’ve been damaged,” she told me. “Just talking to you about it, my whole body is shaking.”

Argento recalled sitting on the bed after the incident, her clothes “in shambles,” her makeup smeared. She said that she told Weinstein, “I am not a whore,” and that he began laughing. He said he’d put the phrase on a T-shirt. Afterward, Argento said, “He kept contacting me.” For a few months, Weinstein seemed obsessed, offering her expensive gifts.

What complicates the story, Argento readily allowed, is that she eventually yielded to Weinstein’s further advances and even grew close to him. Weinstein dined with her, and introduced her to his mother. Argento told me, “He made it sound like he was my friend and he really appreciated me.” She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and “onanistic.” The first occasion, several months after the alleged assault, came before the release of “B. Monkey.” “I felt I had to,” she said. “Because I had the movie coming out and I didn’t want to anger him.” She believed that Weinstein would ruin her career if she didn’t comply. Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with childcare, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt “obliged” to submit to his sexual advances.

Argento said that she knew this contact would be used to attack the credibility of her allegation. In part, she said, the initial assault made her feel overpowered each time she encountered Weinstein, even years later. “Just his body, his presence, his face, bring me back to the little girl that I was when I was twenty-one,” she told me. “When I see him, it makes me feel little and stupid and weak.” She broke down as she struggled to explain. “After the rape, he won,” she said.

In 2000, Argento released “Scarlet Diva,” a movie that she wrote and directed. In the film, a heavyset producer corners the character of Anna, who is played by Argento, in a hotel room, asks her for a massage, and tries to assault her. After the movie came out, women began approaching Argento, saying that they recognized Weinstein’s behavior in the portrayal. “People would ask me about him because of the scene in the movie,” she said. Some recounted similar details to her: meetings and professional events moved to hotel rooms, bathrobes and massage requests, and, in one other case, forced oral sex.

Weinstein, according to Argento, saw the film after it was released in the U.S., and apparently recognized himself. “Ha, ha, very funny,” Argento remembered him saying to her. But he also said that he was “sorry for whatever happened.” The movie’s most significant departure from the real-life incident, Argento told me, was how the hotel-room scene ended. “In the movie I wrote,” she said, “I ran away.”

Other women were too afraid to allow me to use their names, but their stories are uncannily similar to these allegations. One, a woman who worked with Weinstein, explained her reluctance to be identified. “He drags your name through the mud, and he’ll come after you hard with his legal team.”

Like other women in this article, she said that Weinstein brought her to a hotel room under a professional pretext, changed into a bathrobe, and “forced himself on me sexually.” She said no, repeatedly and clearly. Afterward, she experienced “horror, disbelief, and shame,” and considered going to the police. “I thought it would be a ‘He said, she said,’ and I thought about how impressive his legal team is, and I thought about how much I would lose, and I decided to just move forward,” she said. The woman continued to have professional contact with Weinstein after the alleged rape, and acknowledged that subsequent communications between them might suggest a normal working relationship. “I was in a vulnerable position and I needed my job,” she told me. “It just increases the shame and the guilt.”

4.

Mira Sorvino, who starred in several of Weinstein’s films, told me that he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into a physical relationship while they worked together. She said that, at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, 1995, she found herself in a hotel room with Weinstein, who produced the movie she was there to promote, “Mighty Aphrodite,” for which she later won an Academy Award. “He started massaging my shoulders, which made me very uncomfortable, and then tried to get more physical, sort of chasing me around,” she recalled. She scrambled for ways to ward him off, telling him it was against her religion to date married men. (At the time, Weinstein was married to Eve Chilton, a former assistant.) Then she left the room.

A few weeks later, in New York City, her phone rang after midnight. It was Weinstein, saying that he had new marketing ideas for the film and asking to meet. Sorvino offered to meet him at an all-night diner, but he told her he was coming over to her apartment and hung up. “I freaked out,” she told me. She called a friend and asked him to come over and pose as her boyfriend. The friend hadn’t arrived by the time Weinstein rang her doorbell. “Harvey had managed to bypass my doorman,” she said. “I opened the door terrified, brandishing my twenty-pound Chihuahua mix in front of me, as though that would do any good.” When she told Weinstein that her new boyfriend was on his way, Weinstein became dejected and left.

Sorvino said that she struggled for years with whether to come forward with her story, partly because she was aware that it was mild compared to the experiences of other women, including another actress she spoke to at the time. (That actress told me that she locked herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein, and that he masturbated in front of her. She said it was “a classic case” of “someone not understanding the word ‘no’. . . I must have said no a thousand times.”) The fact that Weinstein was so instrumental to Sorvino’s success also made her hesitate: “I have great respect for Harvey as an artist, and owe him and his brother a debt of gratitude for the early success in my career, including the Oscar.” She had professional contact with Weinstein for years after the incident, and remains close friends with his brother and business partner, Bob Weinstein. (She said that she never told Bob about his brother’s behavior.)

Sorvino said that she felt afraid and intimidated, and that the incidents had a significant impact on her. When she told a female employee at Miramax about the harassment, the woman’s reaction “was shock and horror that I had mentioned it.” Sorvino appeared in a few more of Weinstein’s films afterward, but felt that saying no to Weinstein and reporting the harassment had ultimately hurt her career. She said, “There may have been other factors, but I definitely felt iced out and that my rejection of Harvey had something to do with it.”

5.

In March, 2015, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, who was once a finalist in the Miss Italy contest, met Harvey Weinstein at a reception for “New York Spring Spectacular,” a show that he was producing at Radio City Music Hall. Weinstein introduced himself to Gutierrez, who was twenty-two, remarking repeatedly that she looked like the actress Mila Kunis.

Following the event, Gutierrez’s agency e-mailed to say that Weinstein wanted to set up a business meeting as soon as possible. Gutierrez arrived at Weinstein’s office in Tribeca early the next evening with her modelling portfolio. In the office, she sat with Weinstein on a couch to review the portfolio, and he began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real. Gutierrez later told officers of the New York Police Department Special Victims Division that Weinstein then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested. He finally backed off and told her that his assistant would give her tickets to “Finding Neverland,” a Broadway musical that he was producing. He said that he would meet her at the show that evening.

Instead of going to the show that night, Gutierrez went to the nearest N.Y.P.D. precinct station and reported the assault. Weinstein telephoned her later that evening, annoyed that she had failed to appear at the show. She picked up the call while sitting with investigators from the Special Victims Division, who listened in on the call and devised a plan: Gutierrez would agree to see the show the following day and then meet with Weinstein. She would wear a wire and attempt to extract a confession or incriminating statement.

The next day, Gutierrez met Weinstein at the bar of the Tribeca Grand Hotel. A team of undercover officers helped guide her through the interaction. On the recording, which I have heard in full, Weinstein lists actresses whose careers he has helped and offers Gutierrez the services of a dialect coach. Then he presses her to join him in his hotel room while he showers. Gutierrez says no repeatedly; Weinstein persists, and after a while she accedes to his demand to go upstairs. But, standing in the hallway outside his room, she refuses to go farther. In an increasingly tense exchange, he presses her to enter. Gutierrez says, “I don’t want to,” “I want to leave,” and “I want to go downstairs.” She asks him directly why he groped her breasts the day before.

“Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in,” Weinstein says. “I’m used to that. Come on. Please.”

“You’re used to that?” Gutierrez asks, sounding incredulous.

“Yes,” Weinstein says. He later adds, “I won’t do it again.”

After almost two minutes of back-and-forth in the hallway, Weinstein finally agrees to let her leave.

According to a law-enforcement source, Weinstein, if charged, would have most likely faced a count of sexual abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of three months in jail. But, as the police investigation proceeded and the allegation was widely reported, details about Gutierrez’s past began to appear in the tabloids. In 2010, as a young contestant in a beauty pageant associated with the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Gutierrez had attended one of his infamous Bunga Bunga parties. She claimed that she had been unaware of the nature of the party before arriving, and eventually became a witness in a bribery case against Berlusconi, which is still ongoing. Gossip outlets also reported that Gutierrez, as a teen-ager, had made an allegation of sexual assault against an older Italian businessman but later declined to coöperate with prosecutors.

Two sources close to the police investigation said that they had no reason to doubt Gutierrez’s account of the incident. One of them, a police source, said that the department had collected more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. But the other source said that Gutierrez’s statements about her past complicated the case for the office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. After two weeks of investigation, the District Attorney’s office decided not to file charges. The D.A.’s office declined to comment on this story but pointed me to its statement at the time: “This case was taken seriously from the outset, with a thorough investigation conducted by our Sex Crimes Unit. After analyzing the available evidence, including multiple interviews with both parties, a criminal charge is not supported.”

“We had the evidence,” the police source involved in the operation told me. “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Gutierrez, when contacted for this story, said that she was unable to discuss the incident. According to a source close to the matter, after the D.A.’s office decided not to press charges, Gutierrez, facing Weinstein’s legal team, and in return for a payment, signed a highly restrictive nondisclosure agreement with Weinstein, including an affidavit stating that the acts Weinstein admits to in the recording never happened.

Weinstein’s use of such settlements was reported by the Times and confirmed to me by numerous sources. A former employee with firsthand knowledge of two settlement negotiations that took place in London in the nineteen-nineties recalled, “It felt like David versus Goliath . . . the guy with all the money and the power flexing his muscle and quashing the allegations and getting rid of them.”

6.

Last week’s Times story disclosed a complaint to the Weinstein Company’s office of human resources, filed on behalf of a temporary front-desk assistant named Emily Nestor in December, 2014. Her own account of Weinstein’s conduct is being made public here for the first time. Nestor was twenty-five when she started the job, and, after finishing law school and starting business school, was considering a career in the movie industry. On her first day in the position, Nestor said, two employees told her that she was Weinstein’s “type” physically. When Weinstein arrived at the office, he made comments about her appearance, referring to her as “the pretty girl.” He asked how old she was, and then sent all of his assistants out of the room and made her write down her telephone number.

Weinstein told her to meet him for drinks that night. Nestor invented an excuse. When he insisted, she suggested an early-morning coffee the next day, assuming that he wouldn’t accept. He did, and told her to meet him at the Peninsula in Beverly Hills, where he was staying. Nestor said that she had talked with friends in the entertainment industry and employees in the company who had warned her about Weinstein’s reputation. “I dressed very frumpy,” she said.

Nestor told me that the meeting was the “most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life.” After Weinstein offered her career help, she said, he began to boast about his sexual liaisons with other women, including famous actresses. “He said, ‘You know, we could have a lot of fun,’ ” Nestor recalled. “I could put you in my London office, and you could work there and you could be my girlfriend.” She declined. He asked to hold her hand; she said no. In Nestor’s account of the exchange, Weinstein said, “Oh, the girls always say no. You know, ‘No, no.’ And then they have a beer or two and then they’re throwing themselves at me.” In a tone that Nestor described as “very weirdly proud,” Weinstein added “that he’d never had to do anything like Bill Cosby.” She assumed that he meant he’d never drugged a woman. “It’s just a bizarre thing to be so proud of,” she said. “That you’ve never had to resort to doing that. It was just so far removed from reality and normal rules of consent.”

“Textbook sexual harassment” was how Nestor described Weinstein’s behavior to me. “It’s a pretty clear case of sexual harassment when your superior, the C.E.O., asks one of their inferiors, a temp, to have sex with them, essentially in exchange for mentorship.” She recalled refusing his advances at least a dozen times. “ ‘No’ did not mean ‘no’ to him,” she said. “I was very aware of how inappropriate it was. But I felt trapped.”

Throughout the breakfast, she said, Weinstein interrupted their conversation to yell into his cell phone, enraged over a spat that Amy Adams, a star in the Weinstein movie “Big Eyes,” was having in the press. Afterward, Weinstein told Nestor to keep an eye on the news cycle, which he promised would be spun in his favor. Later in the day, there were indeed negative news items about his opponents, and Weinstein stopped by Nestor’s desk to be sure that she’d seen them.

By that point, Nestor recalled, “I was very afraid of him. And I knew how well connected he was. And how if I pissed him off then I could never have a career in that industry.” Still, she told the friend who referred her to the job about the incident, and he alerted the company’s office of human resources, which contacted her. (The friend did not respond to a request for comment.) Nestor had a conversation with company officials about the matter but didn’t pursue it further: the officials said that Weinstein would be informed of anything she told them, a practice not uncommon in smaller businesses. Several former Weinstein employees told me that the company’s human-resources department was utterly ineffective; one female executive described it as “a place where you went to when you didn’t want anything to get done. That was common knowledge across the board. Because everything funnelled back to Harvey.” She described the department’s typical response to allegations of misconduct as “This is his company. If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

Nestor told me that some people at the company did seem concerned. Irwin Reiter, a senior executive who had worked for Weinstein for almost three decades, sent her a series of messages via LinkedIn. “We view this very seriously and I personally am very sorry your first day was like this,” Reiter wrote. “Also if there are further unwanted advances, please let us know.” Last year, just before the Presidential election, he reached out again, writing, “All this Trump stuff made me think of you.” He described Nestor’s experience as part of Weinstein’s serial misconduct. “I’ve fought him about mistreatment of women 3 weeks before the incident with you. I even wrote him an email that got me labelled by him as sex police,” he wrote. “The fight I had with him about you was epic. I told him if you were my daughter he would have not made out so well.” (Reiter declined to comment, but his lawyer, Debra Katz, confirmed the authenticity of the messages and said that Reiter had made diligent efforts to raise these issues, to no avail. Katz also said that Reiter “is eager to coöperate fully with any outside investigation.”)

Though no assault occurred, and Nestor completed her temporary placement, she was profoundly affected by the incident. “I was definitely traumatized for a while, in terms of feeling so harassed and frightened,” she said. “It made me feel incredibly discouraged that this could be something that happens on a regular basis. I actually decided not to go into entertainment because of this incident.”

7.

Emma de Caunes, a French actress, met Weinstein in 2010, at a party at the Cannes Film Festival. A few months later, he asked her to a lunch meeting at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. In the meeting, Weinstein told de Caunes that he was going to be producing a movie with a prominent director, that he planned to shoot it in France, and that it had a strong female role. It was an adaptation of a book, he said, but he claimed he couldn’t remember the title. “But I’ll give it to you,” Weinstein said, according to de Caunes. “I have it in my room.”

De Caunes replied that she had to leave, since she was already running late for a TV show she was hosting—Eminem was appearing on the show that afternoon, and she hadn’t written her questions yet. Weinstein pleaded with her to retrieve the book with him, and finally she agreed. As they got to his room, she received a telephone call from one of her colleagues, and Weinstein disappeared into a bathroom, leaving the door open. She assumed that he was washing his hands.

“When I hung up the phone, I heard the shower go on in the bathroom,” she said. “I was, like, What the fuck, is he taking a shower?” Weinstein came out, naked and with an erection. “What are you doing?” she asked. Weinstein demanded that she lie on the bed and told her that many other women had done so before her.

“I was very petrified,” de Caunes said. “But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.” She added, “It was like a hunter with a wild animal. The fear turns him on.” De Caunes told Weinstein that she was leaving, and he panicked. “We haven’t done anything!” she remembered him saying. “It’s like being in a Walt Disney movie!”

De Caunes told me, “I looked at him and I said—it took all my courage—but I said, ‘I’ve always hated Walt Disney movies.’ And then I left. I slammed the door.” She was shaking on the stairs down to the lobby. A director she was working with on the TV show confirmed that she arrived at the studio distraught and that she recounted what had happened. Weinstein called relentlessly over the next few hours, offering de Caunes gifts and repeating that nothing had happened.

De Caunes, who was in her early thirties at the time, was already an established actress, but she wondered what would happen to younger and more vulnerable women in the same situation. Over the years, she said, she’s heard similar accounts from friends. “I know that everybody—I mean everybody—in Hollywood knows that it’s happening,” de Caunes said. “He’s not even really hiding. I mean, the way he does it, so many people are involved and see what’s happening. But everyone’s too scared to say anything.”

8.

One evening in the early nineties, the actress Rosanna Arquette was supposed to meet Weinstein for dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up the script for a new film. At the hotel, Arquette was told to meet Weinstein upstairs, in his room.

Arquette recalled that, when she arrived at the room, Weinstein opened the door wearing a white bathrobe. Weinstein said that his neck was sore and that he needed a massage. She told him that she could recommend a good masseuse. “Then he grabbed my hand,” she said. He put it on his neck. When she yanked her hand away, she told me, Weinstein grabbed it again and pulled it toward his penis, which was visible and erect. “My heart was really racing. I was in a fight-or-flight moment,” she said. She told Weinstein, “I will never do that.”

Weinstein told her that she was making a huge mistake by rejecting him, and named an actress and a model who he claimed had given in to his sexual overtures and whose careers he said he had advanced as a result. Arquette said she told him, “I’ll never be that girl,” and left.

Arquette said that after she rejected Weinstein her career suffered. In one case, she believes, she lost a role because of it. “He made things very difficult for me for years,” she told me. She did appear in one subsequent Weinstein film, “Pulp Fiction,” which she attributes to the small size of the role and Weinstein’s deference to the filmmaker, Quentin Tarantino. (Disputes later arose over her entitlement to payment out of the film’s proceeds.) Arquette said that her silence was the result of Weinstein’s power and reputation for vindictiveness. “He’s going to be working very hard to track people down and silence people,” she explained. “To hurt people. That’s what he does.”

There are other examples of Weinstein’s modus operandi. Jessica Barth, an actress who met Weinstein at a Golden Globes party in January, 2011, told me that Weinstein invited her to a business meeting at the Peninsula. When she arrived, he asked her over the phone to come up to his room. Weinstein assured her it was “no big deal”—because of his high profile, he simply wanted privacy to “talk career stuff.” In the room, Barth found that Weinstein had ordered champagne and sushi.

Barth said that, in the conversation that followed, he alternated between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed. “So, what would happen if, say, we’re having some champagne and I take my clothes off and you give me a massage?” she recalled him asking. “And I’m, like, ‘That’s not going to happen.’ ”

When she moved toward the door to leave, Weinstein lashed out, saying that she needed to lose weight “to compete with Mila Kunis,” and then, apparently in an effort to mollify her, promising a meeting with one of his female executives. “He gave me her number, and I walked out and I started bawling,” Barth told me. (Immediately after the incident, she spoke with two individuals who confirmed to me that she related her account to them at the time.) Barth said that the promised meeting at Weinstein’s office seemed to be purely a formality. “I just knew it was bullshit,” she said. (The executive she met with did not respond to requests for comment.)

9.

Weinstein’s behavior deeply affected the day-to-day operations of his company. Current and former Weinstein employees described a pattern of meetings and strained complicity that closely matches the accounts of the many women I interviewed. The employees spoke on condition of anonymity, they said, because of fears about their careers in Hollywood and because of provisos in their work contracts.

“There was a large volume of these types of meetings that Harvey would have with aspiring actresses and models,” one female executive told me. “He would have them late at night, usually at hotel bars or in hotel rooms. And, in order to make these women feel more comfortable, he would ask a female executive or assistant to start those meetings with him.” She said that she was repeatedly asked to join the meetings but refused.

The female executive said that she was especially disturbed by the involvement of other employees. “It almost felt like the executive or assistant was made to be a honeypot to lure these women in, to make them feel safe,” she said. “Then he would dismiss the executive or the assistant, and then these women were alone with him. And that did not feel like it was appropriate behavior or safe behavior.”

One former employee said that she was frequently asked to join for the beginning of meetings that, she said, had in many cases already been moved from day to night and from hotel lobbies to hotel rooms. She said that Weinstein’s conduct in the meetings was brazen. During a meeting with a model, the former employee said, he turned to her and demanded, “Tell her how good of a boyfriend I am.” She said that when she refused to join one such meeting, Weinstein became enraged. Often, she was asked to keep track of the women, who, in keeping with a practice established by Weinstein’s assistants, were all filed under the same label in her phone: F.O.H., which stood for “Friend of Harvey.” She said that the pattern of meetings was nearly uninterrupted in her years working for Weinstein. “I have to say, the behavior did stop for a little bit after the groping thing,” she said, referring to Ambra Battilana Gutierrez’s allegation to the police, “but he couldn’t help himself. A few months later, he was back at it.”

Two staffers who facilitated these meetings said that they felt morally compromised by them. One male former staffer said that many of the women seemed “not aware of the nature of those meetings” and “were definitely scared.” He said most of the encounters that he saw seemed consensual, but others gave him pause. He was especially troubled by his memory of one young woman: “You just feel terrible because you could tell this girl, very young, not from our country, was now in a room waiting for him to come up there in the middle of the day, and we were not to bother them.” He said that he was never asked to facilitate these meetings for men.

None of the former executives or assistants I spoke to quit because of the misconduct, but many expressed guilt and regret about not having said or done more. They spoke about what they believed to be a culture of silence about sexual assault inside Miramax and the Weinstein Company and across the entertainment industry more broadly.

10.

Weinstein and his legal and public-relations teams have conducted a decades-long campaign to suppress these stories. In recent months, that campaign escalated. Weinstein and his associates began calling many of the women in this story. Weinstein asked Argento to meet with a private investigator and give testimony on his behalf. One actress who initially spoke to me on the record later asked that her allegation be removed. “I’m so sorry,” she wrote. “The legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse.” Weinstein and his legal team have threatened to sue multiple media outlets, including the New York Times.

Several of the former executives and assistants in this story said that they had received calls from Weinstein in which he attempted to determine if they had talked to me or warned them not to. These employees continued to participate in the article partly because they felt there was a growing culture of accountability, embodied in the relatively recent disclosures about high-profile men like Cosby and Ailes. “I think a lot of us had thought—and hoped—over the years that it would come out sooner,” the former executive who was aware of the two legal settlements in London told me. “But I think now is the right time, in this current climate, for the truth.”

The female executive who declined inappropriate meetings told me that her lawyer advised her that she could be exposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits for violating the nondisclosure agreement attached to her employment contract. “I believe this is more important than keeping a confidentiality agreement,” she said. “The more of us that can confirm or validate for these women if this did happen, I think it’s really important for their justice to do that.” She continued, “I wish I could have done more. I wish I could have stopped it. And this is my way of doing that now.”

“He’s been systematically doing this for a very long time,” the former employee who had been made to act as a “honeypot” told me. She said that she often thinks of something Weinstein whispered—to himself, as far as she could tell—after one of his many shouting sprees at the office. It so unnerved her that she pulled out her iPhone and tapped it into a memo, word for word: “There are things I’ve done that nobody knows.”

 

Weinstein Dropped $100K at 2017 Planned Parenthood Gala

At a recent Planned Parenthood gala, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein appeared to paint himself as a staunch supporter of women – even though allegations now claim he was anything but.

On Oct. 8, Weinstein was fired by The Weinstein Company following a New York Times story in which several women accused him of sexual harassment. Two days later, on Oct. 10, The New Yorker published a follow-up piece where three women accused him of rape.

Back in May, Harvey Weinstein and his wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman, attended Planned Parenthood’s 100th-anniversary gala in New York City.

 

May 2017: Harvey Weinstein and his wife at the 100th Anniversary Gala for Planned Parenthood

 

At the celebration, Planned Parenthood awarded former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the Champion of the Century Award. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein gave Clinton a standing ovation at the event where she insisted on the “morality” of “reproductive health care” (aka abortion) and stressed “trusting and valuing women.”

“Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care. It is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue. Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality,” Clinton said. “I wish it were common ground, but I know for sure it is higher ground. And I believe, as you do, that trusting and valuing women is the right and moral position to take.”

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2017/10/10/weinstein-dropped-100k-2017-planned-parenthood-gala

The Dying ‘Dinosaur’ Defense

Harvey Weinstein being set in his ways doesn’t explain away the sexual harassment charges against him.

 By Robert Schlesinger, Managing Editor for Opinion | Oct. 6, 2017, at 5:08 p.m.

The Dying ‘Dinosaur’ Defense

The New York Times on Thursday evening published a devastating and detailed account of famed Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein serially engaging in sexual harassment of and predatory behavior toward women of all ages with whom he had, or might have had, business relationships. “Across the years and continents, accounts of Mr. Weinstein’s conduct share a common narrative: Women reported to a hotel for what they thought were work reasons, only to discover that Mr. Weinstein, who has been married for most of three decades, sometimes seemed to have different interests,” the Times’ Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey reported. Those interests reportedly involved most definitely non-business things like massages, bathing and sex.

The whole story, which goes into stomach-churning detail is a must-read; it cites “dozens” of sources and reports that he’s reached at least eight settlements with women on these matters and quotes women ranging from the famous (Ashley Judd) to the little-known, low-level job seekers. I was struck, however, by one explanation proffered by Lisa Bloom, a lawyer advising him (emphasis mine):

Ms. Bloom, who has been advising Mr. Weinstein over the last year on gender and power dynamics, called him ” an old dinosaur learning new ways.” She said she had “explained to him that due to the power difference between a major studio head like him and most others in the industry, whatever his motives, some of his words and behaviors can be perceived as inappropriate, even intimidating.”

Ad executive Donny Deutsch noted this line of defense on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday morning; a regular guest of the show, Deutsch told viewers that he’s “known Harvey for years,” adding, “These stories have been legend in Hollywood for years.” He went on (again, emphasis mine):

One of Harvey’s defenses, and it speaks for itself, is that he grew up in the ’70s and ’80s and this was behavior – status quo, which I’m not going to comment on.
But I do think that there’s a sea-change happening … that women are going to feel much more empowered and that behavior is going to become more and more – certainly … There’s still so far to go for women in the workplace, but there is a sea-change happening.

And I get that. Imagine being a creature of the 1970s or 1980s and being suddenly thrust into 2017. It would be disorienting and scary; how would you know how to act? Consider all of the things you might find shocking and incomprehensible: personal computers and the revolution they’ve wrought, email, the world wide web, e-commerce and social media. Video cassette recorders (ask your parents) were novel in the 1970s with compact discs and DVDs still on the horizon, not to mention the proliferation of cable channels and the ability to stream movies, television shows and music. Mobile phones big boxy things and smart phones (and tablets) were the stuff of science fiction. Navigation was done with paper maps rather than something called GPS. You could smoke in restaurants, bars … and on airplanes. Medicine didn’t include miracle devices like MRIs and CT scans. And drinking while driving was in many cases just fine (seriously).

And, of course, it’s not acceptable – whether under the law or under accepted social convention – to extract sexual gratification from those over whom one holds professional power.

So yeah, the “dinosaur” defense would explain away a lot … if someone had just awoken from a decades-long coma; or been otherwise suddenly transported through time. But the 1980s are long passed, and the country’s changed quite a bit. And its people have changed with them. I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that judging people of another era by modern standards is tricky, but people who live in the modern era can rightfully be judged by contemporary mores.

So color me skeptical of the “he grew up in the ’70s and ’80s” defense if, say, Weinstein has used a computer or smartphone; streamed any kind of media; watched any television channel beyond ABC, NBC and CBS; gotten an MRI or CT scan; or been in a vehicle as someone driving him has gotten directions from something other than a paper map without stopping and gaping in shocked amazement.

Because the thing about the 1980s is that they were three decades ago – and the thing about dinosaurs is that they died out when times and their surrounding environment changed. That this kind of behavior is unacceptable in 2017 isn’t a revelation or surprise; it’s as much an accepted part of life as the machines let us us plug in and communicate from virtually anywhere. If people like Weinstein have had the capacity to adopt to the conveniences of life like iPhones they can damned well adjust to the inconveniences like understanding that women are something more than available pleasures to be sampled at their whim – and, more, that sorry you can no longer enjoy “the abusive thrill gained not from sex but from the imposition of your will on someone who has no ability to resist or defend themselves from you, an exertion of power on the powerless,” as Rebecca Traister put it Thursday night.

Weinstein has admittedly not been alone in reportedly finding the transition to modernity trying. See also Roger AilesBill O’ReillyPresident Grab ‘Em By the Pussy … the list is not short. And that’s just the rich and famous; imagine how long the list would be if we could include every petty abuser of their position who found themselves a notch higher on the totem poll than someone they saw as an object.

You know who else found that transition taxing? The women who have been assaulted and intimidated and coerced over the years.

Change is hard. But it’s also tangible; and to have lived the last three decades is to understand that and to lose the “dinosaur” defense.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-10-06/retire-harvey-weinsteins-dinosaur-defense-in-sex-harassment-charges

 

Hillary Clinton condemns longtime Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Clinton issued a statement condemning Weinstein’s behavior and praising women who came forward
  • Many Democratic officeholders announced their intention to return or donate Weinstein funds, but Clinton’s statement made no mention of contributions

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton condemned disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein on Tuesday, marking her first public comments on the matter since reports of his alleged predatory behavior broke five days ago.

“I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement through her spokesman Nick Merrill. “The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
Weinstein is a longtime associate of the Clintons and a major Democratic Party donor who bundled funds for the party’s political campaigns, including supporting both of Clinton’s presidential bids.
Clinton’s statement makes no mention of Weinstein’s sizable donations to her own war chest.
The allegations against Weinstein have renewed a debate about sexual harassment in the workplace and drawn attention to Clinton, the Democrats’ 2016 standard-bearer who made the treatment of women a key plank of her presidential campaign.
Representatives for the former secretary of state and former President Bill Clinton had previously not responded to requests for comment about Weinstein, whose ties to the Clintons go back years, from the Clinton presidency to the former first lady’s successful campaign for Senate.
Clinton spoke in California Monday night as part of her book tour and did not address the allegations, nor was she asked about them during the 90-minute event.

Democrats disavow

Many Democratic office-holders quickly repudiated Weinstein, with some going so far as to send donations given by Weinstein to charity.
Clinton’s former running mate, Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, said on CNN Tuesday morning that people should condemn Weinstein and said he anticipated Clinton would say something eventually.
Kaine noted Clinton has spoken out about sexual harassment often. During the campaign, Clinton spoke out about the issue and went after President Donald Trump over the allegations of sexual assault against him. Trump pushed back by touting similar allegations against her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Early in the campaign, the former secretary of state was asked about some of those accusations and her own assertions that victims who allege assault should be believed. In the context of allegations against her husband, Clinton said, “I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
Clinton’s condemnation Tuesday came after years of links between the Clintons, Weinstein and the Democratic Party.
In 2015, the Clintons rented a home next to Weinstein in the Hamptons, and Weinstein served as a connector between Hollywood stars and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Weinstein raised about $1.5 million from 1990-2016, according to data from the campaign finance-tracking Center for Responsive Politics, and was involved in fundraisers for Clinton’s effort, some of which she headlined.
Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, longtime Hillary Clinton aides were confused by the former secretary of state’s silence on the issue, questioning — in private — why she had not weighed in at all.

Bombshell allegations

A bombshell report in The New York Times detailed decades of sexual harassment by Weinstein, and just three days after its publication, Weinstein was fired by the company he founded.
On Tuesday, The New Yorker published a major story in which several women alleged sexual assault by Weinstein. Through his representative, Sallie Hofmeister, Weinstein denied “any allegations of non-consensual sex.”
The reports have put Democrats under pressure to disavow Weinstein and return or donate contributions from him to charity.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, for example, said in a CNN interview on Sunday that Democrats should give any money they received from Weinstein back.
The offices of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden declined to comment as well. Weinstein was a bundler — someone who gathers donations from others into large sums — for the Obama-Biden 2012 effort.

Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and
Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them

“This way of treating women ends now,” Ms. Paltrow said as she
and other actresses accused the producer of casting-couch abuses.

When Gwyneth Paltrow was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to star: The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation “Emma.” Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully.

It ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages, she said.

“I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,” she said in an interview, publicly disclosing that she was sexually harassed by the man who ignited her career and later helped her win an Academy Award.

She refused his advances, she said, and confided in Brad Pitt, her boyfriend at the time. Mr. Pitt confronted Mr. Weinstein, and soon after, the producer warned her not to tell anyone else about his come-on. “I thought he was going to fire me,” she said.

Angelina Jolie said that in the late 1990s, she rejected Mr. Weinstein’s unwanted advances in a hotel room.CreditStefan Rousseau — WPA Pool/Getty Images

“I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did,” Ms. Jolie said in an email. “This behavior towards women in any field, any country is unacceptable.”

A New York Times investigation last week chronicled a hidden history of sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Weinstein and settlements he paid, often involving former employees, over three decades up to 2015. By Sunday evening, his entertainment company fired him.

On Tuesday, The New Yorker published a report that included multiple allegations of sexual assault, including forced oral and vaginal sex. The article also included accounts of sexual harassment going back to the 1990s, with women describing how intimidating Mr. Weinstein was.

Several days ago, additional actresses began sharing with The Times on-the-record stories of casting-couch abuses. Their accounts hint at the sweep of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged harassment, targeting women on the way to stardom, those who had barely acted and others in between. Fantasies that the public eagerly watched onscreen, the women recounted, sometimes masked the dark experiences of those performing in them.

The encounters they recalled followed a similar narrative: First, they said, Mr. Weinstein lured them to a private place to discuss films, scripts or even Oscar campaigns. Then, the women contend, he variously tried to initiate massages, touched them inappropriately, took off his clothes or offered them explicit work-for-sex deals.

In a statement on Tuesday, his spokeswoman, Sallie Hofmeister, said: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. He will not be available for further comments, as he is taking the time to focus on his family, on getting counseling and rebuilding his life.”

Even in an industry in which sexual harassment has long persisted, Mr. Weinstein stands out, according to the actresses and current and former employees of the film companies he ran, Miramax and the Weinstein Company. He had an elaborate system reliant on the cooperation of others: Assistants often booked the meetings, arranged the hotel rooms and sometimes even delivered the talent, then disappeared, the actresses and employees recounted. They described how some of Mr. Weinstein’s executives and assistants then found them agents and jobs or hushed actresses who were upset.

His alleged behavior became something of a Hollywood open secret: When the comedian Seth MacFarlane announced Oscar nominees in 2013, he joked, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” The audience laughed. According to a 2015 memo by a former Weinstein Company executive that The Times previously disclosed, the misconduct continued.

More established actresses were fearful of speaking out because they had work; less established ones were scared because they did not. “This is Harvey Weinstein,” Katherine Kendall, who appeared in the film “Swingers” and television roles, remembers telling herself after an encounter in which she said Mr. Weinstein undressed and chased her around a living room. Telling others meant “I’ll never work again and no one is going to care or believe me,” she reasoned at the time, she said in a recent interview.

Ms. Paltrow, 45, is now an entrepreneur, no longer dependent on securing her next acting role. But she emphasized how much more vulnerable she felt at 22, when Mr. Weinstein had just signed her up for a star-making part. On a trip to Los Angeles, she received a schedule from her agents for the hotel meeting with Mr. Weinstein.

There was no reason to suspect anything untoward, because “it’s on the fax, it’s from C.A.A.,” she said, referring to Creative Artists Agency, which represented her.

When Mr. Weinstein tried to massage her and invited her into the bedroom, she immediately left, she said, and remembers feeling stunned as she drove away. “I thought you were my Uncle Harvey,” she recalled thinking, explaining that she had seen him as a mentor.

After she told Mr. Pitt about the episode, he approached Mr. Weinstein at a theater premiere and told him never to touch Ms. Paltrow again. Mr. Pitt confirmed the account to The Times through a representative.

Soon after, Mr. Weinstein called Ms. Paltrow and berated her for discussing the episode, she said. (She said she also told a few friends, family members and her agent.) “He screamed at me for a long time,” she said, once again fearing she could lose the role in “Emma.” “It was brutal.” But she stood her ground, she said, and insisted that he put the relationship back on professional footing.

Even as Ms. Paltrow became known as the “first lady of Miramax” and won an Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, very few people knew about Mr. Weinstein’s advances. “I was expected to keep the secret,” she said.

In 1999, Ms. Paltrow won an Oscar for her role in “Shakespeare in Love,” a film produced by Mr. Weinstein, center. CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

Like several of the other women interviewed for this article, she felt she had to suppress the experience. She praised Mr. Weinstein publicly, posed for pictures with him and played the glowing star to his powerful producer. Yet their work relationship grew rockier over the years, she said, and she distanced herself. “He was alternately generous and supportive and championing, and punitive and bullying,” she said.

Now, with the process of tallying the size and scope of Mr. Weinstein’s abuse allegations underway, Ms. Paltrow and others said they wanted to support women who had already come forward and help those in similar situations feel less alone.

“We’re at a point in time when women need to send a clear message that this is over,” Ms. Paltrow said. “This way of treating women ends now.”

Tomi-Ann Roberts

Tomi-Ann Roberts, now a psychology professor, said Mr. Weinstein harassed her in 1984, when she was an aspiring actress. Today she researches sexual objectification, an interest she traces back in part to that encounter. CreditMark Reis for The New York Times

In 1984, when Tomi-Ann Roberts was a 20-year-old college junior, she waited tables in New York one summer and hoped to start an acting career. Mr. Weinstein, one of her customers, urged her to audition for a movie that he and his brother were planning to direct. He sent scripts, then asked her to meet him where he was staying so they could discuss the film, she said in an email and a telephone interview.

When she arrived, he was nude in the bathtub, she recalled. He told her that she would give a much better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him,” too, because the character she might play would have a topless scene.

If she could not bare her breasts in private, she would not be able to do it on film, Ms. Roberts recalled Mr. Weinstein saying. (Asta Roberts, her mother, said in an interview that Ms. Roberts told her the story shortly after the episode.)

Ms. Roberts remembers apologizing on the way out, telling Mr. Weinstein that she was too prudish to go along. Later, she felt that he had manipulated her by feigning professional interest in her, and she doubted that she had ever been under serious consideration. “I was nobody! How had I ever thought otherwise?” she asked.

Today she is a psychology professor at Colorado College, researching sexual objectification, an interest she traces back in part to that long-ago encounter. She said that over the years she had had trouble watching Mr. Weinstein’s films. With a new release, “I would always ask, is it a Miramax movie? ”

Rosanna Arquette

In the early 1990s, Mr. Weinstein asked Rosanna Arquette to stop by a hotel in Beverly Hills to pick up a script. “I’m not that girl,” she remembers telling him after he asked her for a massage.CreditMaarten de Boer/Getty Images

In the early 1990s, Mr. Weinstein asked Rosanna Arquette to stop by the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up a script for a role.

Born into a family of actors, Ms. Arquette had already starred in a hit film, “Desperately Seeking Susan,” and “New York Stories,” and would go on to perform in films including “Crash” and television shows ranging from “Ray Donovan” to “Girls.” (Her account also appeared in The New Yorker.)

At the reception desk, she was told to head upstairs, which she found odd.

Mr. Weinstein was in a white bathrobe, complaining of neck pain and asking for a massage, according to Ms. Arquette and Maria Smith, a friend she told soon afterward. Ms. Arquette said she tried to recommend a professional masseuse, but Mr. Weinstein grabbed her hand and pulled it toward his crotch. She immediately drew away, she said.

He boasted about the famous actresses he had supposedly slept with — a common element of his come-on, according to several other women who had encounters with Mr. Weinstein. “Rosanna, you’re making a big mistake,” he responded, she said.

She refused. “I’m not that girl,” she recalled telling him on the way out. “I will never be that girl.”

The part went to someone else, and Mr. Weinstein’s representative pointed out that he did not produce the movie. Later, Ms. Arquette was in the Miramax film “Pulp Fiction” but said she avoided Mr. Weinstein.

Katherine Kendall

The actress Katherine Kendall said that Mr. Weinstein harassed her in his apartment in 1993. “He literally chased me,” she said. “He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.” CreditEmily Berl for The New York Times

“Welcome to the Miramax family,” Mr. Weinstein told Katherine Kendall in 1993, she said. She was 23, and about that time he was selling his small movie company to Disney, which supplied the cash that would turn it into a cultural force.

After a meeting set up by her agent, he gave her scripts, including for the film “Beautiful Girls,” and invited her to a screening, which turned out to be a solo trip with Mr. Weinstein to a cinema near Lincoln Center in Manhattan. Afterward, he asked if they could swing by his apartment to pick something up.

Ms. Kendall said she was nervous, but it was daytime, and she relaxed when she saw pictures of his wife on the wall. “He’s keeping it professional, he makes me a drink, we talk about movies and art and books for about an hour,” she recalled. “I thought: He’s taking me seriously.”

He went to the bathroom, came back in a robe and asked her to give him a massage, she said. “Everybody does it,” he said, according to Ms. Kendall, and mentioned a famous model’s name. She refused; he left the room, and returned nude, she said.

“He literally chased me,” she said. “He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.”

Ms. Kendall said his advances had a bargaining quality: He asked if she would at least show her breasts, if nothing else.

She said no to all of it, she recounted. “I just thought to myself: I can’t believe you’re doing this to me. I’m so offended — we just had a meeting,” she said. (Her mother, Kay Kendall, said in a brief interview that her daughter told her the story at the time.)

Ms. Kendall appeared in the film “Swingers,” distributed (but not produced) by Miramax, and has worked on and off as an actor since then. But she said the episode had dampened her enthusiasm for the business.

“If this is what it takes, I can’t do it,” she said.

Judith Godrèche

In 1996, the French actress Judith Godrèche said she was invited up to Mr. Weinstein’s suite, where he asked to give her a massage. After she said no, she recalled, he argued that casual massages were an American custom. CreditJeff Vespa/WireImage, via Getty Images

When Mr. Weinstein invited Judith Godrèche to breakfast at the Cannes Film Festival in 1996, she had no idea who he was. At 24, she was already a star in France, and a new film she was in, “Ridicule,” was opening the festival. He had just acquired the movie and said he wanted to discuss it.

They had breakfast at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc, joined by a female Miramax executive. After the executive left, Mr. Weinstein invited Ms. Godrèche up to his suite to see the view, and to discuss the film’s marketing and even an Oscar campaign, she said in an interview.

“I was so naïve and unprepared,” she said.

Upstairs, he asked to give her a massage, Ms. Godrèche said. She said no. He argued that casual massages were an American custom — he gave them to his secretary all the time, Ms. Godrèche recalled him saying.

“The next thing I know, he’s pressing against me and pulling off my sweater,” she said. She pulled away and left the suite. (Alain Godrèche, her father, said in an interview that his daughter told him about the episode the next morning.)

Seeking advice, she later called the female Miramax executive, who told her not to say anything, lest she hurt the film’s release. “They put my face on the poster,” she said.

“This is Miramax,” she said. “You can’t say anything.”

Since then, Ms. Godrèche has starred in films in France and the United States. Like Ms. Paltrow, she felt she had to maintain a rapport with Mr. Weinstein, and sent him friendly emails inquiring about party invitations and potential work. “I tried to negotiate the situation over the years, and negotiate with myself and pretend it kind of never happened, ” she said.

“I wish I’d had someone to talk to, to say, ‘How do you deal with this?’”

Dawn Dunning

After refusing a sexual advance, Dawn Dunning said, she was told by Mr. Weinstein: “You’ll never make it in this business. This is how the business works.” CreditIlana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

In 2003, Dawn Dunning was doing small acting gigs, attending design school and waitressing in a nightclub where she met Mr. Weinstein.

The 24-year old was wary, but Mr. Weinstein was friendly, professional and supportive, she said, offering her a screen test at Miramax, inviting her to lunch and dinner to talk about films and even giving her and her boyfriend tickets to see “The Producers” on Broadway.

Then his assistant invited her to a meal with Mr. Weinstein at a Manhattan hotel. Ms. Dunning headed to the restaurant, where she was told that Mr. Weinstein’s earlier meeting was running late, so she should head up to his suite.

There was no meeting. Mr. Weinstein was in a bathrobe, behind a coffee table covered with papers.

He told her they were contracts for his next three films, according to Ms. Dunning. But she could only sign them on a condition: She would have to have three-way sex with him.

Ms. Dunning said that she laughed, assuming he was joking, and that Mr. Weinstein grew angry.

“You’ll never make it in this business,” she said he told her. “This is how the business works.”

Ms. Dunning fled, she said, and when the assistant called her the next day, she hung up. She told her father, Rick Dunning, of the episode within a few months, he said in an interview.

“I was like: Maybe this is how the business works,” she said. She left acting soon after and became a costume designer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html

Harvey Weinstein accused of raping Italian star Asia Argento and forcing himself on Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rosanna Arquette and Mira Sorvino in private meetings

  • Asia Argento says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997 when she was 21
  • Angelina Jolie said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming ‘Playing by Heart’
  • Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Weinstein at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer
  • Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced
  • Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis
  • Both Sorvino and Arquette said that their careers suffered after they refused these sexual advances
  • In total, 13 women said they were sexually harassed or assaulted and three said that they were raped 
  • Ben Affleck, who refused to respond to requests for comment for days, said after the released of the ‘New Yorker’ story that the allegations made him sick

Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow are the latest women to accuse movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of trying to force himself on them – as three other women today said the Hollywood executive raped them.

Italian star Asia Argento told the New Yorker that Weinstein raped her in 1997 at a party hosted by Miramax at the Hotel Du Cap-Eden-Roc. She claims the mogul led her to an empty room and asked her to give him a massage.

She reluctantly agreed, and halfway through he began to perform oral sex on her despite her repeated request for him to stop. Aspiring actress Lucia Evans and another unnamed woman accused him of rape as well according to the article.

Jolie was filming ‘Playing By Heart for Weinstein when he made unwanted advances on her in a hotel room.

‘I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did,’ Jolie told the New York Times.

‘This behavior towards women in any field, any country is unacceptable.’

Paltrow meanwhile said that the man who launched her career sexually harassed her at his Beverly Hills hotel when she was just 22, and that it almost lost her a big role.

Rosanna Arquette and Mira Sorvino also state that the powerful Hollywood executive forced himself upon them, but that they were able to fight off his sexual advances.

Soon after, the two women say their careers began to suffer.

Scroll down for videos 

Angelina Jolie (above in September) said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming 'Playing by Heart'

Angelina Jolie (above in September) said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming ‘Playing by Heart’

Victim: Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein (pair above in 2002) at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer

Victim: Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein (pair above in 2002) at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer

Leading lady: Paltrow arrived at Weinstein's  hotel and he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom (above with Weinstein, Edward Zwick and her Best Actress Oscar in 1999)

Leading lady: Paltrow arrived at Weinstein’s  hotel and he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom (above with Weinstein, Edward Zwick and her Best Actress Oscar in 1999)

GWYNETH PALTROW 

‘I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,’ said Paltrow, who revealed that when she was told to meet Weinstein in his hotel room she did not think anything suspicious of it because it came on a fax from Creative Artists Agency.

Once she arrived at the hotel, he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom.

She rejected his advance and drove away devastated, thinking: ‘I thought you were my Uncle Harvey.’

She told then-boyfriend Brad Pitt about the incident she said, who then confronted Weinstein.

Weinstein came back to the actress and told her to never tell anyone what happened between them again.

At the time, Paltrow was preparing to shoot the lead role in Miramax’s new adaptation of Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’ alongside Toni Collette and Ewan McGregor.

‘He screamed at me for a long time,’ said Paltrow.

‘It was brutal.’

A few years later she was a superstar and Oscar winner, but she did not have the power to share her story.

‘I was expected to keep the secret,’ said Paltrow, who called Weinstein ‘alternately generous and supportive and championing, and punitive and bullying.’

She has now decided however to no longer staying quiet.

‘We’re at a point in time when women need to send a clear message that this is over,’ said Paltrow.

‘This way of treating women ends now.’

More victims emerge: Asia Argento (above in 2004) says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997

More victims emerge: Asia Argento (above in 2004) says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997

Site: Argento said that her assault occurred in 1997 at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc in France (above)

Site: Argento said that her assault occurred in 1997 at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc in France (above)
Scarlet Diva

On the scree: Asia Argento depicted a scene similar to the rape in her film ‘Scarlet Diva’ (above)

ASIA ARGENTO 

Argento says that she became suspicious when the party she arrived at was just an empty hotel room, but was assured that people would soon be arriving by Weinstein.

Then, he emerged from the bathroom in a robe and holding a bottle of lotion says the actress, who was just 21 at the time.

‘He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, “Look man, I am no f***ing fool,”‘ said Argento.

‘But, looking back, I am a f***ing fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.’

The actress, who is the daughter of famed Italian director Dario Argento, said that once Weinstein began performing oral sex on her there was no way for her to stop him because he was so much bigger than her.

‘It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare,’ said Argento, who eventually decided to pretend she was enjoying the act in hopes that it would end.

When it was over, Argento said she said on the bed and told her attacked: ‘I am not a whore.’

He laughed at her and said he would put that on a shirt according to Argento, who said that Weinstein contacted her for months after the attack and even began offering her expensive gifts.

Argento eventually relented and over time became close to her attacker, and even engaged in consensual relations with him she admits.

She explained the sudden shift by saying that it was a few months before the release of her 1999 film ‘B. Monkey’ and she was afraid that if she did not agree to Weinstein’s advances he might destroy her career.

The following year, Argento released her film ‘Scarlet Diva,’ which had a scene similar to the one she experienced three years earlier in France.

In that film, a young actress is cornered by a big producer in a room with one crucial difference.

‘In the movie I wrote, I ran away,’ said Argento.

In has been 20 years now since that encounter, and Argento still struggles, especially when she sees Weinstein.

‘When I see him, it makes me feel little and stupid and weak,’ said Argento.

‘After the rape, he won.’

In total, 13 women told the New Yorker that they were sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein and three said that they were raped.

Shortly before the story was published, Weinstein asked Argento to meet with a private investigator and give testimony on his behalf.

Mighty Harvey: Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced (Sorvino and her husband Chris Backus with Weinstein in 2006) 

Mighty Harvey: Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced (Sorvino and her husband Chris Backus with Weinstein in 2006)
Support: Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: 'Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence'

Support: Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: ‘Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence’

 MIRA SORVINO

Sorvino and Arquette both say their careers took a nose-dive when they dared to reject Weinstein.

Sorvino said that Weinstein’s attempts to engage with her began in 1995, when she was promoting her role in Woody Allen’s ‘Mighty Aphrodite,’ for which she would go on to win the Academy Award.

He began to massage her shoulders while the two were alone in a hotel room at the Toronto Film Festival according to Sorvino, who said that he then tried to take things further but she was able to ward him off at the time.

A few weeks later he managed to bypass her doorman and make it up to her apartment around midnight, at which point she told him her boyfriend was on the way after calling a male friend to rush over.

Sorvino believe that this rejection of Weinstein ultimately hurt her career.

‘There may have been other factors, but I definitely felt iced out and that my rejection of Harvey had something to do with it,’ said the actress.

Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: ‘Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence. Very hard for me-more so for others. We took our power back!!’

She later added that her story ‘pales in comparison’ to some of the others.

One of those women was initially on the record detailing her experience until the last second.

‘I’m so sorry, the legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse,’ she said, having to suddenly remove all her claims and name from the piece.

Dam story: Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis (Arquette and Weinstein above in 2001)

Dam story: Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis (Arquette and Weinstein above in 2001)
Support: Patricia Arquette tweeted her support for sister Rosanna on Tuesday (above)

Support: Patricia Arquette tweeted her support for sister Rosanna on Tuesday (above)

Good friend: Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your "secret" has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it's not too late. @RoArquette,' wrote Ellen Barkin (above)

Good friend: Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your “secret” has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it’s not too late. @RoArquette,’ wrote Ellen Barkin (above)

ROSANNA ARQUETTE 

Arquette says that her encounter with Weinstein happened in the early nineties, when she had been sent to pick up a script from the producer at a restaurant in Beverly Hills.

Soon after she arrived, she was asked to instead meet Weinstein in his hotel room.

Once inside the room, Arquette said that Weinstein asked her for a massage, and eventually pulled her hand towards his erect penis.

‘I will never do that,’ Arquette said that she told Weinstein.

Weinstein soon exacted his revenge she claims, saying: ‘He made things very difficult for me for years.’

Arquette and Sorvino were arguably both at the heights of their career during the moments when these incidents occurred, and their careers did noticeably cool down with fewer roles in prestige pictures.

Many of the actresses were connected within the industry but that did not seem to matter to Weinstein.

Sorvino is the daughter of ‘Goodfellas’ actor Paul Sorvino, Rosanna the sister of Patricia and David Arquette and Argento the daughter of ‘Suspiria’ director Dario Argento.

Rosanna’s Oscar-winning sister, who has been supportive of all the women who have come forward this far, wrote about her sibling’s bravery on Tuesday.

‘I am very proud of my sister @RoArquette and all the women and men & police who spoke up in this article,’ said Patricia Arquette.

‘Rosanna Arquette is my oldest friend in this business. Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your “secret” has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it’s not too late. @RoArquette,’ wrote Ellen Barkin.

Nicole Kidman also weighed in on Tuesday, saying: ‘As I’ve stated before publicly, I support and applaud all women and these women who speak out against any abuse and misuse of power — be it domestic violence or sexual harassment in the workforce. We need to eradicate this behavior.’

And rounding out the new voices speaking out were Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who denied that he had helped to kill a 2004 story that was set to reveal Weinstein’s sexual harassment of women.

‘If there was ever an event that I was at and Harvey was doing this kind of thing and I didn’t see it, then I am so deeply sorry, because I would have stopped it,’ said Damon in an interview with Deadline.

‘And I will peel my eyes back now, father than I ever have, to look for this type of behavior.’

Recording: Model Ambra Battilana (above) can be heard repeatedly rejecting Weinstein's requests to have her join him in his bedroom in a recording obtained by the New Yorker 

Recording: Model Ambra Battilana (above) can be heard repeatedly rejecting Weinstein’s requests to have her join him in his bedroom in a recording obtained by the New Yorker

AMBRA BATTILANA 

The New Yorker article also contains new revelations about Ambra Battilana, who accused Weinstein of groping her back in 2015 then watched as District Attorney Cyrus Vance elected not to press charges.

The aspiring actress said Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt in a meeting in his office. She fled and reported the incident to the NYPD.

The next day she agreed to meet the executive again but this time was recording the exchange for officers.

In the audio, obtained by the New Yorker, Weinstein apologizes but then tries to coax her into his hotel room.

Battilana says ‘no’ multiple times before Weinstein finally gives up and they return downstairs.

The most damning exchange is the one when Weinstein admits to groping the model.

‘Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in. I’m used to that. Come on. Please,’ Weinstein can be heard saying on the tape.

‘You’re used to that?’ responded Battilana.

‘Yes. I won’t do it again,’ said Harvey.

The recording has now led many to call for the firing of Cyrus Vance, who just a few months after deciding to drop charges got a $10,000 check for his campaign from Weinstein’s lawyer David Boies.

‘We had the evidence,’ said a police source.

‘It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.

Manhattan Chief Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman-Agnifilo responded to the release of the audio in a statement on Tuesday.

‘If we could have prosecuted Harvey Weinstein for the conduct that occurred in 2015, we would have. Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of mistreating women, as recounted in recent reports, is disgraceful and shocks the conscience,’ said Friedman-Agnifilo.

‘While the recording is horrifying to listen to, what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent.’

She then added: ‘Subsequent investigative steps undertaken in order to establish intent were not successful. This, coupled with other proof issues, meant that there was no choice but to conclude the investigation without criminal charges.’

Emma de Caunes (above September) said that Weinstein had her come up to his hotel room then emerged from the shower naked and asked her to join him in bed

Emma de Caunes (above September) said that Weinstein had her come up to his hotel room then emerged from the shower naked and asked her to join him in bed

EMMA DE CAUNES 

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010, soon after he told her he had a script he was producing based on a book with a strong female character.

Weinstein offered to show her the script, and asked her up to his hotel room, where he began to take a shower.

He then emerged naked and with an erection, asking her to lay down with him on the bed and telling her that many had done so before.

‘I was very petrified,’ said de Caunes.

‘But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.’

When she told him that she had to leave, Weinstein responded by telling the actress: ‘We haven’t done anything! It’s like being in a Walt Disney movie!’

De Caunes said that she then gathered all her strength and turned around, telling Weinstein: ‘I’ve always hated Walt Disney movies!’

A director at the studio she went to film at after the encounter confirmed that she was terrified and immediately shared details of her account, with Weinstein calling the women repeatedly to offer her expensive gifts.

She also said that despite the statements of stars like Meryl Streep, there was no one in Hollywood who was unaware of Weinstein’s behavior.

‘I know that everybody – I mean everybody – in Hollywood knows that it’s happening,’ said de Caunes.

‘He’s not even really hiding. I mean, the way he does it, so many people are involved and see what’s happening. But everyone’s too scared to say anything.’

Familiar patter: Judith Godreche (above) was lured into Weinstein's bedroom and then given a massage she said, making her exit when he tried to take off her sweater

Familiar patter: Judith Godreche (above) was lured into Weinstein’s bedroom and then given a massage she said, making her exit when he tried to take off her sweater

JUDITH GODRECHE 

French star Judith Godrèche said that she, like so many other women, was alone with Weinstein when he offered to give her a massage.

She was at the Hotel de Cap, just like Argento, when Weinstein invited her to his room after breakfast.

 ‘I was so naïve and unprepared,’ said Godrèche, was was 24 at the time.

Soon after the massage began, Weinstein tried to rip off Godrèche’s sweater she said, at which point she fled the room.

The actress told her father and later phoned a Miramax executive, who told her not to complain and keep quiet about the incident.

‘They put my face on the poster,’ said Godrèche, whose breakout role in the film ‘Ridicule’ was released around the same time.

In the 20 years since the 1996 incident she has stayed on good terms with the executive, sending emails from time to time and keeping in touch because she felt it was necessary for her career.

‘I tried to negotiate the situation over the years, and negotiate with myself and pretend it kind of never happened,’ said Godreche.

‘I wish I’d had someone to talk to, to say, “How do you deal with this?”‘

Speaking up: 'I just hope that my story and the other brave women who came forward can stop him from making other women feel powerless,' wrote lucia Evans on Twitter (above)

Speaking up: ‘I just hope that my story and the other brave women who came forward can stop him from making other women feel powerless,’ wrote lucia Evans on Twitter (above)

LUCIA STOLLER

Lucia Evans (nee Stoller) was a college student preparing for her senior year at Middlebury in 2004 when she met Weinstein at Cipriani in New York City.

She wanted to be an actress and gave the executive her phone number, eventually agreeing to come in and read for a female casting director at Weinstein’s offices in Tribeca.

When she arrived however she was taken to meet Weinstein in a room with empty takeout boxes and exercise equipment.

The two spoke for a bit and then, according to Evans, Weinstein pulled out his penis and forced her to perform oral sex on him inside the office.

‘I said, over and over, “I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,”‘ said Evans.

Evans was in college when she was raped by Weinstein she said

Evans was in college when she was raped by Weinstein she said

‘I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.’

His size proved to be too much for Evans however, who found herself completely helpless.

‘I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault,’ said Evans.

Weinstein later acted as if nothing had happened she said, and began calling her at night to meet said Evans, who turned down the executive.

The repercussions from the incident last to this day however, with Evans saying she still had nightmares.

‘I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing,’ said Evans.

‘I ruined several really good relationships because of this. My schoolwork definitely suffered, and my roommates told me to go to a therapist because they thought I was going to kill myself.’

Another woman who claimed Weinstein raped her revealed that she feared going to the police and even stayed in contact with the man because of the power he wielded in the industry.

‘I was in a vulnerable position and I needed my job,’ said the woman.

‘It just increases the shame and the guilt.’

Suddenly finding their voice: Oscar-winning screenwriters Ben Affleck and Matt Damon (above in 2010 with Weinstein) decided to finally speak out against their friend on Tuesday

Suddenly finding their voice: Oscar-winning screenwriters Ben Affleck and Matt Damon (above in 2010 with Weinstein) decided to finally speak out against their friend on Tuesday

EMILY NESTOR

The former assistant at the Weinstein Company was first revealed to be one of the movie mogul’s victims last week in the New York Times’ initial expose.

She was 25 back in 2014 when she was starting at the company, and on the very first day Weinstein had her take his number and asked her to join him for a drink.

She declined and asked if they could do an early morning coffee instead, expecting him to turn down the offer.

Weinstein did not according to Nestor, who having been warned of his behavior dressed ‘frumpy’ for their breakfast.

The took soon turned sexual however, despite the venue and time of day.

‘He said, “You know, we could have a lot of fun,”‘ said Nestor.

‘”I could put you in my London office, and you could work there and you could be my girlfriend.”‘

When she declined her replied: ‘Oh, the girls always say “no.” You know, “No, no.” And then they have a beer or two and then they’re throwing themselves at me.’

At that same breakfast, she also said that she watched him plant a negative item about an unnamed individual in relation to a story that was playing out at the time involving Amy Adams, who was starring in the Weinstein Company film ‘Big Eyes.’

That seems to be a reference to Adam refusal to discuss the Sony hack at that time, which resulted in her being booted from an appearance on ‘Today.’

‘I was very afraid of him. And I knew how well connected he was. And how if I pissed him off then I could never have a career in that industry,’ said Nestor.

She ended up alerting human resources of her issues despite being a temporary employee at the company, having spent the entire mornign also fighting off his unwanted sexual advances.

‘It made me feel incredibly discouraged that this could be something that happens on a regular basis,’ said Nestor.

‘I actually decided not to go into entertainment because of this incident.’

Victim: After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth (above) was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula

Victim: After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth (above) was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula

Bravely speaking: Barth tweeted on Tuesday: 'This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support'

Bravely speaking: Barth tweeted on Tuesday: ‘This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support’

JESSICA BARTH

After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula.

When she arrived he had ordered champagne and sushi so that the two could ‘talk career stuff.’

What instead happened however was Weinstein requesting the Barth give him a naked massage in bed while then bringing the conversation back to her career said the young woman.

‘So, what would happen if, say, we’re having some champagne and I take my clothes off and you give me a massage?’ Barth said Weinstein asked her.

She informed him that would not happen and then prepared to make her exit, at which point Weinstein called her fat and said she needed to lose weight  if she wanted to ‘compete with Mila Kunis.’

Barth drove home in tears, with multiple people saying they hears the same version of this story soon after, while a promised meeting with an executive at Weinstein’s company ended up being nothing more than a formality.

She would later star in the film ‘Ted’ and its sequel, and will next be seen in ‘Tell Me Your Name.’

Barth tweeted on Tuesday: ‘This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support.’

Louisette Geiss (above in Tuesday) said that Weinstein promised her a film deal if she would watch him masturbate in the tub

LOUISETTE GEISS

In a press conference with her attorney Gloria Allred on Tuesday, Louisette Geiss said that Weinstein invited her to his temporary office for a meeting during the 2008 Sundance Film Festival in Utah under the pretense of discussing her new movie.

Geiss said that he insisted on listening to her pitch in his hot tub after emerging from the bathroom 30 minutes in to the meeting naked in an unfastened bathrobe.

She claims that he asked her to watch him masturbate and that when she told him she was leaving, he grabbed her arm and pulled her into the bathroom.

‘I kept talking as he got into the hot tub. When I finished my pitch, he asked me to watch him masturbate. I told him I was leaving. He quickly got out of the hot tub,’ said Geiss.

Weinstein then promised her career perks if he would stay and watch him pleasure himself in the tub according to Geiss.

‘As I went to get my purse to leave, he grabbed my forearm and led me to his bathroom, pleading that I just watch him masturbate. My heart was racing and I was very scared,’ said Geiss.

‘I pulled my arm away finally and headed to the door. He started following me and telling me that he could introduce me to Bob Weinstein and that I could get a three-picture deal and that he would green light my script but I had to watch him masturbate.’

She then added: ‘I was on the verge of tears but I pulled it together and quickly exited.’

Running free: Katherine Kendall (above) fled from Weinstein's apartment after he asked for a massage while naked

Running free: Katherine Kendall (above) fled from Weinstein’s apartment after he asked for a massage while naked

KATHERINE KENDALL

Katherine Kendall was 23 when Weinstein incited her to a screening with him in 1993 at a theater in Lincoln Center, right near his Central Park apartment.

The two stopped by the apartment soon after because Weinstein wanted to grab something, and the Kendall came along after the two had enjoyed what she thought was a fruitful discussion about her career.

No sooner had they arrived however than Weinstein appeared in his bathrobe and asked for a massage according to the actress.

He then left the room and returned naked said Kendall.

‘He literally chased me,’ said the actress, who would go on to star in ‘Swingers.’

‘He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.’

Weinstein then asked Kendall to show her breasts at the very least, which she declined to do before leaving, but the entire evening made her question her coice of profession.

Kendall said that as she left she thought: ‘If this is what it takes, I can’t do it.’

TOMI-ANN ROBERTS

When she a 20-year-old waitress trying to break in to the film industry, Tomi-Ann Roberts got the chance to meet with Weinstein and audition for a film he was making at the time.

She arrived to find Weinstein ina  tub, at which point he encouraged her to take off her top since there would be a topless scene in the film she claims.

He then told her if she was not comfortable taking off her top then she would not be able to do it on camera according to Roberts.

She left, and to this day finds it hard to watch Weinstein’s films.

DAWN DUNNING

An aspiring actress, Dawn Dunning landed a screen test at Miramax in 2003 followed by dinner with Weinstein.

She was told to meet him in his suite that night because his meetings were running late, and found him with contracts for his three next films placed in fronty of him seh said.

Dunning claims she was then told she could sign on for a role in each if she would have three-way sex with Weinstein.

She denied the request.

‘You’ll never make it in this business,’ she said Weinstein told her.

‘This is how the business works.’

‘Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances,’ said a spokesperson for Weinstein.

‘Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual.

‘Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966816/Harvey-Weinstein-accused-raping-Asia-Argento.html#ixzz4v8qq9DyR

Story 2: Meet Nicholas Dudich Liar for Big Lie Media New York Times — Project Veritas Strikes Again — Videos

James O’Keefe’s Statement Regarding NYT Reaction to Project (Subtitulado)

American Pravda, NYT Part I – Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connection

James O’Keefe at FreedomFest: The State of the Media

FreedomFest 2017: O’Keefe Moderates Saul Alinsky Panel FULL

The Truth About Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

Who was Saul Alinsky?

Why you should know Saul Alinsky

Speaking Truth To Power | James O’Keefe and Stefan Molyneu

O’Keefe Frames #FakeNews WaPo’s RETRACTION

CNN Producer: Voters “Stupid as Sh*t”– American Pravda: CNN Part 3

Project Veritas Scalps the New York Times

CNN’s PR nightmare continues thanks to 2nd Project Veritas video

BURNED: CNN implodes, begs for forgiveness, while Project Veritas plays its Zapruder film.

HANNITY REACTS TO VAN JONES GETTING EXPOSED BY JAMES O’KEEFE & PROJECT VERITAS

VAN JONES EXPOSED! TUCKER CARLSON REACTS TO PROJECT VERITAS EXPOSING CNN

James O’Keefe Blows The Whistle On Mob Boss Hillary Clinton

#CNNLeaks: James O’Keefe of Project Veritas Releases CNN Leaks and Offers Bounty for Its Destruction

 

American Pravda, NYT: Slanting the News and a Bizarre Comey Connection

Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT Video, Says the Times Slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, “Oh, we always do.”

Claims to Be “Gatekeeper” for New York Times Videos: “My imprint is on every video we do.”

Worked for Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Campaigns

Admits He Won’t Be Objective, “That’s why I’m here [at the NYT].”

NYT Ethical Handbook: “Journalists… must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times.”

Says Former FBI Director James Comey Is His Godfather, “I should have recused myself”

Dudich’s Family Members Deny Comey Claim

Continuation of American Pravda Series Which Began With CNN Videos

(NEW YORK) – Project Veritas has released a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go “on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram” for the Times.

While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, “No I’m not, that’s why I’m here.

Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist “my voice is on… my imprint is on every video we do.”

Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:

“I’d target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric…

“Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott… So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they’re hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he’d lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to.”

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, “Oh, we always do.”

As stated in the NYT Ethical Handbook, the goal of the New York Times is to “cover the news as impartially as possible.” It continues in Section 62:

“Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times.”

Before working at the Times, Dudich worked on the political campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:

“So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016… they needed a volunteer strategist to do video… well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton.”

He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: “I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn’t deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign.”

Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: “Like, after the Clinton campaign, I’m like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn’t going to change.”

Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.

“Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time.” he told the undercover journalist. “So, I had fun. They’d start s**t, I’m like, I get to hit you. I’m so excited.”

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: “I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset… So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they’re a threat or not.”

“How’d you meet Comey?” asked the Project Veritas journalist. “He’s my godfather,” Dudich explained. “My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time.”

“Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I’m not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don’t know if they can keep me on.”

According to the NYT Ethical Handbook, Section 107:

“Staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgements about them.”

His father claims that the family does not know Comey. “Yeah, he’s embellishing. I don’t know why he would say that… Yeah, I don’t know why… he’s not James Comey’s godson. I don’t even know James Comey.”

When told that his father said he doesn’t know Comey, Dudich changes his story:

Dudich: “He’s not my Godfather.”

Undercover Journalist: “Then why did you say that?”

Dudich: “Eh, I don’t know… It’s a good story.”

“The fact remains that Nick Dudich lies and he’s a gatekeeper at the New York Times.” says Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, “And that fact should be worrisome to the bosses at the paper of record. Who else are they letting spread misinformation in their name?

This is a continuation of Project Veritas’s American Pravda series, which began with a three-part expose on CNN in June.

https://breaking.projectveritas.com/NYTimes1.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-980

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

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

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

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

 

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

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

Image result for drug valium diazepam

Psychiatric Drug Links to Violent Behavior

Psychiatric Drugs Homicide and Suicide The Connection

Vegas shooter was reportedly prescribed anti-anxiety meds

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

Valium (Diazepam) Review and Side Effects

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

Top 10 Most Abused Prescription Drugs

00:57 #10: Dilaudid [aka Hydromorphone]

01:56 #9: Soma [aka Carisoprodol]

02:45 #8: Ambien [aka Zolpidem]

03:48 #7: Valium [aka Diazepam]

04:52 #6:  Fentanyl

05:53 #5: Xanax [aka Alprazolam]

07:05 #4: Adderall

08:28 #3:Codine

09:26 #2: Vicodine

10:50 #1: OxyCotin [OxyCodone]

‘As Prescribed’ – Trailer for Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Documentary

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

What are Benzodiazepines? Benzo Facts and Effects

Facts You Should Know About Benzodiazepine Abuse

Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined

How I got myself off valium – Benzodiazepine

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

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

GABA Neurotransmitters, Anxiety, and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines

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

Alcohol Effects and Neurotransmitters: The GABA and Glutamate Balance

GABA Neurotransmitters and Glutamate

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

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

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

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

SSRI Drugs are Dangerous!

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

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

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

Psych Meds and Big Pharma and the Link to Shootings

19. Aggression III

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

20. Aggression IV

“Behave” by Robert Sapolsky, PhD

By Kyle Feldscher |   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIDE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM (VALIUM)

For most patients, these are the typical side effects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Drug- Induced Behavioural Disinhibition

Incidence, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications

Adverse Effects

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Disinhibitory reactions to benzodiazepines: A review

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

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

Abstract

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

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

 

Benzodiazepines

What are Benzodiazepines

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

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

List of Benzodiazepines:

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

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

 

Image result for person of interest marilou danley

WATCH: Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter releases statement through lawyer

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

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

Scott Adams offers another hypothesis on Stephen Paddock’s motivation

Scott Adams rules out some theories on the Vegas gunman

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

Scott Adams: FBI profile and possible motivation – Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Marilou Danley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Who is Marilou Danley?

Person of Interest: Season 1 Trailer

Person of Interest | Flashbacks S1-S4 | somewhat HD

 

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

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

by Reuters
Wednesday, 4 October 2017 02:36 GMT

ABOUT OUR HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE

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

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

* Live-in companion sought for questioning

* Wire transfer of $100,000 under examination

* Trump calls gunman ‘a sick, demented man’

* Killer amassed dozens of weapons, explosives, ammunition

* Massacre stirs gun control debate

By Sharon Bernstein and Alexandria Sage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARSENAL RECOVERED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT DROVE GUNMAN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GUN DEBATE STIRRED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Person of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

History

According to Eric Lichtbau in the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

Hatfill v. Ashcroft

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

Definition

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

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

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

See also

References

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

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for leading of blacks

Image result for leading killer of blacks is abortion

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

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

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

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

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

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

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

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

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

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

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

Ben Shapiro Responds To Jimmy Kimmel

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

Top 5 Gun Control Myths Debunked! | Louder With Crowder

HIDDEN CAM: “Gun Show Loophole” Exposed!

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

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

Gun Contol Penn and Teller Bull Shit

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

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

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

    Close up image of the Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

    Contents

     [show

    Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pre-Constitution background

    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Drafting and adoption of the Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Ratification debates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Militia in the decades following ratification

    Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America

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

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

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

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

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

    Scholarly commentary

    Early commentary

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

    Richard Henry Lee

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

    George Mason

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

    Tench Coxe

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

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

    Tucker/Blackstone

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

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

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

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

    William Rawle

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

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

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

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

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

    Joseph Story

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

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

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

    Lysander Spooner

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

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

    Timothy Farrar

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

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

    Judge Thomas Cooley

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

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

    Late 20th century commentary

    Assortment of 20th century handguns

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Meaning of “well regulated militia”

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

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

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

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

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

    Justice Stevens in dissent:

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

    Meaning of “the right of the People”

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

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

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

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

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

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

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

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

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

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

    Supreme Court cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    United States v. Cruikshank

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

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

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

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

    Presser v. Illinois

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

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

    Miller v. Texas

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

    Robertson v. Baldwin

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

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

    United States v. Miller

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

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

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

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

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

    District of Columbia v. Heller

    Judgment

    The Justices who decided Heller

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

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

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

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

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

    Notes and analysis

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

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

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

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

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

    Stevens went on to say the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

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

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

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

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

    Caetano v. Massachusetts

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

    United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller

    Before Heller

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

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

    After Heller

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

    D.C. Circuit

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

    First Circuit

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

    Second Circuit

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

    Fourth Circuit

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

    Fifth Circuit

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

    Sixth Circuit

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

    Seventh Circuit

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

    Ninth Circuit

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

    See also

    Notes and citations

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017, Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos — Story 2: Secretary of Health and Human Resources Thomas Price Resigns and President Trump Accepts After Trump Outraged Over Use Expensive Private Chartered Jet Flight To Conduct Government Business — Don Wright to serve as acting secretary of the HHS — Videos —

Posted on September 30, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, Airlines, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, Comedy, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Pro Life, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Security, Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, U.S. Dollar, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 921, June 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 920, June 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 919, June 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 918, June 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 917, June 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 916, June 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 915, June 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 914, June 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 913, June 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 912, June 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 911, June 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 910, June 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 909, June 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 908, June 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 907, June 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 906, June 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 905, June 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 904, June 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 903, June 1, 2017

Image result for Donald Trump Plan Tax BracketsImage result for trump's tax frameworkImage result for fairtax

Image result for cartoon's trump's tax frameworkImage result for trump's tax framework

Image result for HHS secretary resigns tom price resigns

Image result for fairtax

Image result for trump's new tax plan compared with current tax system

Corporations paying fewer taxes

 

Part 3 of 3,  Story 1: The Tiny Timid Trump Tax Reform Resembles Liberal Democratic Party Proposals vs. Fair Tax Less Would Replace All Federal Taxes With A Single Consumption Tax On What You Buy Not What You Earn With A Generous Tax Prebate and Future Government Spending Limited To 90% of Fair Tax Less Revenues — Affordable, Effective, Efficient, Fair, Reasonable, Simple, and Transparent With Progressive Effective Rates Due To A Generous Monthly $1,000 Per Month or $12,000 Per Year Tax Prebate For All Adult American Citizens — American Friendly Not Revenue Neutral — Balanced Budgets With Real Spending Cuts and No More Budget Deficits — Booming Economy With Jobs, Jobs, and Jobs — The Time Is Now or Never For Fair Tax Less — Videos


The American People Want The FairTax and

The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Image result for Fair Tax Replaces


Inside the GOP’s tax blueprint

Mulvaney: Impossible to say tax benefit to rich – NEWS TODAY

Mick Mulvaney defends Trump’s Puerto Rico response, tax plan

Treasury secretary on Trump administration’s new tax plan

“IT WOULD BE LIKE HOUDINI!!!” Chuck Todd’s BRILLIANT Takedown of Trump Lackey Steven Mnuchin |News

Newt Gingrich with Martha MacCallum on Donald Trump Tax Reform Plan. #NewtGingrich #TaxReform #POTUS

LIMBAUGH: Trump’s Tax Plan Is NOT A Tax Break For The Rich

Middle Class Will ‘Get Nothing’ In Tax Proposal: Steve Rattner | Morning Joe | MSNBC

What Democrats don’t like about Trump’s tax reform plan

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

🔴 Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

Trump pitches tax reform plan to manufacturers

Sen. John Kennedy on Tax Reform

Speaker Ryan Previews Unified Framework for Tax Reform

Trump pushes first tax overhaul since President Reagan

Trump tax reform is very pro-growth: Norquist

Who wins and loses in the GOP’s proposed tax overhaul

President Trump Unveils STUNNING Tax Plan | Full Speech 9/27/17

President Donald Trump unveils his ‘middle class miracle’, a stunning tax plan with three brackets, zero tax on couples’ first $24,000 and a massive corporate rate slash. ‘The largest tax cut in American History.’ MAGA 🇺🇸

Milton Friedman – Is tax reform possible?

Ep. 287: Pros and Cons of the Trump Tax Plan

What Trump’s tax plan could mean for workers and businesses

Trump’s tax plan mirrors Ronald Reagan’s

PRESIDENT TRUMP UNVEILS SWEEPING TAX PLAN

Chuck Schumer SLAMS Trump’s New Tax Reform Plan on his Press Conference 9/27/2017

Inside Politics 09/27/17: TRUMP TAX PLAN COULD COST $5 TRILLION

Rush Limbaugh 09/27/2017 | Trump tax plan isn’t conservative, it’s populist, raises taxes on rich

Hannity: Trump’s tax plan is designed to grow the economy

Analyzing President Trump’s tax plan

Trump Unveils Tax Plan: It’s Mostly Good

Gordon Gray discusses President Trump’s tax plan details jpg

Will Trump’s tax plan deliver the goods on jobs?

What to expect from Trump’s tax plan

Trump Tax Reform Explained

David Stockman: We are heading into an absolute fiscal bloodbath

Keiser Report: America’s Falling Apart (E1123)

$20 Trillion: U.S. Debt Crisis | Peter Schiff and Stefan Molyneux

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Trump’s tax cuts won’t pay for themselves: David Stockman

Congress not likely to tackle tax reform without spending cuts?

Milton Friedman – Why Tax Reform Is Impossible

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

When Did America Stop Caring About Anything Critical?

Revenue Neutral

Sen. McConnell to soften on revenue-neutral tax plan: Gasparino

McConnell Seeks Revenue-Neutral Tax Reform This Congress

Rand Paul’s Frustration with “Revenue Neutral” Tax Cuts!


The American People Want The FairTax 

Especially The New Improved Version — Fair Tax Less

Demand Fair Tax Less From Your Elected Representatives and President Trump

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax or Fair Tax Less — It Is Time

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Flat Tax vs. National Sales Tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Congressman Pence – FairTax and FlatTax

Pence on the Fair Tax

Congressman Woodall Discusses the FairTax

Rob Woodall Floor Speech: The FairTax will bring jobs back to America

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax with Colleagues on House Floor

The Fair Tax

Congressman King Speaks in Favor of FairTax

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax on House Floor

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Why is the FairTax better than other tax reform efforts?

AIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Why is the FairTax better than a flat income tax?

What is the FairTax legislation?

Does the FairTax protect privacy and other civil liberties?

How is the FairTax collected?

How does the FairTax affect the economy?

How does the FairTax impact interest rates?

Are any significant economies funded by a sales tax?

Is consumption a reliable source of revenue?

How will used goods be taxed?

What assumptions does the FairTax make about government spending?

Will the FairTax lead to a massive underground economy?

Can’t Americans just cross the border to avoid the FairTax

Will the FairTax drive the economy down if people stop buying?

How does the FairTax impact savings?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How will the FairTax impact seniors?

How will Social Security payments be calculated under the FairTax?

How will the FairTax impact people who don’t file income taxes?

How will the FairTax help people who don’t hire an accountant?

How does the FairTax affect compliance costs?

How does the FairTax impact tax free bonds?

What will happen to cities who depend on tax free bonds?

What is the impact of the FairTax on business?

How does the FairTax impact retailers?

How does the FairTax affect tax preparers and CPAs?

Will the FairTax tax services?

Can I pretend to be a business to avoid the sales tax?

If people bring home their whole paychecks how can prices fall?

What is the Prebate?

How does the “prebate” work?

Is the FairTax truly progressive?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

How is the FairTax different from a Value Added Tax (VAT)?

Is it fair for rich people to get the same prebate as poor people?

Will the prebate create a massive new entitlement system?

How does the FairTax impact the middle class?

How do we keep exemptions and exclusions from undermining the FairTax?

How does the FairTax impact charitable giving?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

Will bartering present a compliance problem under the FairTax?

How does the FairTax affect illegal immigration?

How does the FairTax rate compare to today’s?

Wouldn’t it be more fair to exempt food and medicine from the FairTax?

Is education taxed under the FairTax?

Will government pay taxes under the FairTax?

How can you tax life saving medical treatment?

Will the FairTax hurt home ownership with no mortgage interest deduction?

What will the transition be like from the income tax to the FairTax?

Isn’t it a stretch to say the IRS will go away?

The Fair Tax – It’s Time

FairTax Prebate Explained

The FairTax… For a better America

Is the Fair Tax Act Fair?

Is America’s Tax System Fair?

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

Pence on the Fair Tax

#30 The FAIRtax and President Elect Trump

Elvis Presley – It`s Now Or Never 1960

Elvis – It’s Now Or Never (O Sole Mio)

Elvis Presley – My Way (High Quality)

Frank Sinatra .My Way

Trump’s tax plan is ALREADY in trouble with his own party as plan to axe state and local tax deduction comes under fire from Republicans

  • The White House’s tax plan proposes to raise $1 trillion over 10 years by eliminating the deduction for the state and local income taxes people pay
  • That’s drawing howls of protest from Republicans whose states charge high income tax rates
  • Seven states have no income taxes, meaning their citizens wouldn’t be affected
  • But some states charge up to 13.3 per cent on top of federal taxes
  • A family in Los Angeles earning $100,000 would have to fork over roughly an additional $1,800 to Washington if the longstanding deduction goes away
  • Trump is pitching his tax plan to the National Association of Manufacturers on Friday 

As President Trump prepares to sell his tax plan to the nation’s manufacturing lobby on Friday, his best-laid tax plans have already drawn objections from some fellow Republicans who are fuming over the decision to end deductions for state and local income taxes.

The situation will pit the White House against members of Congress from states that pile high income taxes on top of what the federal government takes from paychecks.

High-income Californians, for instance, pay as much as 13.3 per cent of their income to the state in addition to their federal taxes. New Yorkers can pay up to 8.82 per cent.

Just seven U.S. states have no personal income taxes, including Texas, Florida and Nevada.

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he'll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

As President Trump pushes his tax plan, House Ways and Means chairman Kevin Brady (right) says he’ll listen to congressmen from states that would be affected most if citizens lose deductions for state and local income taxes

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don't collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

State income tax rates vary widely; seven states (in gray) don’t collect any, and the highest rates (dark blue) can go as high as 13.3 per cent

Under the Trump tax reform plan, a family earning $100,000 in Los Angeles pays about $6,000 in state and local income taxes. Losing the ability to deduct that expense would cost the hypothetical taxpayers around $1,800.

The GOP is working on a way to pacify legislators whose constituents would wind up paying more.

‘The members with concerns from high-tax states have to be accommodated,’ Illinois Republican Rep. Peter Roskam told The Wall Street Journal. Roskam is a senior member of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee.

‘So, you can imagine a soft landing on this that creative people are putting much time and energy into.’

The White House has shown no sign that it’s willing to budge on eliminating the deduction for state and local taxes since it would bring in about $1 trillion over a 10-year period.

With the prospect of persuading Democrats to go along with a new tax play already slim, the GOP will need every Republican vote it can get.

The Journal reports that the nine states whose citizens use the deduction, measured as a percentage of income, are represented by 33 House Republicans.

If Republicans lose more than 22 votes, Trump’s tax plan is effective dead.

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a 'soft landing' for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

Ways and Means member Peter Roskam, and Illinois Republican, says tax code-writers are finding a ‘soft landing’ for states that pay the most income tax to their local governments

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn't promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

White House chief economic adviser Gary Cohn briefed the press at the White House on Thursday but wouldn’t promise that every middle-class U.S. family would get a tax cut

APRIL 13, 2016

High-income Americans pay most income taxes, but enough to be ‘fair’?

Corporations paying fewer taxes

Tax-deadline season isn’t many people’s favorite time of the year, but most Americans are OK with the amount of tax they pay. It’s what other people pay, or don’t pay, that bothers them.

Just over half (54%) of Americans surveyed in fall by Pew Research Center said they pay about the right amount in taxes considering what they get from the federal government, versus 40% who said they pay more than their fair share. But in a separate 2015 surveyby the Center, some six-in-ten Americans said they were bothered a lot by the feeling that “some wealthy people” and “some corporations” don’t pay their fair share.

It’s true that corporations are funding a smaller share of overall government operations than they used to. In fiscal 2015, the federal government collected $343.8 billion from corporate income taxes, or 10.6% of its total revenue. Back in the 1950s, corporate income tax generated between a quarter and a third of federal revenues (though payroll taxes have grown considerably over that period).

Nor have corporate tax receipts kept pace with the overall growth of the U.S. economy. Inflation-adjusted gross domestic product has risen 153% since 1980, while inflation-adjusted corporate tax receipts were 115% higher in fiscal 2015 than in fiscal 1980, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. There have been a lot of ups and downs over that period, as corporate tax receipts tend to rise during expansions and drop off in recessions. In fiscal 2007, for instance, corporate taxes hit $370.2 billion (in current dollars), only to plunge to $138.2 billion in 2009 as businesses felt the impact of the Great Recession.

Corporations also employ battalions of tax lawyers to find ways to reduce their tax bills, from running income through subsidiaries in low-tax foreign countries to moving overseas entirely, in what’s known as a corporate inversion (a practice the Treasury Department has moved to discourage).

But in Tax Land, the line between corporations and people can be fuzzy. While most major corporations (“C corporations” in tax lingo) pay according to the corporate tax laws, many other kinds of businesses – sole proprietorships, partnerships and closely held “S corporations” – fall under the individual income tax code, because their profits and losses are passed through to individuals. And by design, wealthier Americans pay most of the nation’s total individual income taxes.

Wealthy pay more in taxes than poorIn 2014, people with adjusted gross income, or AGI, above $250,000 paid just over half (51.6%) of all individual income taxes, though they accounted for only 2.7% of all returns filed, according to our analysis of preliminary IRS data. Their average tax rate (total taxes paid divided by cumulative AGI) was 25.7%. By contrast, people with incomes of less than $50,000 accounted for 62.3% of all individual returns filed, but they paid just 5.7% of total taxes. Their average tax rate was 4.3%.

The relative tax burdens borne by different income groups changes over time, due both to economic conditions and the constantly shifting provisions of tax law. For example, using more comprehensive IRS data covering tax years 2000 through 2011, we found that people who made between $100,000 and $200,000 paid 23.8% of the total tax liability in 2011, up from 18.8% in 2000. Filers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 group, on the other hand, paid 12% of the total liability in 2000 but only 9.1% in 2011. (The tax liability figures include a few taxes, such as self-employment tax and the “nanny tax,” that people typically pay along with their income taxes.)

All told, individual income taxes accounted for a little less than half (47.4%) of government revenue, a share that’s been roughly constant since World War II. The federal government collected $1.54 trillion from individual income taxes in fiscal 2015, making it the national government’s single-biggest revenue source. (Other sources of federal revenue include corporate income taxes, the payroll taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare, excise taxes such as those on gasoline and cigarettes, estate taxes, customs duties and payments from the Federal Reserve.) Until the 1940s, when the income tax was expanded to help fund the war effort, generally only the very wealthy paid it.

Since the 1970s, the segment of federal revenues that has grown the most is the payroll tax – those line items on your pay stub that go to pay for Social Security and Medicare. For most people, in fact, payroll taxes take a bigger bite out of their paycheck than federal income tax. Why? The 6.2% Social Security withholding tax only applies to wages up to $118,500. For example, a worker earning $40,000 will pay $2,480 (6.2%) in Social Security tax, but an executive earning $400,000 will pay $7,347 (6.2% of $118,500), for an effective rate of just 1.8%. By contrast, the 1.45% Medicare tax has no upper limit, and in fact high earners pay an extra 0.9%.

All but the top-earning 20% of American families pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes, according to a Treasury Department analysis.

Still, that analysis confirms that, after all federal taxes are factored in, the U.S. tax system as a whole is progressive. The top 0.1% of families pay the equivalent of 39.2% and the bottom 20% have negative tax rates (that is, they get more money back from the government in the form of refundable tax credits than they pay in taxes).

Of course, people can and will differ on whether any of this constitutes a “fair” tax system. Depending on their politics and personal situations, some would argue for a more steeply progressive structure, others for a flatter one. Finding the right balance can be challenging to the point of impossibility: As Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Louis XIV’s finance minister, is said to have remarked: “The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest possible amount of hissing.”

Note: This is an update of an earlier post published March 24, 2015.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/13/high-income-americans-pay-most-income-taxes-but-enough-to-be-fair/

Distrust of Senate grows within GOP

A day after the GOP presented a united front around the rollout of President Trump’s tax plan, House Republicans are expressing deep reservations about the Senate’s ability to get the job done.

Lawmakers stung over the failure to pass ObamaCare repeal worry the same fate could befall the tax measure if a handful of senators raise objections.

Donald Trump won with an electoral landside and his three big campaign points were ObamaCare repeal, tax reform and border security. For a handful of senators to derail that agenda is very frustrating,” said Rep. Blake Farenthold (R-Texas).

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), who is close to the House GOP leadership, says colleagues are frustrated with a handful of senators “overruling the will of the entire House.”

“We do need to see them step up and actually deliver for a change. We have over 200 bills sitting stalled over there. They haven’t been able to deliver on [health care] reform and they all ran on it and now we have a do-or-die moment on tax reform,” he said.

There’s also a sense among House Republicans that their Senate brethren aren’t under the same pressure to get results — perhaps because the GOP’s majority in the Senate is seen as safer in the 2018 midterm elections than the House majority.

“They put our majority in jeopardy with their failure on health care, more than they did their own,” Cole said.

While Republicans have a bigger majority in the House than in the Senate, the political map favors the Senate GOP in 2018.

Republicans only have to defend nine seats next year, and only one — held by Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.) — is in a state won by 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Democrats are defending more than 20 seats, including 10 in states won by Trump.

In the House, Republicans represent 23 districts carried by Clinton, just shy of what Democrats would need to win to take back the majority.

Republicans are excited about moving to tax reform, and Trump’s plan received enthusiastic support at a half-day private retreat the House GOP held Wednesday to review it.

The president’s proposals to eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax received ovations.

But the mood turned more somber when Rep. Bruce Poliquin (R-Maine) stood up to ask if the Senate could be counted on to pass tax legislation, according to people familiar with the meeting.

A spokesman for Poliquin did not respond to a request for comment.

“A lot of House members trust a lot of senators to introduce their own tax reform bills,” said Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), alluding to how senators seek to show independence by offering their own bills.

House Republicans say they can easily see GOP Sens. Susan Collins(Maine), John McCain (Ariz.) and Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), who all voted against a slimmed-down ObamaCare repeal bill in July, bucking the leadership again.SPONSORED BY NEXT ADVISOR

“I do not understand what motivates John McCain,” King said. “I don’t know what goes on in the minds of folks from Maine.”

Earlier this year, in an illustration of the frustration House Republicans hold for the Senate hold-outs, Farenthold joked about challenging Collins to a duel. He later apologized.

McCain later told The Hill that the health-care bill was doomed because it’s virtually impossible to tackle something as huge as reform as health care on a partisan basis.

“If you’re going to pass a major reform, you got to have bipartisan support,” he said.

Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) is making the case that Senate Republicans are more likely to come through on tax reform because McConnell and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) have already negotiated a tax reform framework with the administration and House leaders.

“What we did differently in this go around is we spent the last four months basically working together, the Senate Finance Committee, the House Ways and Means Committee and the White House, making sure that we’re on the same page,” Ryan told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Thursday morning.

Ryan explained that leaders made sure they did “the hard lifting, the tough work ahead of schedule, ahead of rollout.”

But he also acknowledged that House Republicans have just about run out of patience with the Senate after the collapse of health care reform this week.

“We’re really frustrated. Look, we passed 373 bills here in the House — 270-some are still in the Senate,” he said.

Already there are doubts that Senate Republicans will stick to the plan on taxes.

Hatch, who heads the Senate’s tax writing panel, told reporters Thursday afternoon that he would like to keep in place the deduction for state and local taxes, which the administration wants to eliminate to provide revenue for lower rates.

A spokeswoman for the Finance Committee said, “Chairman Hatch recognizes that every major provision within the tax code has an important constituency and consequence.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/352999-distrust-of-senate-grows-within-gop

Key Findings

  • This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23rd, 113 days into the year.
  • Tax Freedom Day is a significant date for taxpayers and lawmakers because it represents how long Americans as a whole have to work in order to pay the nation’s tax burden.
  • Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total bill of more than $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of the nation’s income.
  • Americans will collectively spend more on taxes in 2017 than they will on food, clothing, and housing combined.
  • If you include annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur 14 days later, on May 7.

What Is Tax Freedom Day?

Tax Freedom Day® is the day when the nation as a whole has earned enough money to pay its total tax bill for the year. Tax Freedom Day takes all federal, state, and local taxes—individual as well as payroll, sales and excise, corporate and property taxes—and divides them by the nation’s income. In 2017, Americans will pay $3.5 trillion in federal taxes and $1.6 trillion in state and local taxes, for a total tax bill of $5.1 trillion, or 31 percent of national income. This year, Tax Freedom Day falls on April 23, 113 days into the year.

What Taxes Do We Pay?

This year, Americans will work the longest—46 days—to pay federal, state, and local individual income taxes. Payroll taxes will take 26 days to pay, followed by sales and excise taxes (15 days), corporate income taxes (10 days), and property taxes (10 days). The remaining six days are spent paying estate and inheritance taxes, customs duties, and other taxes.

When Is Tax Freedom Day if You Include Federal Borrowing?

Since 2002, federal expenses have surpassed federal revenues, with the budget deficit exceeding $1 trillion annually from 2009 to 2012. In calendar year 2017, the deficit is expected to shrink slightly, from $657 billion to $612 billion. If we include this annual federal borrowing, which represents future taxes owed, Tax Freedom Day would occur on May 7, 14 days later. The latest ever deficit-inclusive Tax Freedom Day occurred during World War II, on May 25, 1945.

When Is My State’s Tax Freedom Day?

The total tax burden borne by residents across states varies considerably due to differing tax policies and the progressivity of the federal tax system. This means that states with higher incomes and higher taxes celebrate Tax Freedom Day later: Connecticut (May 21), New Jersey (May 13), and New York (May 11). Residents of Mississippi bear the lowest average tax burden in 2017, with their Tax Freedom Day having arrived on April 5. Also early were Tennessee (April 7) and South Dakota (April 8).

2017 Tax Freedom Day - State Dates

How Has Tax Freedom Day Changed over Time?

The latest ever Tax Freedom Day was May 1, 2000; in that year, Americans paid 33 percent of their total income in taxes. A century earlier, in 1900, Americans paid only 5.9 percent of their income in taxes, so that Tax Freedom Day came on January 22.

Tax Freedom Day Over Time

Methodology

In the denominator, we count every dollar that is officially part of net national income according to the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the numerator, we count every payment to the government that is officially considered a tax. Taxes at all levels of government—federal, state, and local—are included in the calculation. In calculating Tax Freedom Day for each state, we look at taxes borne by residents of that state, whether paid to the federal government, their own state or local governments, or governments of other states. Where possible, we allocate tax burdens to each taxpayer’s state of residence. Leap days are excluded, to allow comparison across years, and any fraction of a day is rounded up to the next calendar day

https://taxfoundation.org/publications/tax-freedom-day/

Feds Collect Record Taxes Through August; Still Run $673.7B Deficit

By Terence P. Jeffrey | September 13, 2017 | 4:28 PM EDT

(CNSNews.com) – The federal government collected record total tax revenues through the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 (Oct. 1, 2016 through the end of August), according to the Monthly Treasury Statement.

Through August, the federal government collected approximately $2,966,172,000,000 in total tax revenues.

That was $8,450,680,000 more (in constant 2017 dollars) than the previous record of $2,957,721,320,000 in total tax revenues (in 2017 dollars) that the federal government collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2016.

At the same time that the federal government was collecting a record $2,966,172,000,000 in tax revenues, it was spending $3,639,882,000,000—and, thus, running a deficit of $673,711,000,000.

Individual income taxes have provided the largest share (47.9 percent) of federal revenues so far this fiscal year. From Oct. 1 through the end of August, the Treasury collected $1,421,997,000,000 in individual income taxes.

Payroll taxes provided the second largest share (35.9 percent), with the Treasury collecting $1,065,751,000,000 in these taxes.

The $233,631 in corporate income taxes collected in the first eleven months of fiscal 2017 equaled only 8.6 percent of total tax collections.

The $21,172,000,000 collected in estate and gift taxes equaled only 0.71 percent of total taxes collected this fiscal year.

(Tax revenues were adjusted to constant 2017 using the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator.)

The Latest: State legislatures ‘dismayed’ by GOP tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Latest on the Republican plan to overhaul the tax code (all times local):

4:40 p.m.

An organization that advocates for state legislatures says it’s “dismayed” the Republican tax cut proposal unveiled Wednesday would do away with a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

The National Conference of State Legislatures says the deduction has existed in the federal tax code since its inception. The group says “tens of millions of middle-class taxpayers of every political affiliation” would experience a greater tax burden if the deduction were eliminated.

The group says the deduction’s elimination will also impede states in their efforts to invest in education and other public services.

About a third of tax filers itemize deductions on their federal income tax returns. The Tax Policy Center says virtually all who do claim a deduction for state and local taxes paid.

___

4:10 p.m.

President Donald Trump is issuing a warning shot to Indiana’s Democratic senator: Support my tax overhaul or I’ll campaign against you next year.

Trump says at a tax event in Indiana that if Sen. Joe Donnelly doesn’t approve the plan, “we will come here and we will campaign against him like you wouldn’t believe.”

But Trump is predicting that numerous Democrats will come across the aisle and support his plan “because it’s the right thing to do.”

The president has made overtures to Democratic senators like Claire McCaskill of Missouri and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota in recent weeks. All three are facing re-election in 2018.

___

4 p.m.

Small business advocates are split over the draft of the new Republican tax plan.

The National Federation of Independent Business is praising the proposal to tax business income at 20 percent — including sole proprietors whose business income is taxed at individual rates up to 39.6 percent.

The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council says the plan would simplify business taxes, encourage business investment and increase owners’ confidence.

But the Small Business Majority says the plan wouldn’t help most small companies, and the current top rate is paid by less than 2 percent of those businesses.

And John O’Neill, a tax analyst at the American Sustainable Business Council, says tax reform isn’t as useful to the economy as investing in infrastructure and education.

President Donald Trump is calling the current tax system a “relic” and a “colossal barrier” that’s standing in the way of the nation’s economic comeback.

Trump says at an event in Indianapolis that his tax proposal will help middle-class families save money and will eliminate loopholes that benefit the wealthy.

Trump says the wealthy “can call me all they want. It’s not going to help.” The billionaire president says he’s “doing the right thing. And it’s not good for me, believe me.”

The president says under his plan, “the vast majority of families will be able to file their taxes on a single sheet of paper.”

__

3:40 p.m.

President Donald Trump is making the case for a sweeping plan to overhaul the tax system for individuals and corporations. He calls it a “once in a generation” opportunity to cut taxes.

The president says in Indiana that he wants to cut taxes for middle-class families to make the system simpler and fairer.

Trump says his tax plan will “bring back the jobs and the wealth that have left our country.” He says it’s time for the nation to fight for American workers.

He’s praising his vice president, Mike Pence, Indiana’s former governor. Trump says, “it’s time for Washington to learn from the wisdom of Indiana.”

__

2:52 p.m.

A budget watchdog group in Washington says the new GOP tax plan could cost $2.2 trillion over the next 10 years.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget admits its estimate is very preliminary since so many details are unclear, but its take is that the plan contains about $5.8 trillion in tax cuts but only $3.6 trillion worth of offsetting tax increases. That $2.2 trillion would be added to the nation’s $20 trillion debt.

That’s more than the $1.5 trillion debt cost that has emerged in a deal among Senate Republicans.

Republicans controlling Congress initially promised that the overhaul of the tax code wouldn’t add to the debt. The group also notes that the $2.2 trillion cost could grow by another $500 billion when interest costs are added in.

_____

1:54 p.m.

President Donald Trump says he’s always wanted to reduce the corporate tax rate to 20 percent — even though he said repeatedly he wanted to see it lowered to 15 percent.

Trump told reporters as he departed Washington for Indiana on Wednesday afternoon that a 20 percent rate was his “red line” and that it had always been his goal.

“In fact, I wanted to start at 15 so that we got 20,” he said, adding: “20′s my number.”

Trump also denies the plan unveiled by the White House and congressional Republicans Wednesday would benefit the wealthy.

He says: “I think there’s very little benefit for people of wealth.”

Under the plan, corporations would see their top tax rate cut from 35 percent to 20 percent.

____

1:37 p.m.

A vocal group of the most conservative House Republicans has come out in support of a draft tax plan endorsed by both President Donald Trump and top congressional GOP leaders.

The House Freedom Caucus endorsement is noteworthy because it could ease House passage of a budget plan that’s the first step to advancing the tax cut measure through Congress.

The group says the outline will allow workers to “keep more of their money,” while simplifying the loophole-choked tax code and making U.S. companies more competitive with their foreign rivals.

The group had held up action on the budget measure as they demanded more details on taxes.

_____

11:21 a.m.

President Donald Trump has two red lines that he refuses to cross on overhauling taxes: the corporate rate must be cut to 20 percent and the savings must go to the middle class.

Gary Cohn, the president’s top economics aide, says any overhaul signed by the president needs to include these two elements.

Trump had initially pushed for cutting the 39.6 percent corporate tax rate to 15 percent.

The administration says that the benefits of any tax cut will not favor the wealthy, with Cohn saying that an additional tax bracket could be added to levy taxes on the top one percent of earners if needed.

_____

11:20 a.m.

The Senate’s top Democrat is blasting a new tax cut plan backed by President Donald Trump as a giveaway to the rich.

Sen. Chuck Schumer says Trump’s plan only gives “crumbs” to the middle class, while top-bracket earners making more than a half-million dollars a year would reap a windfall.

The New York Democrat also blasted the plan for actually increasing the bottom tax rate from 10 percent to 12 percent, calling it a “punch to the gut of working Americans.”

Schumer said the plan is little more than an “across-the-board tax cut for America’s millionaires and billionaires.”

The plan, to be officially released Wednesday afternoon, is the top item on Washington’s agenda after the GOP failure to repeal the Obama health care law.

_____

9:53 a.m.

A new Republican blueprint for overhauling the U.S. tax code employs the themes of economic populism that President Donald Trump trumpeted during the presidential campaign to win support from working-class voters.

A copy of the plan to be released later Wednesday says, “Too many in our country are shut out of the dynamism of the U.S. economy.” That’s led to what the plans says is “the justifiable feeling that the system is rigged against hardworking Americans.”

The plan, ob