United States Supreme Court

The Pronk Pops Show 1213, February 21, 2019, Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos — Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos — Story 3: Under Communist China’s Social Credit System Jussie Smollett Would Be Labeled As Untrustworthy And Unable To Travel Because of A Low Social Credit Score Due To Criminal Behavior and Blacklist Banning — Vast Surveillance Facial Recognition System — Safe, Secure, State Socialism in The Police Surveillance State of Communist China — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, Addiction, Addiction, Addiction, Agenda 21, Airlines, American History, Barack H. Obama, Bernie Sander, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Central Intelligence Agency, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Exercise, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Investments, Kamala Harris, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Middle East, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Public Corruption, Railroads, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Security, South America, Spying, Spying on American People, Subversion, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, The 2013 Agenda for Sustainable Development, Transportation, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United Nations, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1213 February 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1212 February 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1211 February 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1210 February 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

See the source imageChicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him 'shameful' and 'despicable' See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Story 1: Black Russian Gay Empire Actor Busted–Jussie Smollett — Big Lie Media Mob Propagated “Despicable Lies” — Junk Journalism Aided and Abetted Criminal Hoax — Videos

Chicago Police Chief: Jussie Smollett Faked Attack ‘To Promote His Career’ | NBC News

Chicago PD Labels Jussie Smollett “Despicable”

Jussie Smollett Arrested in Hate Crime Attack | E! News

BAIL SET: Jussie Smollett’s Bail Set At $100,000

Jussie Smollett staged attack because he was ‘dissatisfied’ with his salary, police say

Jussie Smollett denies all allegations in court hearing

Jussie Smollett FULL Interview on alleged attack | ABC News Exclusive

 

PICTURED: Jussie Smollett leaves jail after posting $100k bail after prosecutor details video evidence against him and reveals he’d previously bought DRUGS from the brothers he paid to attack him after texting ‘might need your help on the low’

  • The actor’s siblings, Jazz, Jocqui, Jake, and Jojo were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing on Thursday afternoon 
  • A judge set Smollett’s bond at $100,000, which he will have to pay a portion of, and told him to give up his passport 
  • Prosecutors shared an extremely detailed timeline of the night of the attack and the days beforehand  
  • Smollett sent himself a threatening, racist and homophobic letter on January 22 to get more money from 20th Century Fox, police said Thursday  
  • When that did not work, he hired brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo to attack him on January 25 
  • On January 27, he took them to the exact location where he wanted it to happen and pointed out surveillance cameras nearby   
  • Smollett was in contact with them an hour before the incident, an hour afterwards and when they were in Nigeria, laying low for two weeks 
  • When they returned on February 13, they were picked up by police and later confessed ‘the entire plot’
  • Smollett paid $10,000, ten percent of his bond, and agreed to surrender his passport
  • The 36-year-old will return to court on March 14 to face a felony charge of filing a false police report  

ussie Smollett has been freed after posting $10,000 bond and agreeing to surrender his passport at a court hearing where he was supported by his family and prosecutors shared more details of his relationship with the two Nigerian brothers he allegedly paid to stage an attack on him in the hope that it would boost his profile.

The actor was hurried out of the Cook County Jail shortly before 5pm on Thursday and said nothing as he fought his way through photographers to get into a waiting car. He was flanked by bodyguards and driven away immediately.

Three of the actor’s five famous siblings, Jazz, Jocqui and Jake, were pictured arriving at the Cook County Criminal Court before his bond hearing wearing sunglasses. They were later joined by their brother Jojo but their other sister Jurnee and mother Janet were not seen.

They left the court before Smollett once the hearing was over, fighting their way through a scrum of photographers to get into a waiting van parked outside without answering any questions.

Scroll down for video 

Jussie Smollett was ushered out of county jail on Thursday by police officers and body guards after posting $10,000, ten percent of his $100,000 bond, and agreeing to surrender his passport. He clung on to his security guard's shoulders as he followed him out to a waiting car 

Jussie Smollett was ushered out of county jail on Thursday by police officers and body guards after posting $10,000, ten percent of his $100,000 bond, and agreeing to surrender his passport. He clung on to his security guard’s shoulders as he followed him out to a waiting car

Smollett said nothing and held on to his security guard who led him through a crowd of photographers outside the jail

Smollett said nothing and held on to his security guard who led him through a crowd of photographers outside the jail

Smollett was sandwiched between security guards as he made his way to the car. He has to return to the court March 14 

Smollett was sandwiched between security guards as he made his way to the car. He has to return to the court March 14

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets

Smollett was escorted out of the jail by two police officers. He stared at news cameras waiting for him outside and kept his hands in his pockets
Even before he reached the scrum of photographers, Smollett placed his hands on his security guard's shoulders 

Even before he reached the scrum of photographers, Smollett placed his hands on his security guard’s shoulders

After the hearing, prosecutors gave a detailed description of how he allegedly put the hoax together.

Police say he knew Abel Osundairo, one of the brothers, because he bought ‘designer drugs’ from him. In text messages that predate the hoax attack, he asked Abel for ‘Molly’ – the street name for ecstasy – multiple times.  The pair are believed to have met when Abel was a stand-in on Empire.

On January 25, he convinced Abel and his brother Ola to ‘simulate’ an attack on him, giving them specific instructions about which words to use and how to rough him up but not hurt him too severely, according to police.

His alleged motive was that he did not get enough attention over a letter he is said to have sent himself a week earlier and he thought that painting himself as

Smollett took them to the location where he wanted the attack to happen outside his apartment, according to prosecutors, and even pointed to a surveillance camera he believed would capture it.  

The claims came after a blistering press conference during which furious police bosses alleged that he mailed himself a threatening letter then staged a hoax attack because he was unhappy with his $1.8million Empire salary.   

The actor wore a stony expression as he was seen for the first time publicly since being labeled 'shameful' and 'despicable' by the police department 

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday

Smollett was wearing black pants and a black puffer jacket. He turned himself into police at 5am on Thursday
A sketch from inside the courtroom shows Smollett appearing before Cook County Judge John Fitzgerald to have his bond set. The judge said that if true, the allegations against him are 'utterly outrageous'. He was particularly disturbed by the use of a noose in the attack, saying it is an image which 'conjures up such evil in this country's history'

A sketch from inside the courtroom shows Smollett appearing before Cook County Judge John Fitzgerald to have his bond set. The judge said that if true, the allegations against him are ‘utterly outrageous’. He was particularly disturbed by the use of a noose in the attack, saying it is an image which ‘conjures up such evil in this country’s history’

Jocqui, Jake and Jazz Smollett arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie's bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor's mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui, Jake and Jazz Smollett arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie's bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor's mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui (in beige coat), Jake (in black, right) and Jazz Smollett (center in fur-trimmed coat) arrive at the Cook County Criminal Court on Thursday to attend their brother Jussie’s bond hearing. There was no sign of the actor’s mother Janet, his other sister Jurnee or his brother Jojo

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts

Jocqui Smollett is show entering the court and waiting for proceedings to begin. The Smollett family issued a statement when the attack was first reported to condemn hate crimes and stand by Jussie. Jocqui has since accused the media of vilifying his brother in social media posts
Jazz, Jocqui and Jake entered the courthouse without speaking on Thursday. Their other two siblings, Jojo and Jurnee, did not join them

Jazz, Jocqui and Jake entered the courthouse without speaking on Thursday. Their other two siblings, Jojo and Jurnee, did not join them

Surveillance footage emerged on Wednesday showing Ola and Abel Osundairo buying ski masks the day before the attack. Smollett gave them a $100 bill to pay for the bleach, ski masks, red hat and gloves that they used, according to prosecutors 

Surveillance footage emerged on Wednesday showing Ola and Abel Osundairo buying ski masks the day before the attack. Smollett gave them a $100 bill to pay for the bleach, ski masks, red hat and gloves that they used, according to prosecutors

After his bail hearing, the state’s attorney gave a press conference where she described in painstaking detail how the hoax came together.

On January 25, he texted Abel asking him when he was planning to go to Nigeria, a trip that had been prearranged.

Jussie Smollett is shown in his mugshot on Thursday morning. The Empire actor handed himself in at 5am on charges of filing a false police report. Police now say he concocted the fake attack because he wanted a raise 

Jussie Smollett is shown in his mugshot on Thursday morning. The Empire actor handed himself in at 5am on charges of filing a false police report. Police now say he concocted the fake attack because he wanted a raise

They were familiar with one another because Abel had once filled in as a character on Empire who was a love interest of Smollett’s character, Jamal Lyon.

Abel replied that he and his brother were leaving on January 29 to which Smollett replied: ‘Might need your help on the low.

‘You around to meet up and talk face to face?’

That afternoon, they met up at the CineSpace studio and Smollett drove Abel home.

During the car ride, he told him about his ‘displeasure’ over 20th Century Fox’s reaction to the letter he allegedly sent himself days earlier.

He said he wanted to stage an attack and suggested that Ola, Abel’s younger brother, get involved.

Once they got to the brothers’ home, they summoned Ola outside and Smollett asked the pair if he could trust them.

Smollett then allegedly laid out what he wanted them to do and gave them a $100 bill to buy ski masks, a red hat, gloves, rope and bleach to use.

‘He stated that he wanted the brothers to catch his attention by calling him an Empire f****t Empire n****r. He detailed that he wanted Abel to attack him but not to hurt him too badly and give him a chance to fight back.

HOW THE ATTACK WAS PUT TOGETHER

January 22: Jussie Smollett receives a letter at the CineSpace studio which threatens his life and has ‘MAGA’ written on it in red pen. He reports it to police

January 25: Smollett sends a text to Abel Osundairo asking him when he is going to Nigeria and if they can meet up face-to-face

Abel goes to the studio where he is working and Smollett drives him home. During the ride, he said he was ‘displeased’ with the reaction to the letter.

Once at their home, Abel’s brother Ola gets in the car and Smollett tells them what he wants them to do. He gives them a $100 bill to buy the goods they will need to fake the attack

January 27: Smollett picks the brothers up then drives them to the spot where he wants them to fake the attack.

He then goes to New York.

January 28: Smollett is in New York City for a reading of the play Take Me Out.

The brothers are filmed buying ski masks, a red hat and gloves

January 29 – Day of attack

The attack was due to take place at 10pm on January 28 but because Smollett’s flight was delayed, it was pushed back.

12.30am: Smollett arrives back in Chicago

12.49am: He calls Abel Osundairo and they talk for three minutes

Abel orders an Uber minutes later.

1.22am: The brothers arrive in the area of the attack

1.45am: Smollett leaves his building to go to Subway

2.04am: The attack takes place in the arranged location

2.10am: Brothers get a taxi from a hotel nearby

2.25am: The brothers arrive back in their neighborhood in a taxi

2.27am: Smollett’s manager calls the police

2.42am: Police arrive at Smollett’s building and he asks them to turn off their body cameras

7.45pm: Smollett calls Abel. The conversation lasts five seconds.

7.47pm: Abel calls back and they speak for 1 minute 34 seconds.

The brothers then board their flight.

January 30, 10:46am: Smollett calls Abel who is by now in Istanbul, Turkey.

They speak for 8 minutes and eight seconds.

‘He also included that he wanted Ola to place a rope around his neck, pour gasoline on him and yell: “This is MAGA country” and “Make America Great Again,”‘ a proffer that was released by the State’s Attorney’s office said.

Police have found surveillance footage of the ride and have phone records which put Smollett in the area of the brothers home at the time.

On January 27, he picked the brothers up from their home and drove them to where he wanted the attack to happen in the late morning.

He warned them not to bring their cell phones with them and showed them a surveillance camera on the corner which he believed would capture the incident.

Smollett drove the brothers home and provided them with a $3500 personal check made payable to Abel, which was backdated to January 23, 2019.

He then flew to New York City to take part in a reading of a play.

The attack was scheduled to take place at 10pm on January 28 but was set back several hours by Smollett’s delayed flight from New York to Chicago on the day of the incident.

His flight landed at 12.30am, January 29.

At 12.49am, he called Abel and their conversation lasted three minutes. During this call, he instructed him to carry out the attack at 2am.

Abel then ordered an Uber to pick the pair up at their home and take them to the crime scene.

They took the Uber part of the way but then got out and hopped in a taxi to take them the remainder of the distance.

At 1.22am, they arrived within three blocks of it. At 1.45am, Smollett left his apartment building to go to a Subway and the brothers made their way towards the intended spot.

Smollett, however, was late. They did not cross paths until 2.04am which is when they carried out the attack. At the exact moment it was occurring, an NBC News employee was getting out of her car nearby. She told police later that she did not hear anything suspicious, despite Smollett alleging that the attackers yelled racial slurs.

The attack only lasted 45 seconds and was ‘just outside the view of the desired nearby camera that Smollett had pointed out to the brothers approximately 15 hours earlier.’

The brothers then ran away on foot, heading southbound towards the Chicago River. They then got in a taxi at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

Fifteen minutes later, they got out of the cab a few blocks from their house.

Two minutes later, at 2.27am, Smollett’s manager reported it to police and police arrived at Smollett’s apartment at 2.42am, 12 minutes later.

While being interviewed, he not only described the attack but claimed to have received a phone call on January 26 from someone who said ‘hey you little f****’ and hung up. He said the call happened near a camera and that it captured the attack. It was the same camera he pointed out to the brothers in the hope that it would capture their staged ambush.

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson abhorred him as a ‘troubled young man’ who has ‘taken advantage of the pain and anger of racism to further his career’ by allegedly lying that he was attacked by racist and homophobic assailants on January 29.

Smollett makes $100,000 per episode on Empire, according to an associate who spoke to DailyMail.com, and there are 18 episodes in the current season which earns him $1.8million.

He also has a record deal with Columbia Records but, according to police, was ‘dissatisfied’ and wanted to boost his profile.

When police learned that Smollett’s motive was to get more money, it ‘p****d everybody off’, Superintendent Johnson said, adding that Smollett’s repeated ‘lies’ were ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’.

He called for ‘absolute justice’ which he said amounted to Smollett apologizing and offering to pay for the police resources he wasted.

20th Century Fox, which defended the actor on Wednesday, is now ‘considering its options’ in light of his arrest.

President Trump has also called for Smollett to apologize for making it appear as though he was being targeted by one of his supporters.

 

 

This is the state's case against Smollett, as laid out in their bond proffer that was submitted in court on Thursday 

This is the state’s case against Smollett, as laid out in their bond proffer that was submitted in court on Thursday

Police say they have found phone records which prove Smollett spoke with brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo an hour before the attack, an hour afterwards and while they were in Nigeria, keeping their heads down, while the case gained global attention.

Prosecutor Risa Lanier laid bare the allegations in a press conference after the bond hearing 

Prosecutor Risa Lanier laid bare the allegations in a press conference after the bond hearing

They also say they have the check that Smollett used to pay them $3,500.

The brothers ‘confessed’ to the ‘entire plot’ once they were in custody on Thursday.

It began on January 22 when Smollett allegedly mailed himself a threatening letter to the Empire studio in Chicago which had ‘MAGA’ written on it and included racist and homophobic slurs.

It read: ‘Smollett Jussie, you will die’ and included a drawing of a stick figure with a gun pointed towards it.

He reported it to the police along with producer Dennis Hammer.

When that did not win him a pay rise from 20th Century Fox, however, he allegedly hired the brothers to attack him at 2am on January 29 in what he then told police was a random, racist and homophobic attack.

The attack did happen but was not caught on camera. According to the brothers, they punched him after meeting at an arranged spot and time then ran away and got into a taxi.

President Trump tweeted on Thursday after the details of his arrest emerged to demand an apology from the actor who said his attackers shouted 'This is MAGA country!' 

 

President Trump tweeted on Thursday after the details of his arrest emerged to demand an apology from the actor who said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’

Smollett then went home to his friend, 60-year-old Frank Gatson, who was in the apartment and told him that he had been jumped by two masked assailants who shouted: ‘Empire f****t n****r’, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and screamed: ‘This is MAGA country!’

Police say that the actor gave himself the scratches on his face that were visible in a hospital-bed selfie he took after reporting it.

The same day, the brothers went to the airport and boarded a flight to Nigeria.

While Smollett received an outpouring of sympathy from politicians, celebrities and public figures around the world, they laid low but were allegedly in contact with the star.

As the police investigation heated up, officers honed in on them by tracking taxis that were in the area at around the time of the incident.

In particular, a ride-share the brothers took to the location gave police their details.

They were then picked up when they returned to Chicago on February 13.

Once in custody, they told police that Smollett had hired them and said it was because he wanted a higher salary.

Smollett, a vocal Trump critic, said his attackers shouted 'This is MAGA country!' and later suggested he was targeted because he is so critical of the president 

Smollett, a vocal Trump critic, said his attackers shouted ‘This is MAGA country!’ and later suggested he was targeted because he is so critical of the president 

He paid them a reported $3,500 to carry out the attack, they said, and promised them $500 more when they returned from their trip.

Smollett is in custody awaiting his first court appearance on felony charges of filing a false police report. He will appear before a judge at 1.30pm. 

His lawyers issued a statement on Wednesday to protest his innocence and condemn the police for leaking so many details of the investigation.

During the press conference, Superintendent Johnson revealed Smollett went from being treated as the victim in the case to a suspect when the brothers ‘confessed’ the ‘entire plot’ in the final hour of a 48 hour hold.

That is when they, in their lawyer’s words, ‘manned up’ and revealed that they had been hired to carry out the attack by the actor himself.

Smollett actually furthered the investigation along by going on Good Morning America and confirming that the two people in a grainy surveillance footage still were the men who attacked him.

He was unaware when he made the remark that Chicago PD had identified those men as the Osundairo brothers and that they had them in custody.

‘I come to you today not only as the Superintendent of Chicago Police Department but as a black man who has spent his entire life living in the city of Chicago.

‘I know the racial divide. I know how hard it has been for our city and our nation to come together.

‘Empire actor Jussie Smollett took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career.

‘I’m left hanging my head and asking why? Why would anyone, especially an African American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations?

Chicago PD also shared this map of Smollett's movements on the night of the attack and show where it happened. The cameras in the area where it happened were not facing him, to his dismay

Another map shows where the assailants were dropped off in a ride-share, top right, then walked to the attack and fled to get in another taxi afterwards 

Another map shows where the assailants were dropped off in a ride-share, top right, then walked to the attack and fled to get in another taxi afterwards

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him 'shameful' and 'despicable' 

Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson tore through Smollett at a press conference on Thursday where he labeled him ‘shameful’ and ‘despicable’

‘I love the city of Chicago, warts and all, but this publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve.

‘The accusations within this phony attack received national attention for weeks…Celebrities, news commentators and even presidential candidates weighed in on something that was choreographed by an actor,’ he went on.

 When we discovered the actual motive, it p****d everybody off
 Chicago Police Department Superintendent Eddie T. Johnson

He added that he was ‘angry and offended’ and said it was a travesty that other crimes do not garner as much attention.

‘I just wish that the families of the victims of gun violence in this city got as much attention. That is who really deserves this amount of attention.’

He was emphatic, later, about the fact that no other investigations suffered as a result of Smollett’s claims, but said: ‘Bogus police reports cause real harm.

‘They do harm to ever legitimate victim who is in need of support by police.’

Johnson finished his remarks by saying: ‘I’ll continue to pray for this troubled young man who resorted to both drastic and illegal tactics to gain attention.

Police say Smollett cut his own cheek to make it look like he had suffered injuries in the attack. He is shown in a hospital bed selfie FaceTiming Lee Daniels, the show's creator, hours after the attack 

Police say Smollett cut his own cheek to make it look like he had suffered injuries in the attack. He is shown in a hospital bed selfie FaceTiming Lee Daniels, the show’s creator, hours after the attack

‘I’ll also continue to pray for our city asking that we can move forward from this and begin to heal.’

Police examined footage from 55 surveillance cameras, obtained more than 50 search warrants and conducted more than 100 interviews.

If convicted, Smollett may be asked to repay the money that was spent investigating the crime.

Smollett has not made any statements since he was taken into custody.

His lawyers said on Wednesday night that he would fight the charges with an ‘aggressive defense’.

In previous statements, his representatives have angrily hit out at the media and insisted that he is the victim.

Within hours of him being charged, Smollett’s attorneys arranged for him to hand himself in quietly at Chicago’s 1st District afterwards.

He appeared in his mugshot wearing a black puffer jacket, staring blankly at the camera.

After being processed at the station, he was transferred to the Cook County courthouse where he will appear at 1.30pm. He is being held separately from other detainees.

20th Century Fox, which released a statement hours before he was charged to say it was standing by him, is now reportedly suspending the actor.

20th Century Fox said on Thursday that it was now considering its options. It had been standing by the actor 

20th Century Fox said on Thursday that it was now considering its options. It had been standing by the actor

A press conference is scheduled for 9am CT during which detectives will give more details about the arrest. It is not yet known where he was or what time he was taken into custody.

‘Like any other citizen, Mr. Smollett enjoys the presumption of innocence, particularly when there has been an investigation like this one where information, both true and false, has been repeatedly leaked,’ the actor’s attorneys Todd Pugh and Victor Henderson said.

‘Given these circumstances, we intend to conduct a thorough investigation and to mount an aggressive defense.’

The Osundairo brothers testified before the grand jury for about two and a half hours on Wednesday.

Addressing reporters outside afterwards, their attorney Gloria Schmidt said they’d ‘manned up’ by speaking out against Smollett.

The rope they put around Smollett's neck was bought in this hardware store 

The rope they put around Smollett’s neck was bought in this hardware store 

They have not been arrested or charged and their lawyer said they had not been offered any form of immunity deal in exchange for testifying against Smollett. 

‘There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said: “We’re gonna correct this.”

‘Plea deal, immunity, all of that — they don’t’ care about that.’

She said that Smollett was lying, and that she didn’t know how his conscience could let him sleep at night.

There was a point where this story needed to be told and they manned up and they said, “we’re going to correct this”
Gloria Schmidt, lawyer for two Nigerian brothers

‘I think Jussie’s conscience is not letting him sleep right now and he should unload that conscience and come out and tell the American people what happened,’ she added.

‘I think the biggest thing for the American people to know. Is that this story, has a lot of complications to it.

‘We’re not trying to hide anything from the press. But we wanted to make sure that everything checked out.

‘When I say that the police spent countless man-hours trying to piece this together, I mean that, I absolutely mean that.

‘When I say that my clients spent countless hours getting their story out there to the police so that they could do their work, I mean that, too,’ she said.

The brothers’ testimony came after footage emerged of them buying ski masks, a red hat and gloves in a store the day before the attack.

The brothers said Smollett also sent himself this letter to the Fox studio where Empire is filmed a week before the attack. If he did, he faces another 5-10 years in prison on a federal mail fraud charge 

The brothers said Smollett also sent himself this letter to the Fox studio where Empire is filmed a week before the attack. If he did, he faces another 5-10 years in prison on a federal mail fraud charge

Abel and Ola Osundairo's lawyers said on Wednesday night that they 'manned up' by telling police that Smollett paid them 

Abel and Ola Osundairo’s lawyers said on Wednesday night that they ‘manned up’ by telling police that Smollett paid them. Ola once appeared on the show as an extra. He is shown with creator Lee Daniels, right

It was taken on January 28 and shows brothers Abel and Ola Osundairo inside what looks like a drug store buying the masks and one hat.

Smollett told police that he was attacked by two masked assailants who punched him, poured bleach on him, tied a noose around his neck and called him ‘Empire n****r f****t’.

No footage has ever emerged of the incident itself.

In the video taken inside the store the day earlier, the brothers look calm as they bring the items to the register.

Smollett follows the brothers' joint Instagram account where they post videos and photographs of themselves working out 

Smollett follows the brothers’ joint Instagram account where they post videos and photographs of themselves working out

Abel, whose full name is Abimbola, is dressed in a blue plaid jacket. About 30 seconds into the video, he puts his hood up while standing at the register.

His younger brother Ola, who once appeared on Empire as an extra, is in a green jacket.

The brothers were picked up by police at Chicago O’Hare Airport on Wednesday night as they returned from Nigeria.

Police seized a red hat from the brothers’ home along with ski masks when they raided it last week.  Smollett said his attackers were wearing masks but there was not a description of a red hat in the initial reports.

Police have since shared their belief that at least one of them was wearing a red hat at the time of the attack.

Smollett’s family, many of whom are also actors, have spoken out repeatedly in support of him since the January 29 attack as have many of his co-stars on Empire.

Among them is Gabby Sidibe, his roommate at one time, who said on Instagram on Wednesday: ‘I know him. I believe him.’

Fox also insisted that he was not being written out of the show, as had been claimed, and called him a ‘consummate professional’ in a statement.

Smollett’s lawyers include Mark Geragos, who has represented Michael Jackson and Colin Kaepernick, in the past.

Last Thursday, the actor wept as he said 'who the f*** would make that up' when addressing the skepticism surrounding his version of events during an interview on Good Morning America. He has also called himself the 'gay Tupac' and issued statements via attorneys and representatives condemning coverage of the incident 

When news of the attack first emerged on January 29 and 30, Smollett was inundated with support across the political spectrum.

Among those who tweeted their condemnation of him were Democratic presidential hopefuls Kamala Harris and Cory Booker.

But as days went by with no suspects on the horizon, details about the case and the police’s investigation into it began to cast doubt on Smollett’s version of events.

One of the earliest sources of speculation was the fact that Smollett waited 42 minutes to call the police then refused to hand over his phone to the police for them to verify his story.

He then handed over redacted files that police described as ‘insufficient’.

Frustrated with the coverage of his case, he hit out at the media for reporting on leaked information coming from within the Chicago police department and insisted he was the victim.

He then went on Good Morning America to protest his innocence.

In an hour-long interview with Robin Roberts, he wept as he recalled the attack and abhorred the reaction to it.

CELEBRITIES REACT TO JUSSIE SMOLLETT’S ARREST

Celebrities have lashed out at Empire actor Jussie Smollett following his arrest after many of them publicly voiced support for him when he first claimed he had been targeted in a racist and homophobic attack.

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth.

Perry added that the evidence seemed to contradict Smollett’s version and that he was ‘lost for words’.

‘I have personally spoken to Jussie, and he is adamant that he’s telling the truth. Also, everyone that I know who knows him says that he is not the kind of person who would make up such a horrible and awful thing,’ he said.

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor's face imposed on the cover of the rapper's album, saying: 'All Liez On Me'

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’

Snoopdog posted a Scooby Doo cartoon with Smollett's face edited in

 

Snoopdog posted a Scooby Doo cartoon with Smollett’s face edited in

 

‘Yet the evidence seems to state otherwise. I’m lost for words. To stoke fears and raise racial tensions is wrong in every situation on ALL SIDES! Yet my prayers are still with him and his family and our Nation.’

Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments.

‘What upsets me about this Jussie situation is that people were genuinely worried about you man. And the things that you said happened could have led to some serious outcomes. People were prepared to fight for you bruh. Things coulda got ugly…… and you made it up.

‘The world has plenty of real monsters. You don’t have to make up any. And what for? Just further dividing people for personal gain? It sucks for the people who actually have to deal with that type of hate.

‘And why did you call yourself the gay Tupac. What does Tupac have to do with anything that happened to you? Did you do this to sell records bro? Did you fake a hate crime, Enrage the Black community. The LBGT community and anti-Trump community just to sell records bruh?

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth but later added that the evidence seemed to tell a different story

Actor and comedian Tyler Perry penned a lengthy Facebook post saying he had personally spoken to Smollett who insisted he was telling the truth but later added that the evidence seemed to tell a different story

Straight Outta Compton actor O'Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments

Straight Outta Compton actor O’Shea Jackson Jr was scathing in a series of lengthy tweets about the developments

‘People could’ve gotten hurt. Thinking they’re protesting and standing up for you. This is not a game.’

Smollett had compared himself to Tupac during a performance in West Hollywood earlier this month. He ended his set saying he fought back against his so-called attackers and said he was ‘the gay Tupac’.

50 Cent mocked Smollett and his Tupac reference with an Instagram photo of the actor’s face imposed on the cover of the rapper’s album, saying: ‘All Liez On Me’.

Andy Cohen tweeted that his ‘head is exploding’ following news of Smollett’s arrest before calling the story ‘pathetic’.

Actor Patton Oswalt retweeted a tweet from President Donald Trump, saying: ‘Way to go Jussie. You just handed this racist dips**t a ‘Get Out Of Race-Baiting Free’ card that he’s gonna wave around like a soiled diaper until he’s re-elected.’

Trump had tweeted: ‘.@JussieSmollett – what about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA’.

Choking back tears, he explained when asked why it took so long for him to contact the authorities: ‘There is a level of pride there.

‘We live in a society where as a gay man you are considered somehow to be weak and I am not weak. I am not weak and we as a people are not weak.’

Later, he added how desperate he was for them to find footage of the attack.

‘I want that video found so badly because, for probably four reasons.

‘Number one, I want them to find the people that did it.

‘Number two, I want them to stop being able to say ‘alleged’ attack.

‘Number three,  I want them to see that I fought back,’ he continued, welling-up.

‘I want a little gay boy who might watch this to see that I fought the f*** back. They ran off,’ I didn’t,’ he said.

After it emerged that Smollett knew the brothers and may have been involved in the staging of the attack, the celebrities and politicians who rushed to support him walked back their claims.

Nancy Pelosi deleted her tweet about it and Cory Booker said he would now be ‘withholding judgement’ until more information emerged.

Kamala Harris said, when questioned about her tweet that it was a ‘modern day lynching’, that she was ‘very concerned’.

Key moments in reported attack on actor Jussie Smollett

 January 29, 2019

Smollet is seen with a cut cheek on Jan. 29

Smollet is seen with a cut cheek on Jan. 29

Jussie Smollett tells Chicago police he was physically attacked by two men in downtown Chicago while walking home from getting food from a Subway restaurant at 2am.

The black and openly gay actor tells authorities the men used racial and homophobic slurs, wrapped a rope around his neck and poured an ‘unknown substance’ on him.

Smollett told detectives that the attackers yelled he was in ‘MAGA country,’ an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s ‘Make America Great Again’ campaign slogan, which some critics of Trump have claimed is a racist dog whistle.

January 30

Chicago police say they’ve reviewed hundreds of hours of surveillance camera footage, including of Smollett walking downtown, but none of the videos show the attack.

Police obtain and release images of two people they would like to question.

Reports of Smollett’s attack draw outrage and support on social media, including from U.S. Senators Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, and Elizabeth Warren.

Both Booker and Harris called the incident a ‘modern day lynching’.

Joe Biden said: ‘We must stand up and demand that we no longer give this hate safe harbor; that homophobia and racism have no place on our streets or in our hearts.’

Police released this image of 'persons of interest' taken near the reported attack

Police released this image of ‘persons of interest’ taken near the reported attack

January 31

Trump tells reporters at the White House that he saw a story the night before about Smollett and that, ‘It doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.’

Smollett’s family issues a statement calling the attack a racial and homophobic hate crime.

Smollett’s family says he ‘has told the police everything’ and ‘his story has never changed,’ disputing assertions leveled on social media that he has been less than cooperative and changed his story.

February 1

Smollett issues a statement telling people that he is OK and thanking them for their support.

He says he is working with authorities and has been ‘100 percent factual and consistent on every level.’

February 2

Smollett gives sold-out concert in West Hollywood, California, opening with an emotional speech, saying he had to play the show because he couldn’t let his attackers win.

At the end of the set, he announces that he fought back against his attackers, calling himself ‘the gay Tupac’.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters is in attendance at the concert.

Smollet is seen performing on February 2, where he called himself 'the gay Tupac'

Smollet is seen performing on February 2, where he called himself ‘the gay Tupac’

February 5th: Chicago PD releases incident report which reveals Smollett did not want to call police. There is no mention of the MAGA country remark which he gave in a follow-up interview

Brandon Z. Moore, his manager, gives police a screenshot to prove their call.

February 11th: Smollett finally hands over redacted phone records to prove the phone call but police label them ‘insufficient’.

His neighbors say they don’t believe his version of events.

February 12th: Smollett’s rep releases statement to say he is the victim and that he has been telling the truth

February 14th:  Good Morning America airs the full interview with Smollett, in which he blasts speculation that the attack was staged as itself racist and hateful.

Hours later, it emerges that two Nigerian brothers were picked up at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport on their return from Nigeria the night before.

Cops identify the two men as the individuals seen in the surveillance images released from the night of January 29 but will not share their names.

Two television stations in Chicago simul report the widespread belief among investigators that Smollett staged the attack as a hate hoax.

Chicago’s police superintendent later said that he had no evidence to prove that the attack was a hoax.

Producers of ‘Empire’ dispute media reports that Smollett’s character was being written off the show.

High-powered criminal defense attorney Michael Monico reveals that he is representing Smollett.

Brothers Olabinjo 'Ola' Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola 'Abel' Osundairo, 25, were detained by police on February 13

Brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25, were detained by police on February 13

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers' Chicago home

 

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers' Chicago home

 

Police logs show the items that cops seized from the Nigerian brothers’ Chicago home

February 15

DailyMail.com confirms they are brothers Olabinjo ‘Ola’ Osundairo, 27, and Abimbola ‘Abel’ Osundairo, 25. 

Later, Chicago police spokesman Anthony Guglielimi says the two ‘persons of interest’ are now considered suspects. He says the men are in custody but have not been charged with a crime.

Chicago police release two men without charges after arresting them on suspicion of assaulting Smollett and holding them for nearly 48 hours. 

A police spokesman said the two are no longer considered suspects and that investigators have ‘new evidence’ to consider as a result of questioning them.

February 16

A police spokesman said that the investigation had ‘shifted’ after detectives questioned the two brothers about the attack and released them without charges.

Smollett hired Michael Cohen’s high-powered criminal defense attorney, Michael Monico, as the police investigation into the attack he reported last month took a sudden shift amid allegations of a hoax.

Smollett’s lawyers said on Saturday the actor felt ‘victimized by reports he played a role in the assault, and that Smollett would continue cooperating with police.

February 17

A police spokesman said that Chicago police have told Smollett’s attorneys they want to do a follow-up interview with the actor.

A spokesperson for Smollett’s lawyers said she couldn’t comment on whether Smollett had agreed to another interview.

This is the letter Smollett allegedly received at the Fox studio, a week before the January 29 incident. No photographs of it emerged until after the alleged attack. He reported the letter to the police when he received it along with Empire producer Dennis Hammer 

This is the letter Smollett allegedly received at the Fox studio, a week before the January 29 incident. No photographs of it emerged until after the alleged attack. He reported the letter to the police when he received it along with Empire producer Dennis Hammer

February 18 

Stars and politicians who spoke out in support of Smollett walk back their condemnation of the attack amid growing suspicion that it is a hate hoax

February 19 

Cook County State's Attorney Kim Foxx  recused herself from the Smollett case

Cook County State’s Attorney Kim Foxx  recused herself from the Smollett case

The Osundairo brothers speak with police and prosecutors in Chicago but are halted at the last minute before going to testify before a grand jury.

Smollett hires Colin Kaepernick’s attorney Mark Geragos and his legal team present a ‘hail Mary’ piece of evidence which stops the brothers’ testimony

State’s Attorney Kimberly Foxx recuses herself from the case citing her ‘familiarity with potential witnesses’

Leaked information from the brothers’ meetings with prosecutors and police emerges. They reportedly claimed Smollett was involved in sending himself the letter on January 22

February 20 

Fox says Smollett is not being written out of Empire contrary to reports and Smollett’s co-stars speak out in support of him.

He is named as a suspect later in the afternoon and the brothers are seen entering grand jury offices at the courthouse.

Smollett is criminally charged with filing a false police report, a Class 4 felony which carries a maximum penalty of three years imprisonment and a $25,000 fine.

February 21 

Smollett hands himself in to police at 5am.

Prosecutor: Actor Gave Detailed Instructions For Fake Attack

CHICAGO (AP) — “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett gave detailed instructions to two brothers who helped him stage a racist, anti-gay attack on himself, including giving them specific slurs to yell, telling them to shout “MAGA country” and pointing out a surveillance camera that he thought would record the beating, a prosecutor said Thursday.

Police said Smollett planned the hoax because he was unhappy with his salary and wanted to promote his career. Before the attack, he also sent a letter that threatened him to the Chicago studio where “Empire” is shot, police said.

Smollett, who is black and gay, turned himself in to face accusations that he filed a false police report last month when he told authorities he was attacked in downtown Chicago by two masked men who hurled racist and anti-gay slurs and looped a rope around his neck, police said.

The actor “took advantage of the pain and anger of racism to promote his career,” police Superintendent Eddie Johnson said.

“This publicity stunt was a scar that Chicago didn’t earn and certainly didn’t deserve,” he added.

As part of the instructions, Smollett also told the brothers to put the rope around his neck, Assistant State’s Attorney Risa Lanier told a news conference.

His plans for the surveillance camera were thwarted. Police say it was pointed another way and did not have a view of the beating.

At Smollett’s first court appearance, a judge set bond at $100,000, meaning that he had to post $10,000 to be released. Smollett’s attorneys asked for him to be freed on his own recognizance, but the judge, who is also black, rejected that idea and said he was particularly bothered by the allegations involving the noose.

Smollett, who was released a couple of hours after the hearing, said little during the proceedings, except to state his name. The actor, his attorneys and supporters left without speaking to reporters.

One of the attorneys, Jack Prior, told the judge that Smollett “maintains these are outrageous allegations” and denies they are true.

The FBI has been investigating the threatening letter. Johnson would not say whether Smollett could face additional charges for that.

The companies that make “Empire,” Fox Entertainment and 20th Century Fox Television, issued a statement Thursday saying that they were “evaluating the situation” and “considering our options.”

In less than a month, Smollett went from being the seemingly sympathetic victim of a hate crime to being accused of fabricating the entire thing. The 36-year-old was charged Wednesday with felony disorderly conduct, a charge that could bring up to three years in prison and force the actor to pay for the cost of the investigation into his report of a Jan. 29 beating.

Police treated Smollett as a victim until the two brothers , who had been taken into custody for questioning, admitted to helping him stage the attack, Johnson said.

It was the brothers who also explained Smollett’s motive to detectives. Authorities have a check for $3,500 that Smollett paid the brothers, he said.

Smollett, who plays a gay character on the show that follows a black family as they navigate the ups and downs of the recording industry, said he was attacked as he was walking home from a downtown Subway sandwich shop. He said the men yelled “This is MAGA country” — an apparent reference to President Donald Trump’s campaign slogan, “Make America Great Again” — before fleeing.

In describing what police believe actually happened, Johnson made it sound as if Smollett was casting and directing a short movie.

“He probably knew he needed somebody with bulk,” he said of Smollett’s decision to hire the two muscular brothers. Police have said at least one of the brothers worked on “Empire,” and Smollett’s attorneys said one of the men is the actor’s personal trainer.

The brothers, who are not considered suspects, wore gloves during the staged attack and “punched him a little bit,” Johnson said. The scratches and bruising Smollett had on his face were “most likely self-inflicted,” Johnson said.

Detectives found the two brothers after reviewing hundreds of hours of video. They released images of two people they said they wanted to question and last week picked up the pair at O’Hare Airport as they returned from Nigeria. Police questioned the men and searched their apartment.

The brothers, who were identified by their attorney as Abimbola “Abel” and Olabinjo “Ola” Osundairo, were held for nearly 48 hours on suspicion of assaulting Smollett.

The two appeared before a grand jury on Wednesday to “lock in their testimony,” according to police spokesman Anthony Guglielmi. Smollett was charged by prosecutors, not the grand jury.

Speaking outside the courthouse where the grand jury met, the brothers’ attorney said the two men testified for about two and a half hours.

“There was a point where this story needed to be told, and they manned up and they said we’re going to correct this,” Gloria Schmidt said.

She said her clients did not care about a plea deal or immunity. “You don’t need immunity when you have the truth,” she said.

Smollett has been active in LBGTQ issues, and initial reports of the assault drew outrage and support for him on social media, including from Sen. Kamala Harris of California and TV talk show host Ellen DeGeneres.

Referring to a published account of the attack, Trump said last month that “it doesn’t get worse, as far as I’m concerned.” On Thursday, he tweeted to Smollett: “What about MAGA and the tens of millions of people you insulted with your racist and dangerous comments!? #MAGA.”

https://hosted.ap.org/article/7f419a0f017e4f7b933167f2e206de43/empire-actor-goes-victim-accused-felon-3-weeks

Hate crime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

hate crime (also known as a bias-motivated crime or bias crime[1]) is a prejudice-motivated crime which occurs when a perpetrator targets a victim because of his or her membership (or perceived membership) in a certain social group or race.

Examples of such groups can include and are almost exclusively limited to: sexethnicitydisabilitylanguagenationalityphysical appearancereligiongender identity or sexual orientation.[2][3][4] Non-criminal actions that are motivated by these reasons are often called “bias incidents“.

“Hate crime” generally refers to criminal acts which are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the social groups listed above, or by bias against their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullyingharassmentverbal abuse or insultsmate crime or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[5]

hate crime law is a law intended to deter bias-motivated violence.[6] Hate crime laws are distinct from laws against hate speech: hate crime laws enhance the penalties associated with conduct which is already criminal under other laws, while hate speech laws criminalize a category of speech. Hate speech laws exist in many countries. In the United States, hate crime laws have been upheld by both the Supreme Court [7] and lower courts, especially in the case of ‘fighting’ words and other violent speech, but they are thought by some people to be in conflict with the First Amendment right to freedom of speech, but hate crimes are only regulated through threats of injury or death.[8]

History

The term “hate crime” came into common usage in the United States during the 1980s, but the term is often used retrospectively in order to describe events which occurred prior to that era.[9] From the Roman persecution of Christians to the Nazi slaughter of Jews, hate crimes were committed by both individuals and governments long before the term was commonly used.[4] A major part of defining a crime as a hate crime is that it is directed toward a historically oppressed group.[10][11]

As Europeans began to colonize the world from the 16th century onwards, indigenous peoples in the colonized areas, such as Native Americans increasingly became the targets of bias-motivated intimidation and violence.[citation needed] During the past two centuries, typical examples of hate crimes in the U.S. include lynchings of African Americans, largely in the South, and lynchings of Mexicans and Chinese in the Westcross burnings to intimidate black activists or to drive black families from predominantly white neighborhoods both during and after Reconstructionassaults on white people traveling in predominantly black neighborhoods; assaults on lesbiangaybisexual and transgender people; the painting of swastikas on Jewish synagogues; and xenophobic responses to a variety of minorityethnic groups.[12]

Postcard of the Duluth lynchings of African-American men on June 15, 1920

The verb “to lynch” is attributed to the actions of Charles Lynch, an 18th-century Virginia Quaker. Lynch, other militia officers, and justices of the peace rounded up Tory sympathizers who were given a summary trial at an informal court; sentences handed down included whipping, property seizure, coerced pledges of allegiance, and conscription into the military. Originally, the term referred to extrajudicial organized but unauthorized punishment of criminals. It later evolved to describe execution outside “ordinary justice.” It is highly associated with white suppression of African Americans in the South, and periods of weak or nonexistent police authority, as in certain frontier areas of the Old West.[4]

The murders of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and the Wichita Massacre were not classified as “hate crimes” by U.S. investigative officials or the media. In the early 21st century, conservative commentators David HorowitzMichelle Malkin (Fox News channel and author) and Stuart Taylor Jr. (journalist) did describe these events as “hate crimes against whites by blacks.”[13]

Psychological effects

Hate crimes can have significant and wide-ranging psychological consequences, not only for their direct victims but for others as well. A 1999 U.S. study of lesbian and gay victims of violent hate crimes documented that they experienced higher levels of psychological distress, including symptoms of depression and anxiety, than lesbian and gay victims of comparable crimes which were not motivated by antigay bias.[14] A manual issued by the Attorney-General of the Province of Ontario in Canada lists the following consequences:[15]

Impact on the individual victim
psychological and affective disturbances; repercussions on the victim’s identity and self-esteem; both reinforced by a specific hate crime’s degree of violence, which is usually stronger than that of a common crime.
Effect on the targeted group
generalized terror in the group to which the victim belongs, inspiring feelings of vulnerability among its other members, who could be the next hate crime victims.
Effect on other vulnerable groups
ominous effects on minority groups or on groups that identify themselves with the targeted group, especially when the referred hate is based on an ideology or a doctrine that preaches simultaneously against several groups.
Effect on the community as a whole
divisions and factionalism arising in response to hate crimes are particularly damaging to multicultural societies.

Hate crime victims can also develop depression and psychological trauma.[16]

A review of European and American research indicates that terrorist bombings cause Islamophobia and hate crimes to flare up but, in calmer times, they subside again, although to a relatively high level.[17] Terrorist’s most persuasive message is that of fear and fear, a primary and strong emotion, increases risk estimates and has distortive effects on the perception of ordinary Muslims.[17] Widespread Islamophobic prejudice seems to contribute to anti-Muslim hate crimes, but indirectly: terrorist attacks and intensified Islamophobic prejudice serve as a window of opportunity for extremist groups and networks.[17]

Laws

Hate crime laws generally fall into one of several categories:

  1. laws defining specific bias-motivated acts as distinct crimes;
  2. criminal penalty-enhancement laws;
  3. laws creating a distinct civil cause of action for hate crimes; and
  4. laws requiring administrative agencies to collect hate crime statistics.[18] Sometimes (as in Bosnia and Herzegovina), the laws focus on war crimesgenocide, and crimes against humanity with the prohibition against discriminatory action limited to public officials.

Eurasia

European Union

Since 2002, with an amendment to the Convention on Cybercrime, the European Union mandates individual states to punish as a crime hate speech done through the internet.[19]

Andorra

Discriminatory acts constituting harassment or infringement of a person’s dignity on the basis of origin, citizenship, race, religion, or gender (Penal Code Article 313). Courts have cited bias-based motivation in delivering sentences, but there is no explicit penalty enhancement provision in the Criminal Code. The government does not track hate crime statistics, although they are relatively rare.[18]

Armenia

Armenia has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes with ethnic, racial, or religious motives (Criminal Code Article 63).[18]

Austria

Austria has a penalty-enhancement statute for reasons like repeating a crime, being especially cruel, using others’ helpless states, playing a leading role in a crime, or committing a crime with racist, xenophobic or especially reprehensible motivation (Penal Code section 33(5)).[20]

Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, or religious hatred (Criminal Code Article 61). Murder and infliction of serious bodily injury motivated by racial, religious, national, or ethnic intolerance are distinct crimes (Article 111).[18]

Belarus

Belarus has a penalty-enhancement statute for crimes motivated by racial, national, and religious hatred and discord.[18][21]

Belgium

Belgium‘s Act of 25 February 2003 (“aimed at combating discrimination and modifying the Act of 15 February 1993 which establishes the Centre for Equal Opportunities and the Fight against Racism”) establishes a penalty-enhancement for crimes involving discrimination on the basis of gender, supposed race, color, descent, national or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, civil status, birth, fortune, age, religious or philosophical beliefs, current or future state of health and handicap or physical features. The Act also “provides for a civil remedy to address discrimination.”[18] The Act, along with the Act of 20 January 2003 (“on strengthening legislation against racism”), requires the Centre to collect and publish statistical data on racism and discriminatory crimes.[18]

Bosnia and Herzegovinavina (enacted 2003) “contains provisions prohibiting discrimination by public officials on grounds, inter alia, of race, skin colour, national or ethnic background, religion and language and prohibiting the restriction by public officials of the language rights of the citizens in their relations with the authorities (Article 145/1 and 145/2).”[22]

Bulgaria

Bulgarian criminal law prohibits certain crimes motivated by racism and xenophobia, but a 1999 report by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance found that it does not appear that those provisions “have ever resulted in convictions before the courts in Bulgaria.”[23]

Croatia

The Croatian Penal Code explicitly defines hate crime in article 89 as “any crime committed out of hatred for someone’s race, skin color, sex, sexual orientation, language, religion, political or other belief, national or social background, asset, birth, education, social condition, age, health condition or other attribute”.[24] On 1 January 2013, a new Penal Code was introduced with the recognition of a hate crime based on “race, skin color, religion, national or ethnic background, sexual orientation or gender identity”.[25]

Czech Republic

The Czech legislation finds its constitutional basis in the principles of equality and non-discrimination contained in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Basic Freedoms. From there, we can trace two basic lines of protection against hate-motivated incidents: one passes through criminal law, the other through civil law. The current Czech criminal legislation has implications both for decisions about guilt (affecting the decision whether to find a defendant guilty or not guilty) and decisions concerning sentencing (affecting the extent of the punishment imposed). It has three levels, to wit:

  • circumstance determining whether an act is a crime – hate motivation is included in the basic constituent elements. If hate motivation is not proven, conviction for a hate crime is not possible.
  • circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty – a hate motivation is included in the qualified constituent elements for some types of crimes (murder, bodily harm). If hate motivation is not proven, the penalty is imposed according to the scale specified for the basic constituent elements of the crime.
  • general aggravating circumstance – the court is obligated to take the hate motivation into account as a general aggravating circumstance and determines the amount of penalty to impose. Nevertheless, it is not possible to add together a general aggravating circumstance and a circumstance determining the imposition of a higher penalty. (see Annex for details)

Current criminal legislation does not provide for special penalties for acts that target another by reason of his sexual orientation, age or health status. Only the constituent elements of the criminal offense of Incitement to hatred towards a group of persons or to the curtailment of their rights and freedoms, and general aggravating circumstances include attacking a so-called different group of people. Such a group of people can then, of course, be also one defined by sexual orientation, age or health status. A certain disparity has thus been created between, on the one hand, those groups of people who are victimized by reason of their skin color, faith, nationality, ethnicity or political persuasion and enjoy increased protection, and, on the other hand, those groups that are victimized by reason of their sexual orientation, age or health status and are not granted increased protection. This gap in protection against attacks motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation, age or health status cannot be successfully bridged by interpretation. Interpretation by analogy is inadmissible in criminal law, sanctionable motivations being exhaustively enumerated.[26]

Denmark

Although Danish law does not include explicit hate crime provisions, “section 80(1) of the Criminal Code instructs courts to take into account the gravity of the offence and the offender’s motive when meting out penalty, and therefore to attach importance to the racist motive of crimes in determining sentence.”[27] In recent years judges have used this provision to increase sentences on the basis of racist motives.[18][28]

Since 1992, the Danish Civil Security Service (PET) has released statistics on crimes with apparent racist motivation.[18]

Estonia

Under section 151 of the Criminal Code of Estonia of 6 June 2001, which entered into force on 1 September 2002, with amendments and supplements and as amended by the Law of 8 December 2011, “activities which publicly incite to hatred, violence or discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, colour, sex, language, origin, religion, sexual orientation, political opinion, or financial or social status, if this results in danger to the life, health or property of a person, are punishable by a fine of up to 300 fine units or by detention”.[29]

Finland

Finnish Criminal Code 515/2003 (enacted January 31, 2003) makes “committing a crime against a person, because of his national, racial, ethnical or equivalent group” an aggravating circumstance in sentencing.[18][30] In addition, ethnic agitation (Finnishkiihotus kansanryhmää vastaan) is criminalized and carries a fine or a prison sentence of not more than two years. The prosecution need not prove that an actual danger to an ethnic group is caused but only that malicious message is conveyed. A more aggravated hate crime, warmongering (Finnishsotaan yllyttäminen), carries a prison sentence of one to ten years. However, in case of warmongering, the prosecution must prove an overt act that evidently increases the risk that Finland is involved in a war or becomes a target for a military operation. The act in question may consist of

  1. illegal violence directed against a foreign country or its citizens,
  2. systematic dissemination of false information on Finnish foreign policy or defense
  3. public influence on the public opinion towards a pro-war viewpoint or
  4. public suggestion that a foreign country or Finland should engage in an aggressive act.[31]

Nepal

France

In 2003, France enacted penalty-enhancement hate crime laws for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s actual or perceived ethnicity, nation, race, religion, or sexual orientation. The penalties for murder were raised from 30 years (for non-hate crimes) to life imprisonment (for hate crimes), and the penalties for violent attacks leading to permanent disability were raised from 10 years (for non-hate crimes) to 15 years (for hate crimes).[18][32]

Georgia

“There is no general provision in Georgian law for racist motivation to be considered an aggravating circumstance in prosecutions of ordinary offenses. Certain crimes involving racist motivation are, however, defined as specific offenses in the Georgian Criminal Code of 1999, including murder motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 109); infliction of serious injuries motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 117); and torture motivated by racial, religious, national or ethnic intolerance (article 126). ECRI reported no knowledge of cases in which this law has been enforced. There is no systematic monitoring or data collection on discrimination in Georgia.”[18]

Germany

The German Criminal Code does not have hate crime legislation, but instead criminalizes hate speech under a number of different laws, including Volksverhetzung. In the German legal framework motivation is not taken into account while identifying the element of the offence. However, within the sentencing procedure the judge can define certain principles for determining punishment. In section 46 of the German Criminal Code it is stated that “the motives and aims of the perpetrator; the state of mind reflected in the act and the willfulness involved in its commission.”[33] can be taken into consideration when determining the punishment; under this statute, hate and bias have been taken into consideration in sentencing in past cases.[34]

Hate crimes are not specifically tracked by German police, but have been studied separately: a recently published EU “Report on Racism” finds that racially motivated attacks are frequent in Germany, identifying 18,142 incidences for 2006, of which 17,597 were motivated by right wing ideologies, both about a 14% year-by-year increase.[35] Relative to the size of the population, this represents an eightfold higher rate of hate crimes than reported in the US during the same period.[36] Awareness of hate crimes and right-wing extremism in Germany remains low.[37]

Greece

Article Law 927/1979 “Section 1,1 penalises incitement to discrimination, hatred or violence towards individuals or groups because of their racial, national or religious origin, through public written or oral expressions; Section 1,2 prohibits the establishment of, and membership in, organisations which organise propaganda and activities aimed at racial discrimination; Section 2 punishes public expression of offensive ideas; Section 3 penalises the act of refusing, in the exercise of one’s occupation, to sell a commodity or to supply a service on racial grounds.”[38] Public prosecutors may press charges even if the victim does not file a complaint. However, as of 2003, no convictions had been attained under the law.[39]

Hungary

Violent action, cruelty, and coercion by threat made on the basis of the victim’s actual or perceived national, ethnic, religious status or membership in a particular social group are punishable under article 174/B of the Hungarian Criminal Code.[18] This article was added to the Code in 1996.[40]

Iceland

Section 233a of the Icelandic Penal Code states “Anyone who in a ridiculing, slanderous, insulting, threatening or any other manner publicly abuses a person or a group of people on the basis of their nationality, skin colour, race, religion or sexual orientation, shall be fined or jailed for up to two years.”[41]

India

In past few years, a number of hate crimes in India against minority communities especially against Muslims and Christians rise tremendously. To monitor this rising trend of hate crime based on religious identity a web portal is launched name DOTO Database to track these incidents.[42]

From the 3035 reported incidents August 2018, 1892 were Muslims. That is 62% of the total violence and 740 were Christians. That is 24% of the total violence.[43]

Ireland

“The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989″ makes it an offense to incite hatred against any group of persons on account of their race, color, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, ethnic or national origins, or membership of the Traveller community, an indigenous minority group.”[18]

Ireland does not systematically collect hate crime data.[18]

Italy

Italian criminal law, at Section 3 of Law No. 205/1993, the so-called Legge Mancino (Mancino law), contains a penalty-enhancement provision for all crimes motivated by racial, sex/gender, ethnic, national, or religious bias.[18]

Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan, there are constitutional provisions prohibiting propaganda promoting racial or ethnic superiority.[18]

Kyrgyzstan

In Kyrgyzstan, “the Constitution of the State party prohibits any kind of discrimination on grounds of origin, sex, race, nationality, language, faith, political or religious convictions or any other personal or social trait or circumstance, and that the prohibition against racial discrimination is also included in other legislation, such as the Civil, Penal and Labour Codes.”[44]

Article 299 of the Criminal Code defines incitement to national, racist, or religious hatred as a specific offense. This article has been used in political trials of suspected members of the banned organization Hizb-ut-Tahrir.[18][45]

Russia

Article 29 of the penal code of the Russian Federation bans incitement to riot for the sake of stirring societal, racial, ethnic, and religious hatred as well as the promotion of the superiority of the same. Article 282 further includes protections against incitement of hatred (including gender) via various means of communication, instilling criminal penalties including fines and imprisonment.[46]

Spain

Article 22(4) of the Spanish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s ideology, beliefs, religion, ethnicity, race, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, illness or disability.[18]

Sweden

Article 29 of the Swedish Penal Code includes a penalty-enhancement provision for crimes motivated by bias against the victim’s race, color, nationality, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, or “other similar circumstance” of the victim.[18][47]

Ukraine

I. “Constitution of Ukraine :

The most important law of the Ukraine country : the “Constitution of Ukraine” guarantees protection against Hate crime :

“Constitution of Ukraine :

Article 10 : “In Ukraine, free development, use and protection of Russian and other languages of national minorities of Ukraine are guaranteed”.

Article 11 : “The state shall promote the development of ethnic, cultural, linguistic and religious identity of all indigenous peoples and national minorities of Ukraine”.

Article 24 :”There can be no privileges or restrictions on the grounds of race, color of the skin, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”.[48]

II. “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :

in Ukraine, all criminal punishments for crimes committed under the law are required to be registered in only one law, it is the only one: “CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE”

The crimes committed for Hate crime reinforce the punishment in many articles of the criminal law. There are also separate articles on punishment for Hate crime.

“CRIMINAL CODEX OF UKRAINE” :

Article 161 : “Violations of equality of citizens depending on their race, nationality, religious beliefs, disability and other grounds

1. Intentional acts aimed at incitement to national, racial or religious hatred and violence, to humiliate national honor and dignity, or to repulse citizens’ feelings due to their religious beliefs, as well as direct or indirect restriction of rights or the establishment of direct or indirect privileges citizens on the grounds of race, color, political, religious or other beliefs, sex, disability, ethnic or social origin, property status, place of residence, language or other grounds”(Maximum criminal sentence of up to 8 years in prison)

Article 300 : “Importation, manufacture or distribution of works promoting a cult of violence and cruelty, racial, national or religious intolerance and discrimination” (Maximum criminal sentence of up to 5 years in prison)[49]

United Kingdom

For EnglandWales, and Scotland, the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 makes hateful behaviour towards a victim based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) in a racial group or a religious group an aggravation in sentencing for specified crimes.[50] The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (c. 24) amended sections of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.[51] For Northern Ireland, Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 (S.I. 1987/463 (N.I. 7)) serves the same purpose.[52] A “racial group” is a group of persons defined by reference to race, colour, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins. A “religious group” is a group of persons defined by reference to religious belief or lack of religious belief. The specified crimes are assault, criminal damage, offences under the Public Order Act 1986, and offences under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Sections 145 and 146 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 require a court to consider whether a crime which is not specified by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is racially or religiously aggravated, and to consider whether the following circumstances were pertinent to the crime:

(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on—

(i) the sexual orientation (or presumed sexual orientation) of the victim, or
(ii) a disability (or presumed disability) of the victim, or
(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly)—

(i) by hostility towards persons who are of a particular sexual orientation, or
(ii) by hostility towards persons who have a disability or a particular disability.[53][54]

The Crime Survey for England and Wales (CSEW) reported in 2013 that there are an average of 278,000 hate crimes a year with 40% being reported according to a victims survey, although police records only identified around 43,000 hate crimes a year.[55] It was widely reported that police recorded a 57% increase in hate crime complaints in the four days following the UK’s European Union membership referendum, however a press release from the National Police Chief’s Council stated that “this should not be read as a national increase in hate crime of 57 per cent”.[56][57]

In 2013, Greater Manchester Police began recording attacks on goths, punks and other alternative culture groups as hate crimes.[58]

On December 4, 2013 Essex Police launched the ‘Stop the Hate’ initiative as part of a concerted effort to find new ways to tackle hate crime in Essex. The launch was marked by a conference in Chelmsford, hosted by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, which brought together 220 delegates from a range of partner organisations involved in the field. The theme of the conference was ‘Report it to Sort it’ and the emphasis was on encouraging people to tell police if they have been a victim of hate crime, whether it be based on race, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or disability.[59]

Crown Prosecution Service guidance issued on 21 August 2017 stated that online hate crimes should be treated as seriously as offences in person.[60]

Perhaps the most high-profile hate crime in modern Britain occurred in ElthamLondon, on 24 April 1993, when 18-year-old black student Stephen Lawrence was stabbed to death in an attack by a gang of white youths. Two white teenagers were later charged with the murder, and at least three other suspects were mentioned in the national media, but the charges against them were dropped within three months after the Crown Prosecution Service concluded that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. However, a change in the law a decade later allowed a suspect to be charged with a crime twice if new evidence emerged after the original charges were dropped or a “not guilty” verdict was delivered in court. Gary Dobson, who had been charged with the murder in the initial 1993 investigation, was found guilty of Stephen Lawrence’s murder in January 2012 and sentenced to life imprisonment, as was David Norris, who had not been charged in 1993. A third suspect, Luke Knight, had been charged in 1993 but was not charged when the case came to court nearly 20 years later.

Scotland

Under Scottish Common law[citation needed] the courts can take any aggravating factor into account when sentencing someone found guilty of an offence. There is legislation dealing with the offences of incitement of racial hatred, racially aggravated harassment, prejudice relating to religious beliefs, disability, sexual orientation, and transgender identity.[61] A Scottish Executive working group examined the issue of hate crime and ways of combating crime motivated by social prejudice, reporting in 2004.[62] Its main recommendations were not implemented, but in their manifestos for the Scottish Parliament election, 2007 several political parties included commitments to legislate in this area, including the Scottish National Party who now form the Scottish Government. The Offences (Aggravation by Prejudice) (Scotland) Bill was introduced on 19 May 2008 by Patrick Harvie MSP,[63] having been prepared with support from the Scottish Government, and was passed unanimously by the parliament on 3 June 2009.[64]

Eurasian countries with no hate crime laws[edit]

A photograph of the famous fresco Bathing of the Christ, after being vandalized by a Kosovo Albanian mobduring the 2004 unrest in Kosovo

AlbaniaCyprusSan MarinoSlovenia and Turkey have no hate crime laws.[18]

North America

Canada

“In Canada the legal definition of hate crime can be found in sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code”. [65]

In 1996 the federal government amended a section of the Criminal Code that pertains to sentencing. Specifically, section 718.2. The section states (with regard to the hate crime):

A court that imposes a sentence shall also take into consideration the following principles:

(a) a sentence should be increased or reduced to account for any relevant aggravating or mitigating circumstances relating to the offence or the offender, and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,

(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor, . . . shall be deemed to be aggravating circumstances.” [65]

A vast majority (84 per cent) of hate crime perpetrators were “male, with an average age of just under 30. Less than 10 of those accused had criminal records, and less than 5 per cent had previous hate crime involvement (ibid O’Grady 2010 page 163.).” [66] “Only 4 percent of hate crimes were linked to an organized or extremist group (Silver et al., 2004).” [67]

As of 2004, Jewish people were the largest ethnic group targeted by hate crimes, followed by blacks, Muslims, South Asians, and homosexuals (Silver et al., 2004).[67]

During the Nazi regime, anti-Semitism was a cause of hate related violence in Canada. For example, on August 16, 1933 there was a baseball game in Toronto and one team was made up of mostly Jewish players. At the end of the game, a group of Nazi sympathizers unfolded a Swastika flag and shouted ‘Heil Hitler’. That event erupted into a brawl that had Jews and Italians against Anglo Canadians and the brawl went on for hours.[65]

The first time someone was charged with hate speech over the internet occurred on 27 March 1996. “A Winnipeg teenager was arrested by the police for sending an email to a local political activist that contained the message ‘Death to homosexuals’ it’s prescribed in the Bible! Better watch out next Gay Pride Week.’ (Nairne, 1996).”[67]

United States

Shepard (center), Louvon Harris (left), Betty Bryd Boatner (right) with President Barack Obama in 2009 to promote the Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Hate crime laws have a long history in the United States. The first hate crime[68] laws were passed after the American Civil War, beginning with the Civil Rights Act of 1871, to combat the growing number of racially motivated crimes being committed by the Reconstruction era Ku Klux Klan. The modern era of hate-crime legislation began in 1968 with the passage of federal statute, 18 U.S. 245, part of the Civil Rights Act which made it illegal to “by force or by threat of force, injure, intimidate, or interfere with anyone who is engaged in six specified protected activities, by reason of their racecolorreligion, or national origin.” However, “The prosecution of such crimes must be certified by the U.S. attorney general.”.[69]

The first state hate-crime statute, California’s Section 190.2, was passed in 1978 and provided for penalty enhancement in cases where murder was motivated by prejudice against four “protected status” categories: race, religion, color, and national origin. Washington included ancestry in a statute passed in 1981. Alaska included creed and sex in 1982 and later disabilitysexual orientation, and ethnicity. In the 1990s some state laws began to include agemarital status, membership in the armed forces, and membership in civil rights organizations.[70]

Criminal acts which could be considered hate crimes in various states included aggravated assaultassault and batteryvandalismrapethreats and intimidationarsontrespassingstalking, and various “lesser” acts until in 1987 California state legislation included all crimes as possible hate crimes.[71]

Defined in the 1999 National Crime Victim Survey, “A hate crime is a criminal offense. In the United States, federal prosecution is possible for hate crimes committed on the basis of a person’s race, religion, or nation origin when engaging in a federally protected activity.” In 2009, the Matthew Shepard Act added actual or perceived gendergender identitysexual orientation, and disability to the federal definition, and dropped the prerequisite that the victim be engaging in a federally protected activity.

Forty-five states and the District of Columbia have statutes criminalizing various types of hate crimes. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have statutes creating a civil cause of action in addition to the criminal penalty for similar acts. Twenty-seven states and the District of Columbia have statutes requiring the state to collect hate crime statistics.[72]

According to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics report for 2006, hate crimes increased nearly 8% nationwide, with a total of 7,722 incidents and 9,080 offenses reported by participating law enforcement agencies. Of the 5,449 crimes against persons, 46% were classified as intimidation and 32% as simple assaults. 81% of the 3,593 crimes against property were acts of vandalism or destruction.[73]

However, according to the FBI Hate Crime Statistics for 2007, the number of hate crimes decreased to 7,624 incidents reported by participating law enforcement agencies.[74] These incidents included 9 murders and 2 rapes(out of the almost 17,000 murders and 90,000 forcible rapes committed in the U.S. in 2007).[75]

Attorney General Eric Holder said in June 2009 that recent killings show the need for a tougher U.S. hate crimes law to stop “violence masquerading as political activism”.[76]

The 2011 hate crime statistics show 46.9% were motivated by race and 20.8% by sexual orientation.[77]

In 2015, the Hate Crimes Statistics report identified 5,818 single-bias incidents involving 6,837 offenses, 7,121 victims, and 5,475 known offenders[78]

Prosecutions of hate crimes have been difficult in the United States. Recently though, state governments have attempted to re-investigate and re-try past hate crimes. One prominent example is Mississippi’s decision in 1990 to retry Byron De La Beckwith for the murder of Medgar Evers, a prominent figure in the NAACP.[79] This would be the first time in U.S. history that an unresolved civil rights case would be re-opened. Byron De La Beckwith, a member of the Ku Klux Klan, was tried for the murder on two previous occasions and it resulted with a hung jury. However, he was finally sentenced to life in prison in 1994. Presented with testimony of two FBI informants who had infiltrated the KKK, the missing transcript from the first trial, the relocation of missing witnesses, numerous witness admissions of Beckwith bragging about his role in the murder and Beckwith’s own racist writings, a mixed race jury found Beckwith guilty of murder. Even though De La Beckwith was 73 years of age when he was sentenced to life in prison, the 1994 conviction has been interpreted as a way for Mississippi to shed its racist past.[80]

According to a November 2016 report issued by the FBI hate crime statistics are on the rise in the United States.[81] The number of hate crimes increased from 5,850 in 2015, to 6,121 hate crime incidents in 2016, an increase of 4.6 percent.[82][83][84]

Victims in the United States

One of the largest waves of hate crimes took place during the civil rights movement. During the 1950s and 1960s, both violence and threats of violence were common against African Americans, and hundreds of lives were lost due to such acts. Members of this social class faced violence from groups such as the Ku Klux Klan as well as violence from individuals who were committed to maintaining segregation.[85] At the time, civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and their supporters fought hard for the right of African Americans to vote as well as for equality in their everyday lives. African Americans have been the target of hate crimes since the Civil War,[86] and the humiliation of this social class was also desired by many Anti-black individuals. Other frequently reported bias motivations were bias against a religion, bias against a particular sexual orientation, and bias against a particular ethnicity/national origin.[87] At times, these bias motivations overlapped, because violence can be both anti-gay and anti-black, for example.[88]

Analysts have compared groups in terms of the per capita rate of hate crimes committed against them, to allow for differing populations. Overall, the total number of hate crimes committed since the first hate crime bill was passed in 1997 is 86,582.[89] David Ray Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Hate Crimes in the US (2008–2012) by Population Group
Population Group Estimated Population Total Hate Crimes Against (2008-2012)[90][91][92][93][94] Rate (per 100,000 people) Violent Hate Crimes Against[95] Rate (per 100,000 people)
Jewish 5,248,674[96] 4,457 84.9 411 7.8
LGBT 9,000,000[97] 7,231 66.9 3,849 35.6
Muslim 1,852,473[96] 761 41.1 258 13.9
Black 38,929,319[98] 13,411 34.4 4,356 11.2
Aboriginal 2,932,248[98] 364 12.4 161 5.5
Hispanic 50,477,594[98] 3,064 6.1 1,482 2.9
Asian & Pacific Islander 15,214,265[98] 798 5.2 276 1.8
White 223,553,265[98] 3,459 1.5 1,614 0.7
Catholic 67,924,018[99] 338 0.5 32 0.0
Atheist & Agnostic 17,598,496[99] 47 0.3 5 0.0
Protestant 148,197,858[99] 229 0.2 17 0.0

Among the groups currently mentioned in the Hate Crimes Statistics Act, the largest number of hate crimes are committed against African Americans.[100] During the Civil Rights Movement, some of the most notorious hate crimes included the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the 1964 murders of Charles Moore and Henry Dee, the 1963 16th Street Baptist Church bombing, the 1955 murder of Emmett Till,[86] as well as the burning of crosses, churches, Jewish synagogues and other places of worship of minority religions. Such acts began to take place more frequently after the racial integration of many schools and public facilities.[100]

High-profile murders targeting victims based on their sexual orientation have prompted the passage of hate crimes legislation, notably the cases of Sean W. Kennedy and Matthew Shepard. Kennedy’s murder was mentioned by Senator Gordon Smith in a speech on the floor of the US Senate while he advocated such legislation. The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act was signed into law in 2009. It included sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, the disabled, and military personnel and their family members.[101][citation needed] This is the first all-inclusive bill ever passed in the United States, taking 45 years to complete.[clarification needed]

Gender-based crimes may also be considered hate crimes. This view would designate rape and domestic violence, as well as non-interpersonal violence against women such as the École Polytechnique massacre in Quebec, as hate crimes.[102][103][104]

In May 2018, ProPublica reviewed police reports for 58 cases of purported anti-heterosexual hate crimes. ProPublica found that about half of the cases were anti-LGBT hate crimes that had been miscategorized, and that the rest were motivated by hate towards Jews, blacks or women or that there was no element of a hate crime at all. ProPublica found not a single case of a hate crime spurred by anti-heterosexual bias.[105]

South America

Brazil

In Brazil, hate crime laws focus on racism, racial injury, and other special bias-motivated crimes such as, for example, murder by death squads[106] and genocide on the grounds of nationalityethnicity, race or religion.[107] Murder by death squads and genocide are legally classified as “hideous crimes” (crimes hediondos in Portuguese).[108]

The crimes of racism and racial injury, although similar, are enforced slightly differently.[109] Article 140, 3rd paragraph, of the Penal Code establishes a harsher penalty, from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum of 3 years, for injuries motivated by “elements referring to race, color, ethnicityreligion, origin, or the condition of being an aged or disabled person“.[110] On the other side, Law 7716/1989 covers “crimes resulting from discrimination or prejudice on the grounds of race, color, ethnicity, religion, or national origin”.[111]

In addition, the Brazilian Constitution defines as a “fundamental goal of the Republic” (Article 3rd, clause IV) “to promote the well-being of all, with no prejudice as to origin, race, sex, color, age, and any other forms of discrimination”.[112]

Chile

In 2012, the Anti-discrimination law amended the Criminal Code adding a new aggravating circumstance of criminal responsibility, as follows: “Committing or participating in a crime motivated by ideology, political opinion, religion or beliefs of the victim; nation, race, ethnic or social group; sex, sexual orientationgender identity, age, affiliation, personal appearance or suffering from illness or disability.”[113][114]

Middle East

Israel is the only country in the middle east who has hate crime laws. Hate crime, as passed by the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), is defined as crime for reason of race, religion, gender and sexual orientation

Support for and opposition to hate crime laws

Support[edit]

Justifications for harsher punishments for hate crimes focus on the notion that hate crimes cause greater individual and societal harm.[citation needed] It is said[115] that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people.[citation needed] Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[12] The beating of white truck driver Reginald Denny by black rioters during the same riot is also an example that supports this argument.

In Wisconsin v. Mitchell, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found that penalty-enhancement hate crime statutes do not conflict with free speech rights, because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression; rather, they allow courts to consider motive when sentencing a criminal for conduct which is not protected by the First Amendment.[116] Whilst in the case of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire the court defined “fighting words” as “those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.”[117]

Opposition

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously found the St. Paul Bias-Motivated Crime Ordinance amounted to viewpoint-based discrimination in conflict with rights of free speech, because it selectively criminalized bias-motivated speech or symbolic speech for disfavored topics while permitting such speech for other topics.[118] Many critics further assert that it conflicts with an even more fundamental right: free thought. The claim is that hate-crime legislation effectively makes certain ideas or beliefs, including religious ones, illegal, in other words, thought crimes.[119][120] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crimes criminalize certain dispositions yet do not show why hate is a morally worse disposition for a crime than one motivated by jealousy, greed, sadism or vengeance or why hatred and bias are uniquely responsive to criminal sanction compared to other motivations. Hurd argues that whether or not a disposition is worse than another is case sensitive and thus it is difficult to argue that some motivations are categorically worse than others.[121]

In their book Hate Crimes: Criminal Law and Identity PoliticsJames B. Jacobs and Kimberly Potter criticize hate crime legislation for exacerbating conflicts between groups. They assert that by defining crimes as being committed by one group against another, rather than as being committed by individuals against their society, the labeling of crimes as “hate crimes” causes groups to feel persecuted by one another, and that this impression of persecution can incite a backlash and thus lead to an actual increase in crime.[122] Jacobs and Potter also argued that hate crime legislation can end up only covering the victimization of some groups rather than all, which is a form of discrimination itself and that attempts to remedy this by making all identifiable groups covered by hate crime protection thus make hate crimes co-terminus with generic criminal law. The authors also suggest that arguments which attempt to portray hate crimes as worse than normal crimes because they spread fear in a community are unsatisfactory, as normal criminal acts can also spread fear yet only hate crimes are singled out.[122] Indeed it has been argued that victims have varied reactions to hate crimes, so it is not necessarily true that hate crimes are regarded as more harmful than other crimes.[123][124] Heidi Hurd argues that hate crime represents an effort by the state to encourage a certain moral character in its citizen and thus represents the view that the instillation of virtue and the elimination of vice are legitimate state goals, which she argues is a contradiction of the principles of liberalism. Hurd also argues that increasing punishment for an offence because the perpetrator was motivated by hate compared to some other motivation means that the justice systems is treating the same crime differently, even though treating like cases alike is a cornerstone of criminal justice[125]

Some have argued hate crime laws bring the law into disrepute and further divide society, as groups apply to have their critics silenced.[126] American forensic psychologist Karen Franklin said that the term hate crime is somewhat misleading since it assumes there is a hateful motivation which is not present in many occasions;[127] in her view, laws to punish people who commit hate crimes may not be the best remedy for preventing them because the threat of future punishment does not usually deter such criminal acts.[128] Some on the political left have been critical of hate crime laws for expanding the criminal justice system and dealing with violence against minority groups through punitive measures.[6]

See also

References

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

Story 2: Open Border Democrats and Republicans Are Supporting Drug Cartels By Aiding and Abetting Criminal Illegal Alien and Illegal Drug Smuggling — Videos

Six illegal immigrants linked to notorious Mexican drug cartel are arrested for trafficking meth and cocaine after police sting

  • Cops arrested Oscar, Regulo, Raul, and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez in a raid
  • They also busted Francisco Garcia-Martinez and Rodolfo Martinez in the bust
  • The gang transported huge amounts of cocaine and meth to Charlotte, NC

Six illegal immigrants linked to one of Mexico‘s most dangerous cartels have been arrested in North Carolina during a drug trafficking operation – it has been revealed. 

Police documents revealed by WSOC show that the operation involved the transportation of large amounts of cocaine and methamphetamine to Charlotte, North Carolina.

The suspects were identified as Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez, Regulo Rangel-Gutierrez, Francisco Garcia-Martinez, Rodolfo Martinez, Raul Rangel-Gutierrez and Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez. 

Oscar Rangel-Gutierrez (left), Rodolfo Martinez (center), and Regulo Rangel Gutierrez (right)

Federal officials said more than 1,800 grams of meth were delivered from Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez's home in Statesville in August and October last year

Federal officials said more than 1,800 grams of meth were delivered from Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez’s home in Statesville in August and October last year

‘Members of the investigative team believe – based on wire intercepts, surveillance and other facts discovered from the investigation – that Oscar and Regulo transport illicit proceeds, derived from the sales of narcotics, when they travel from Myrtle Beach to Charlotte,’ the court documents read.

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally..

The person who lived there, Oscar Rangel-Guiterrez, is an alleged high-level cartel member.

Francisco Garcia-Martinez (left), Rigoberto Rangel-Gutierrez (center) and Raul Rangel-Gutierrez (right)

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally

Court documents indicated that Rangel-Guiterrez and the five other suspects were in the country illegally

Misty Joyner, who reportedly lived near the home in Charlotte where investigators said Rangel-Gutierrez stored drug money, was in disbelief about her neighbors.

‘Just devastating,’ Joyner told WSOC. ‘They were good people.’

The group were said to have been affiliated with the Jalisco New Generation cartel which has been engaged in a blood feud with ‘El Chapo’s’ infamous Sinaola cartel.

Sinaloa’s leader, Guzman, was convicted last Tuesday in New York, likely meaning he will spend decades behind bars in the United States.

The group were said to have links to El Chapo who was convicted by a New York court last week

The group were said to have links to El Chapo who was convicted by a New York court last week

Story 3: Under Communist China’s Social Credit System Jussie Smollett Would Be Labeled As Untrustworthy And Unable To Travel Because of A Low Social Credit Score Due To Criminal Behavior and Blacklist Banning — Vast Surveillance Facial Recognition System — Safe, Secure, State Socialism in The Police Surveillance State of Communist China — Videos

China: facial recognition and state control | The Economist

Trust and consequences: China’s evolving ‘social credit system’

Everyone In China Is Getting A ‘Social Credit Score’

 China bans millions with low ‘social credit’ from rail, air travel | Al Jazeera English

China Behavior Rating System V/S Sweden Microchip implants | Must watch technology

China rolls out social credit system to spy on population

Inside China’s High-Tech Dystopia

China’s social credit system shows its teeth, banning millions from taking flights, trains

  • Annual report shows the businesses and individuals added to trustworthiness blacklist as use of the government system accelerates
  • System aims to pressure citizens to avoid bad behaviour, although human rights advocates argue it does not take into account individual circumstances

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1213

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 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 1209, February 15, 2019, Story 1: President Trump Declares National Emergency Over Cartel Massive Smuggling of Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Over U.S./Mexican Border For Decades — Total of $8 Billion in Funding Should Build At Least 400 Miles of New Border Barrier To Stop Invasion of United States — Videos

Posted on February 16, 2019. Filed under: American History, Budgetary Policy, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Deep State, Disasters, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Killing, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Public Corruption, Public Relations, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1209 February 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Story 1: President Trump Declares National Emergency Over Cartel Massive Smuggling of Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Over U.S./Mexican Border For Decades — Reprograms $8 Billion of Defense and Homeland Security Funds To Build Border Barrier To Stop Invasion of United States — Videos

 President Donald Trump speaks during an event in the Rose Garden at the White House, in Washington, Feb. 15, 2019. See the source imageImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrier rollover republicansImage result for president trump signs national emergencyImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrier rollover republicansImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrierImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrier rollover republicansImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrier rollover republicansImage result for branco cartoons mexican drug cartels trump border barrier rollover republicans

Trump’s full speech declaring a national emergency for border wall funding

Rush Limbaugh on whether Trump is justified in securing wall funding

Hannity: My message to the media

The Rush Limbaugh Show Friday – Feb 15, 2019

Trump Declares National Emergency, Claims Media Backers Don’t Influence Decisions | THR News

Graham: Trump made “persuasive case” for national emergency

WHERE THE $8 BILLION COMES FROM

$1.375 billion will come from the Homeland Security appropriations bill

$600 million from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund

$2.5 billion from the Defense Department’s drug interdiction program

$3.6 billion  from the Defense Department’s military construction budget

Trump declares a national emergency at the border to get $8 BILLION for his wall, claiming it will stop an ‘invasion’ but is sued immediately by California and told by Democrats he is ‘shredding the constitution’

  • President signed emergency declaration, taking control of the border battle 
  • Congress gave him less than $1.4 billion in funding for his wall
  • He’ll supplement that with another $6.5 billion in repurposed money from existing accounts that Congress never intended for use building barriers
  • President continues to insist the nation is being invaded by illegal immigrants and that most of the country’s drug epidemic is fueled by border-jumpers
  • Pointed to ‘Angel moms’ in the front row of the White House Rose Garden, holding up pictures of loved ones killed by illegal immigrants
  • Predicted he would be sued in federal court for redirecting money to his wall project, just like with his travel ban 

President Donald Trump announced a national emergency on the border on Friday, a move calculated to allow him to spend $8 billion building his wall after signing a bill to avoid a second government shutdown after a bitter standoff with Congress.

He signed the declaration behind closed doors prior to a Rose Garden announcement, which he delayed while he met with women whose children were either killed by illegal immigrants or died because of drug cartels.

‘We’re going to be signing today, and registering, national emergency. And, it’s a great thing to do, because we have an in of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it’s not acceptable,’ the president said.

Congress appropriated $1.375 billion that Trump can use for ‘bollard’ fencing in a spending bill that has not reached the president’s desk, yet, but is expected to make its way to him before funding for a host of federal agencies runs out at midnight.

Trump is cobbling together the rest of the money through a patchwork operation that has him taking $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund and $2.5 billion from an account within the Department of Defense that is used for counter-drug activities, in order to build his wall. Another $3.6 billion will come from DOD’s military construction and facility improvement funds.

Democratic lawmakers are already plotting to void his national emergency through legislation that would call it off. Opponents of the policy are also hustling to put together legal challenges.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer immediately characterized it as an ‘unlawful declaration over a crisis that does not exist’ that makes America less safe.

‘This is plainly a power grab by a disappointed President, who has gone outside the bounds of the law to try to get what he failed to achieve in the constitutional legislative process,’ they said in a joint statement.

Video playing bottom right…

President Donald Trump announced a national emergency on the border to allow him to spend $8 billion building his wall after signing a bill to avoid a government shutdown after bitter standoff with Congress

President Donald Trump announced a national emergency on the border to allow him to spend $8 billion building his wall after signing a bill to avoid a government shutdown after bitter standoff with Congress

Trump signed the national emergency declaration before his Rose Garden remarks

Trump signed the national emergency declaration before his Rose Garden remarks

The president's Rose Garden announcement turned into a news conference, with him fielding questions on his national emergency declaration

The president’s Rose Garden announcement turned into a news conference, with him fielding questions on his national emergency declaration

An hour after the president’s Rose Garden event, the state of California said it would sue. The state of Washington signaled that it could do the same.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) also said it was filing suit against the Department of Justice.

‘Americans deserve to know the true basis for President Trump’s unprecedented decision to enact emergency powers to pay for a border wall,’ the organization’s executive director, Noah Bookbinder, said in a statement. ‘We’re suing because the government has so far failed produce the requested documents or provide an explanation for their delay.’

Free-speech organization, the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit, as well.

Trump acknowledged in his announcement that the national emergency he signed today would end up in court before the Ninth Circuit and eventually make its way to the Supreme Court.

‘So the order is signed. And I’ll sign the final papers as soon as I get into the Oval Office,’ the president said. ‘And we will have a national emergency. And we will then be sued, and they will sue us in the Ninth Circuit even though it shouldn’t be there.’

The San Francisco-headquartered Court of Appeals has tripped up Trump’s other major executive orders, including his first travel ban.

Continuing to play out the court process aloud, the president said: ‘We will possibly get a bad ruling, and then we will get another bad ruling, and then we will end up in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we will get a fair shake, and we’ll win in the Supreme Court.’

Trump said he was confident that he would win at the high court, where two conservative justices he out on the bench are the deciders, just like he did before.

‘They sued us in the Ninth Circuit and we lost, and then we lost in the appellate division, and then we went to the Supreme Court and we won,’ he stated.

The president may have harmed his legal case with some of his own public statements, however.

He said during the press conference that followed his announcement, ‘I didn’t need to do this. But I’d rather get it done faster.’

Administration lawyers will face the burden in court with arguing that there is an authentic crisis on the border that required the emergency designation.

Taking on critics of the emergency and his instance that a border wall is the only way to stop it, he said, ‘It’s wrong. It’s wrong. It’s just a lie. It’s all a lie. They say walls don’t work. Walls work 100 percent.’

‘I’m going to be signing a national emergency, and it’s been signed many times before,’ he said several minutes in. ‘It’s rarely been a problem. They sign it, nobody cares.’

Trump said national emergencies have been used ‘many’ times by past presidents as he harangued Obama for the economic slowdown that hung like a dark cloud over much of his tenure.

He said he is considering a second emergency that would target to the cartels directly that is rooted in an emergency declaration his predecessor signed.

‘It’s a very good emergency that he signed. And we’re going to use parts of it on our dealings on cartels. But that would be a second national emergency,’ he said.

He claimed that the country was ‘heading south, and it was going fast’ under the previous administration. Trump meanwhile said that he’s done a ‘fantastic job’ and that he is making America great again despite facing significant hurdles.

Aside from the border, a problem for which Democrats have been loathe to provide him any money, he said, ‘We have so much money, we don’t know what to do with it.

‘I don’t know what to do with all the money they are giving us. It’s crazy,’ he bragged.

Then, in remarks pointed at former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, the president said that he didn’t have the best people by his side the first year and a half that he was on the job.

‘I was a little new to the job and profession. We had a little disappointment for the first year and a half, people that should have stepped up did not step up,’ he said. ‘It would have been easy. Not that easy, but it would have been a lot easier. Some people didn’t step up. We are stepping up now.’

He made it clear that he was thinking of someone specific: ‘I’m very disappointed in certain people, a particular one, for not having pushed this faster,’ he said.

Trump declined to say later if his criticism was meant for Ryan, who retired last month from Congress.

‘Let’s not talk about it. What difference does it make? They should have pushed it faster. They should have pushed it harder, and they didn’t. They didn’t. If they would have, it would have been a little bit better,’ the president said.

President Trump said he would like to take it a step further and pass a total overhaul of the immigration system.  ‘Maybe that is something we can all work on where we all get together and do major immigration reform,’ he observed.

It was hardly likely that Trump’s executive action was paving the path for new congressional partnerships.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat and senior senator who sits on the Judiciary committee, said the emergency is a ‘disturbing abuse of power’ that is the very definition of executive overreach.

‘I will do everything in my power to ensure this flagrant power grab is not successful and our democracy remains strong for generations to come,’ she said.

Democrats broadly panned the president’s claims in his speech as fiction and his executive order as a power grab.

‘There is no national emergency. No one who subscribes to reality can claim otherwise,’ Sen. Patrick Leahy, the Senate Appropriations Committee vice chairman, said.

Leahy said in Democrats’ official radio and television response to Trump’s weekly actions, ‘He failed to get a deal with his own party, even during the two years when Republicans controlled all levers of government. And he failed to get a deal now. The President’s inartful failure to get a deal does not justify him manufacturing a false national emergency.’

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leading the charge in the House to stop the executive action. She says she’ll introduce a resolution to terminate it.

She charged in a tweet: ‘ “I didn’t need to do this” is admitting this isn’t an emergency at all. “I didn’t need to do this” means he’s faking a crisis.’

House Judiciary Committee Democrats said late Friday afternoon that they’ll open an investigation.

They demanded that White House make its lawyer, Pat Cipollone, and Department of Justice officials involved in the declaration available for questioning in the coming days.

‘We believe your declaration of an emergency shows a reckless disregard for the separation of powers and your own responsibilities under our constitutional system,’ they said. ‘Congress has entrusted you and your predecessors with emergency authority in order to respond quickly and effectively to real crises, such as wars and natural disasters.’

Their committee has jurisdiction over the National Emergencies Act that Trump is tapping to build his wall. They said it was intended for ‘real crises’ such as natural disaster and not the fulfillment of political wish lists.

‘By fabricating an emergency in order to bypass the political process for allocating a budget,’ they wrote, ‘you appear to be abusing both this trust and your own oath of office.’

Trump’s delay in calling a national emergency after reopening the government following a partial shutdown angered some conservatives, as well.

Commentator Ann Coulter has been needling the president non-stop for failing to deliver on his most famous campaign promise. She said Friday that the national emergency declaration is a ‘scam’ that only the ‘stupidest people’ in his base will believe.

Trump dismissed Coulter as ‘off the reservation’ as he addressed reporters later in the day.

‘Anybody that knows her understands that. I haven’t spoken her. I don’t follow her,’ he said.

The president who spends several hours a day watching television has signaled that his views are being shaped by the coverage that his policies receive on channels like Fox News.

But he said Friday that neither they nor Coulter are pulling the strings within his administration. ‘They don’t decide policy,’ he said.

He was complimentary to Fox primetime hosts Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham and Tucker Carlson. However, the president openly mocked longtime radio host Rush Limbaugh and Coulter, telling one journalist, ‘I hardly know her.’

‘She is probably really nice. I just don’t have the time to speak to her. I have nothing against her,’ he added.

Appearing on Fox News during ‘The Daily Briefing’ later in the day, White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders said that Coulter doesn’t have any influence over the White House.

‘I don’t think Ann Coulter has any influence over the White House or influence over much of anything,’ Sanders said. ‘I don’t think she did before the president became the president and I don’t think she does now. I just don’t see her as being an influential voice in this country and certainly not one in this building.’

Coulter noted in a series of tweets that ’25th Amendment’ had been a trending topic on Twitter as she responded to the president’s derisive comments.

‘He seems to think “the reservation” is HIM, not his campaign promises,’ she tweeted.

She also claimed that the blame for the border wall fiasco lies at Trump’s feet, and not Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s or Ryan’s.

‘This is not Paul Ryan’s fault. It’s not Mitch McConnell’s fault. Trump ran AGAINST the GOP and won. Responsibility is 100% his,’ she said.

Conservatives like Coulter believe that Trump should have stayed the course on the government shutdown.

On Capitol Hill, Republican senators openly called the president’s national emergency declaration a mistake.

Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate from Maine, said prior to the announcement, ‘Such a declaration would undermine the role of Congress and the appropriations process.’

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio called it a ‘bad idea,’ and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul said he was ‘not in favor’ of one.

‘I wish he wouldn’t have done it,’ ex-Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley, the senior senator from Iowa, told Politico. ‘I imagine we’ll find out whether he’s got the authority to do it by the courts.’

Republican lawmakers sued Obama for overstepping on immigration. They say he ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution when he created DACA, a program that gave illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children proper papers.

The party’s sudden change of heart on executive power, at least from the perspective of President Trump, was the subject of mockery on Friday from Democrats.

‘Tonight, after years of complaining about executive overreach, President Trump decided to do just that by redirecting federal spending without Congressional approval,’ Pennsylvania Rep. Brendan Boyle said in a statement.

In declaring the national emergency, the president can claim as he seeks reelection that he did everything in his power, and beyond it, depending on what the courts determine, to build a border barrier, just like he promised he would, if they put him in office.

He insisted Friday that the election has nothing to do with his declaration.

‘I’ve already done a lot of wall, for the election — 2020. And the only reason we’re up here talking about this is because of the election, because they want to try and win an election, which it looks like they’re not going to be able to do,’ he said of the opposing political party.

Trump continued to insist Friday that he’s building a wall because it’s the best way to keep criminals from secretly entering the country.

‘Take a look at Israel. They’re building another wall. Their wall is 99.9 percent effective, they told me, 99.9 percent. That is what it would be with us, too,’ he said. ‘The only weakness is they go to a wall and then they go around the wall … It’s very simple.’

The president also returned to a claim that human traffickers are tying up women and taping their mouths so they can sneak them over the border in the back of trucks unnoticed.

‘You can’t take human traffic, women and girls, you can’t take them through ports of entry. You can’t have them tied up in the back seat of a car or a truck or a van. They open the door, they look. They can’t see three women with tape on their mouth or three women whose hands are tied. They go through areas where you have no wall. Everybody knows that,’ he claimed. ‘Nancy knows it. Chuck knows it. They all know it.’

The president’s contention has actually been disputed, and some theorists believe he or someone advising him took the talking point from a fictional film.

‘It’s all a big lie. It’s a big con game,’ Trump contended on Friday. ‘You don’t have to be very smart to know: You put up a barrier, the people come in and that’s it. They can’t do anything unless they walk left or right and they find an area where there’s no barrier and they come into the United States. Welcome!’

Members of "angel families" arrive with pictures of violent crime victims to listen to U.S. President Donald Trump deliver remarks on security at the U.S.-Mexico border in the Rose Garden

Trump met with the women before his Rose Garden remarks, which he was more than a half hour late to+7

Trump met with the women before his Rose Garden remarks, which he was more than a half hour late to

Trump continued to claim on Friday that a wall would be 99.9 percent effective at keeping criminals out

Trump continued to claim on Friday that a wall would be 99.9 percent effective at keeping criminals out

For weeks, the president had been suggesting he would declare an emergency on the border and made it official on Friday morning in a Rose Garden announcement.

Trump is pulling power from the National Emergencies Act, which U.S. presidents have used 58 time since its 1976 creation.

The checkerboard was set after Trump agreed to sign a bill to avoid another government shutdown. A national emergency was the only way he could secure the money for the wall in the fiscal year that covers 2020.

Pelosi called it an ‘end-run around the will of the people,’ speaking to reporters minutes after news of Trump’s position broke on Thursday, while warning it could come back to bite Republicans.

‘We will review our options, we’ll be prepared to respond appropriately to it,’ Pelosi said when asked about Trump’s planned emergency declaration.

The House speaker chaffed at the ‘precedent’ that the Republican president is establishing — she noted that Republican lawmakers have said that a national emergency is not their first preference for the very same reason.

‘I know the Republicans have some unease about it, no matter what they say. Because if the president can declare an emergency on something that he has created as an emergency, an illusion that he wants to convey, just think of what a president with different values can present to the American people,’ she said.

‘You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,’ Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.

‘That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,’ she threatened.

White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney told press during a call that preceded the president’s remarks that today’s action creates ‘zero precedent’ and Democrats would have declared national emergencies for their priorities already if they believed they had the authority to do so.

‘There’s been some concern in the media about whether this creates a dangerous precedent. It actually creates zero precedent. This is authority given to the president in law already,’ Mulvany said. ‘It’s not as if he just didn’t get when he wanted so he’s waving a magic wand and taking a bunch of money.’

Invoking the House speaker, he said, ‘I saw Nancy Pelosi yesterday aid this sets the precedent for the Democrats to declare a gun emergency the next time they’re in the Oval Office. That’s completely false.

‘If the Democrats could have figured out a way to do it they would have done that already. And the authority to do so has been on the books since ’76. So it’s not like they haven’t had a chance to do that already. There’s no precedential value to doing this.’

Hours after the president’s declaration, Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota said that it does, and the next executive from her party should issue a proclamation to protect the planet.

WHERE THE $8 BILLION COMES FROM

$1.375 billion will come from the Homeland Security appropriations bill

$600 million from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund

$2.5 billion from the Defense Department’s drug interdiction program

$3.6 billion  from the Defense Department’s military construction budget

‘Our next President should declare a #NationalEmergency on day 1 to address the existential threat to all life on the planet posed by Climate Change,’ she tweeted.

Trump quietly signed the national emergency proclamation from the Oval Office on Friday morning and gave his approval to the spending bill in the same manner hours later.

It only became public that Trump had signed the bill that keeps the lights on until the end of the current fiscal year, Sept. 30, when Sanders told reporters about it in a quick Q and A session immediately after her appearance on Fox.

Congress gave Trump $1.375 billion for ‘bollard’ fencing that he can deploy across 55 miles on the southern border in the legislation.

His national emergency will allow him to build more, if he can move the funds.

A senior White House official told reporters prior to the announcement that his goal is to build 234 miles of bollard fencing.

‘In terms of how many miles does this buy us, as you know we sent a request to the Hill for $5.7 billion that would have gotten us 234 miles. That’s our goal, to try to accomplish that amount of miles,’ the person said.

‘It’s going to be a little mix-and-match because instead of Congress just providing the money, the different pots have different authorizations for how and where we can use that money,’ the person explained. ‘And so we are in the process to make sure that we can make those dollars go as far as they possibly can. And we expect that they will be able to go farther than 234 miles.’

Speaker of the United States House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi signs a $328 billion spending bill to prevent another government shutdown Thursday 

PROCLAMATION DECLARING A NATIONAL EMERGENCY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THE U.S.

The current situation at the southern border presents a border security and humanitarian crisis that threatens core national security interests and constitutes a national emergency.

The southern border is a major entry point for criminals, gang members, and illicit narcotics.

The problem of large-scale unlawful migration through the southern border is long-standing, and despite the executive branch’s exercise of existing statutory authorities, the situation has worsened in certain respects in recent years.

In particular, recent years have seen sharp increases in the number of family units entering and seeking entry to the United States and an inability to provide detention space for many of these aliens while their removal proceedings are pending.

If not detained, such aliens are often released into the country and are often difficult to remove from the United States because they fail to appear for hearings, do not comply with orders of removal, or are otherwise difficult to locate.

In response to the directive in my April 4, 2018, memorandum and subsequent requests for support by the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Department of Defense has provided support and resources to the Department of Homeland Security at the southern border. Because of the gravity of the current emergency situation, it is necessary for the Armed Forces to provide additional support to address the crisis.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including sections 201 and 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), hereby declare that a national emergency exists at the southern border of the United States, and that section 12302 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretaries of the military departments concerned, subject to the direction of the Secretary of Defense in the case of the Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

To provide additional authority to the Department of Defense to support the Federal Government’s response to the emergency at the southern border, I hereby declare that this emergency requires use of the Armed Forces and, in accordance with section 301 of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1631), that the construction authority provided in section 2808 of title 10, United States Code, is invoked and made available, according to its terms, to the Secretary of Defense and, at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, to the Secretaries of the military departments.

I hereby direct as follows: Section 1. The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary of each relevant military department, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, shall order as many units or members of the Ready Reserve to active duty as the Secretary concerned, in the Secretary’s discretion, determines to be appropriate to assist and support the activities of the Secretary of Homeland Security at the southern border.

Sec. 2. The Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and, subject to the discretion of the Secretary of Defense, the Secretaries of the military departments, shall take all appropriate actions, consistent with applicable law, to use or support the use of the authorities herein invoked, including, if necessary, the transfer and acceptance of jurisdiction over border lands.

Sec. 3. This proclamation is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fifteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord two thousand nineteen, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-third.

DONALD J. TRUMP

The White House stressed on Friday that Trump is not taking the money from disaster relief funds for Puerto Rico or anywhere else.

It also couldn’t say what projects within the Department of Defense the money was being taken away from. They were merely described as ‘lower priority military construction projects’ such as facility improvements that can wait until next year.

‘So we’re going through a filter to ensure that nothing impacts lethality and readiness on the part of our military construction budget, which is a budget that’s substantially larger than $3.6 billion,’ an official said.

Senior administration officials cited two previous national emergencies, both declared by Republican presidents, as precedent for moving around funds.

President George H.W. Bush used the authority in November of 1990, when he declared certain chemical and biological weapons an emergency, an official said, and President George W. Bush tapped into federal funds in 2001.

‘Combined, this has been used to transfer $1.4 billion. So is not something that is unprecedented,’ an official said.

Trump is proposing to confiscate more than three times the combined amount for the border crisis — a total of $6.7 billion.

WHAT HAPPENS IF DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE A TRUMP-DECLARED BORDER ‘EMERGENCY’ IN COURT?

If President Trump declares that a national emergency exists on the U.S.-Mexico border, it’s likely that court challenges will quickly seek to stop him from exercising the powers federal law would give him.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said Thursday that ‘the Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts.’

Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1975 in order to force post-Watergate presidents to explain themselves if they claim powers beyond what Congress has authorized.

Trump would have to cite the specific laws he’s relying on for emergency spending power.

The most likely basis is found in Section 2808 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It allows presidents to order the Defense Department to ‘undertake military construction projects’ during times of emergency ‘that are necessary to support … use of the armed forces.’

Trump began sending military troops to the southern border last year, tasking them with supporting border patrol units. Among their jobs has been hanging more than 150 miles of razor wire as a barrier to protect the border agents.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who met with Trump in the Oval office on Thursday afternoon, said in a Feb. 4 speech ‘they’re putting up barbed wire. What’s the difference between barbed ware and a steel slat? I’m confident the president has the legal ability to do this.’

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Thursday that ‘it will be challenged in court and is of dubious constitutionality.’

Trump’s opponents will have to find a loophole in Section 2293 of Title 33, which allows presidents to repurpose military ‘civil works’ budgets to build ‘authorized’ projects ‘that are essential to the national defense.’

That law applies in times of war or ‘national emergency.’

The largely civilian Army Corps of Engineers has already spent the past 18 months contracting out the work of building miles of border walls. It’s the Pentagon’s civil-works construction agency

It’s unlikely a federal court would weigh in on whether Trump has the legal authority to use his own discretion in declaring declare a national emergency. The 1975 law leaves that judgment up to the White House.

Every president since Gerald Ford has used it at least once. Barack Obama did it 12 times. Americans are still living under the conditions of 31 of the 58 declared ’emergencies.’ The U.S. Supreme Court has never invalidated one.

But his opponents would likely argue that Section 2808 can’t be used to build permanent walls that go beyond what’s necessary to protect the troops on border deployments.

And lawyers will squabble over whether Section 2293’s reference to ‘national defense’ includes border security in the first place.

A White House official said Thursday that the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provided for wall construction along the border, is enough to show Congress has ‘authorized’ what Trump might want to fund unconventionally.

The official said the administration is betting that federal judges won’t want to weigh in on what is and is not related to national defense, a concept federal law has never clearly defined.

Trump said on Feb. 1 that while he expects legal challenges, ‘we have very, very strong legal standing to win.’

It would be ‘hard’ for Democrats to stymie him, he claimed, ‘but they tend to go to the Ninth Circuit,’ traditionally America’s most liberal and most often-overturned bank of judges.

‘And when they go to the Ninth Circuit, things happen.’

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6709325/Trump-announces-national-emergency-border.html

Trump Promised to ‘Build That Wall,’ Then Ran Out of Time and Options

The president’s declaration of a national emergency to fund a southern border barrier comes after divisions and competing priorities in the White House allowed the project to languish

President Trump during a rally Monday at the El Paso County Coliseum in El Paso, Texas. JOE RAEDLE/GETTY IMAGES

President Trump’s declaration of a national emergency to build a wall on the U.S. southern border comes after two years of political neglect of his signature campaign promise, lost amid competing priorities and divisions within his administration, according to current and former White House officials, lawmakers and congressional staffers.

Mr. Trump on Friday said the move would allow him to supplement the $1.38 billion allotted for border barriers in the spending package approved by Congress—far short of the $5.7 billion Mr. Trump wanted. “We’re talking about an invasion of our country,” Mr. Trump said speaking from the Rose Garden in urgent terms familiar during his campaign.

Yet in the two years since Mr. Trump took office, there had been no single official appointed within his administration to champion the wall. A revolving cast handled negotiations with Congress over paying for it. And the picture of what, exactly, the wall should be kept shifting. In late 2017, Mr. Trump talked privately to his staff about limiting the length of new wall construction because such natural barriers as a “valley of snakes” on the border already deterred passage.

The wall’s reemergence as a top priority within the White House came after the Republican Party’s loss of the House in November’s midterm election, and after goading from conservative media kept Mr. Trump focused on the border wall, current and former White House officials said.

Note: Due to the scale of the map, some gaps in the border fence may not be visible.

Sources: Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting and OpenStreetMap contributors (border fence); Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s LandScan population data (population density); U.S. Customs and Border Protection (border patrol sectors) Renée Rigdon/The Wall Street Journal

It wasn’t until December, as some government offices entered a 35-day shutdown amid the fight over wall funding, that Mr. Trump assembled a team of advisers devoted to getting it built. They turned out to be a divided group.

Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, pushed for a broader deal with Democrats to provide protections for some immigrants living in the U.S. without permission, while Vice President Mike Pence sought to limit the scope of the negotiations. Mr. Kushner cautioned the president about issuing a national emergency order; Mick Mulvaney, newly installed as acting chief of staff, pressed for it.

One senior White House official played down internal divisions. “We’re all been working different angles, because we have different relationships,” the official said. “We hoped to be more productive, but just haven’t been.”

Mr. Trump’s first-term wins had clear leaders: Former economic adviser Gary Cohn delivered on tax cuts. Former White House counsel Don McGahn shepherded two Supreme Court nominations onto the High Court, and Mr. Kushner is credited with pushing a criminal-justice overhaul that reduced prison sentences on some drug convictions.

The wall project had no such director. Last summer, a White House official seeking a senior aide in charge of the border wall was sent to Doug Fears, a deputy to national security adviser John Bolton. Mr. Fears, a rear admiral in the U.S. Coast Guard, is neither a senior administration official nor in charge of border-wall issues, a spokesman said.

By then, frustration was setting in with the president, and in August, he asked Mr. Mulvaney about declaring a national emergency. “You know, that makes a lot of sense,” Mr. Mulvaney told him. The then-budget director started working on plans, which were only finalized last week, according to a senior White House official.

A worker at a construction site in Tijuana, Mexico, close to the U.S.-Mexico border.
A worker at a construction site in Tijuana, Mexico, close to the U.S.-Mexico border. PHOTO: MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES

The spending agreement on the president’s desk provides less than the offer Mr. Trump declined two months ago, triggering the shutdown.

Some conservative lawmakers and commentators have bashed the deal for not having more wall funding, including Fox News host and Trump adviser Sean Hannity, who called it a “garbage compromise.”

The president’s plan to make up for the funding by shifting money within the executive branch is likely to draw legal challenges that could slow construction ahead of the 2020 election.

“Easy”

As a candidate in 2016, Mr. Trump described building the wall as a simple job. He tied it to his identity as a builder, a career that dates to the 1960s when he joined his father’s real-estate company. As the author of “The Art of the Deal,” Mr. Trump put his reputation as a negotiator on the line.

“Will be so easy,” he told North Carolina voters in 2016. “Very simple,” he said in South Carolina. “Not even a doubt,” he added in Florida.

As Mr. Trump prepares for re-election—and for voters to scrutinize his record as president—he has adjusted his message. “If you think it’s easy with these people, it’s not easy,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Congress, during a rally last summer in West Virginia.

Cracks in the Wall

President Trump’s support for a southern border wall is wildly popular with his most devoted supporters, but opposed by most of the country. Americans are also more divided over border security issues than Mr. Trump’s base of support.

*Those who said they consider themselves to be more of a supporter of the president than of the Republican Party

Source: WSJ/NBC News poll of 900 adults conducted Jan. 20-23; margin of error +/–3.27 pct. pts.

Yet “build the wall” chants continue to resound at the president’s public appearances. Among Mr. Trump’s political base, polls show that 96% support the border wall. More broadly, a majority of Americans oppose such a barrier, the same Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found in January.

During the 2016 Republican primary race, Mr. Trump called his build-the-wall campaign promise, “My best line.”

When Mr. Trump took office, one of his longest serving senior aides, Stephen Miller, was an early supporter of declaring a national emergency on the southern border. Mr. Miller was known for taking a hard line on immigration, but he also sought to expand his reach.

The news release that announced his White House job described Mr. Miller’s portfolio as developing policy on national security, energy and veterans care—with no mention of the border wall.

Another early advocate of the wall was Stephen K. Bannon, the Trump campaign’s chief executive who became Mr. Trump’s top strategist and senior counselor. The promise to build a wall “and eventually make Mexico pay for it” was written on a dry erase board in Mr. Bannon’s West Wing office, competing for attention among other campaign promises. It was one of more than four dozen pledges on the white board, organized by policy area.

On another office wall, Mr. Bannon listed the goals for Mr. Trump’s first 100 days in office, listed on 36 pages of computer paper taped together. The legislative agenda included the “End Illegal Immigration Act,” proposed legislation that would have made the wall a priority. It was never introduced.

An American Welcome

When asked how immigration affects the U.S., a growing majority of Americans say they feel it helps more than it hurts.

The project was made tougher without a supportive constituency in Washington to pressure lawmakers. Labor unions don’t view the border wall as a job stimulus, and business didn’t see clear benefits to the bottom line.

“The mistake they made was not coming in right away and coming up with a plan,” said Tom Davis, a Republican former House lawmaker. “You wonder why they didn’t try to jam this through when Republicans controlled the House because it’s a lot more complicated now trying to convince Nancy Pelosi.”

Mr. Trump, who sought $5.7 billion in wall funds to shield the U.S. southern border from drug smuggling and unauthorized crossings, has privately accused Republican leaders of hoodwinking him, and publicly blamed Democrats for a deal that provided about a quarter of the money he wanted.

In the first weeks of the Trump administration, Mr. Kushner raised tensions inside the West Wing when he entertained suggestions by Democratic lawmakers to secure wall money in exchange for supporting protections for immigrants protected under the Obama administration’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA.

Mr. Kushner and Robert Lighthizer, the U.S. trade representative, also left some West Wing aides with the impression that the president should put the wall on hold while renegotiating the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Trump Declares National Emergency Over Border Wall

Trump Declares National Emergency Over Border Wall
President Trump declared a national emergency Friday to get more funding for border barriers. Downplaying the significance of past presidents declaring emergencies, Trump said “They sign it. Nobody cares.” Photo: Getty

Messers. Kushner and Cohn later suggested outfitting the wall with solar panels, and possibly selling the energy to Mexico. The president loved the idea so much he adopted it as his own.

“You were joking about solar, right?” a reporter asked aboard Air Force One on July 12, 2017, after Mr. Trump after first mentioned the idea.

“No,” Mr. Trump said. “Not joking.”

Mr. Trump’s determination to make Mexico pay for the wall, and Mexico’s refusal, created demand for new ideas; The White House considered border-crossing taxes, new work-permit fees and higher tariffs on cars. Advisers suggested that Mexico would indirectly pay for the wall through a renegotiated Nafta. The revised trade deal, which hasn’t been approved by Congress, includes no language about a border wall.

“We were trying to get creative to keep the president happy,” one administration official said. “We were trying to find a way for him to say that Mexico was indirectly paying for the wall without pissing them off. That was the goal.”

President Trump at a cabinet meeting Tuesday where he said, “I can’t say I’m happy,” with the preliminary budget deal reached by lawmakers that provided $1.375 billion for border fencing.
President Trump at a cabinet meeting Tuesday where he said, “I can’t say I’m happy,” with the preliminary budget deal reached by lawmakers that provided $1.375 billion for border fencing. PHOTO: MANDEL NGAN/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

Mr. Trump’s demand for a wall was complicated by his shifting positions on other immigration issues that were tied to it. He has supported a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children, but he also canceled deportation protections for them.

“He’s spoken, many times, about the Dreamers in different ways,” Mr. Kushner said about the president to reporters at the White House last month.

Lawmakers reached the deal this week only after the White House took a back seat in the negotiations.

“Left to their own devices, these were all people who were trying to get a result,” said Senate Majority Whip John Thune (R., S.D.) “If you allow the regular order to work, we can get some things done around here.”

Veto threat

Several White House officials said there wasn’t an urgency to secure border-wall funding until early last year, after it was clear a comprehensive immigration deal was out of reach.

The president in January 2018 had rejected an offer from Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer to pair $25 billion in wall money over 10 years with a path to citizenship for DACA immigrants.

A month later, a bipartisan group of senators hashed out a similar compromise. They believed it could have passed a Republican-controlled Senate if Mr. Trump supported it. The president was opposed, and it failed by six votes.

Border wall prototypes in San Diego, Calif. PHOTOS: DANIEL OCHOA DE OLZA/ASSOCIATED PRESS(6)

In March, Congress completed a $1.3 trillion spending package, but included just $1.6 billion for a border barrier, with most of the money intended to replace existing fencing. It banned the money from being spent on concrete slabs or any other of the wall prototypes the White House was considering.

Upset there wasn’t more money for the wall, Mr. Trump threatened to veto it. At an emergency meeting at the White House with his staff and Republican leaders, Mr. Trump learned that the spending bill incorporated all of the border wall money that was requested in the White House budget proposal.

“Who the f— put that in my request?” Mr. Trump shouted.

Mr. Trump directed his fury at Marc Short, then his legislative affairs director, while John Kelly, the former chief of staff was silent. Mr. Kelly was the Department of Homeland Security secretary when the agency made the request for border funds the year before.

Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, bottom left, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Vice President Mike Pence, following a meeting with congressional staffers last month.
Senior White House adviser Jared Kushner, bottom left, Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, and Vice President Mike Pence, following a meeting with congressional staffers last month. PHOTO: ALEX BRANDON/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Mr. Mulvaney, who assembled the White House’s budget proposal, privately encouraged the president to veto it and suggested Mr. Trump blame then-House Speaker Paul Ryan, who should have sought more wall money.

Mr. Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told Mr. Trump they would push for more wall money in the next round of spending bills at the end of the year. During the fall, Mr. Trump was energized by crowds chanting “built the wall” during his many midterm-election rallies.

Soon after the November election, it became clear to the White House that lawmakers weren’t interested in a fight over border-wall money. Mr. Trump decided to carry out his threat to close what he could of the U.S. government.

During the shutdown last month, Mr. Trump complained to conservative allies that Mr. Ryan should have pushed harder for wall funds. Last weekend, the president complained about it again during a meeting with a Republican member of the committee that negotiated the latest deal.

“Mr. President,” the Republican lawmaker said, “we gave you everything you asked for.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-promised-to-build-that-wall-then-ran-out-of-time-and-options-11550262854

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 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 1208, February 14, 2019, Story 1: President Trump To Declare A National Emergency and Keeps Big Government Open Instead of Downsizing and Laying Off Permanently Non-essential Government Employees and Closing Departments– Trump Sides With Rollover Republicans and Radical Extremist Democrats– American People vs. Washington Political Elitist Establishment — Democrats and Republicans Continue To Betray Their Voter Base By Siding With Drug Cartels Massive Smuggling of  Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Into United States — Time For New Viable Political Party — Videos — Story 2:  When Will Trump Order The Investigation and Prosecution of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — The Greatest Scandal in United States History!  — Twelve of Never or Will Attorney General Bill Barr Bust All The Conspirators? — Statue of Limitations Is Running — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch! — Videos

Posted on February 15, 2019. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, American History, Assault, Autos, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Central Intelligence Agency, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Exercise, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, James Comey, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Military Spending, Monetary Policy, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Public Corruption, Rape, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Social Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States Constitution, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1208 February 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

 

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

 

Story 1: President Trump To Declare A National Emergency and Keeps Big Government Open Instead of Downsizing and Laying Off Permanently Non-essential Government Employees and Closing Departments– Trump Sides With Rollover Republicans and Radical Extremist Democrats– American People vs. Washington Political Elitist Establishment — Democrats and Republicans Continue To Betray Their Voter Base By Siding With Drug Cartels Massive Smuggling of  Illegal Aliens and Illegal Drugs Into United States — Time For New Viable Political Party — Videos —

 

BREAKING NEWS: White House says Trump will sign spending bill to avoid shutdown but will declare border emergency TOO – as Pelosi warns GOP a future Democratic president could use the same tactic to impose gun control

  • President’s approval is required to avoid another government shutdown
  • Trump said he was ‘not happy’ with the compromise but White House signals he will accept it
  • White House said Trump ‘will sign the government funding bill’
  • But at the same time he will declare a national emergency to build the wall
  • Pelosi didn’t rule out legal action to block the move
  • She warned Republicans of the precedent it could set for the future
  • Rep. James C. Clyburn of South Carolina said he’s ‘sure’ it will pass  
  • Deal must be signed into law by midnight Friday to avoid another shutdown 
  • Senate adopted the measure by a vote of 83-16
  • House was set to vote Thursday evening on $328 billion package 

President Donald Trump will sign a bipartisan spending deal – but will declare a ‘national emergency’ in an effort to procure funds to build a border wall, the White House said Thursday.

The move drew both statements of relief from lawmakers who wanted to avoid another government shutdown – and a threat from Speaker Nancy Pelosi over the emergency declaration.

Pelosi called it an ‘end-run around the will of the people,’ speaking to reporters minutes after news of Trump’s position broke, while warning it could come back to bite Republicans.

‘We will review our options, we’ll be prepared to respond appropriately to it,’ Pelosi said, asked about Trump’s planned emergency declaration.

President Donald Trump has expressed misgivings about a bipartisan deal, but will sign it, the White House said

President Donald Trump has expressed misgivings about a bipartisan deal, but will sign it, the White House said

She also brandished the threat a future Democratic president could use the same tactic of Trump moves forward

‘You want to talk about a national emergency? Let’s talk about today, the one-year anniversary of another manifestation of the epidemic of gun violence in America,’ Pelosi said, referencing the one-year anniversary of the Parkland, Florida school shooting.

‘That’s a national emergency. Why don’t you declare that emergency, Mr. President? I wish you would. But a Democratic president can do that. [A] Democratic president can declare emergencies as well,’ she threatened.

Within minutes after the White House announced its support, the Senate adopted the legislative package by a vote of 83-16. The House was to follow suit Thursday night.

Sen. Mitch McConnell updated colleagues on his conversation with Trump, saying he 'indicated' he is 'prepared to sign' the budget bill minutes before the White House announced his support

Sen. Mitch McConnell updated colleagues on his conversation with Trump, saying he ‘indicated’ he is ‘prepared to sign’ the budget bill minutes before the White House announced his support

‘The precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans,’ said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

But Pelosi, even while touting the package as the product of compromise, bristled at Trump’s stated move to get around strict funding limits it included, namely $1.4 billion for border fencing.

 ‘So the precedent that the president is setting here is something that should be met with great unease and dismay by the Republicans. And of course we will respond accordingly when we review our options,’ Pelosi said.

Pelosi also blasted Trump for ‘making an end run around Congress.

‘The power of the purse, the power to declare war … and of course the responsibility to have oversight.’ Although she said Democrats would ‘review our options,’ and did not commit to filing a lawsuit against the move.

Pelosi said Congress maintains ‘the power of the purse, the power to declare war … and of course the responsibility to have oversight.’

Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer of New York blasted the move in even more scathing language. ‘Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act – a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for the wall,’ Schumer told colleagues moments after the deal passed the Senate.

‘It would be another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law and congressional authority. Congress just debated this very issue. There was not support for the president’s position on this issue,’ Schumer said, pointing to the legislative history that a court would likely consider.

‘For the president to declare an emergency now would be an unprecedented subversion of Congress’s constitutional prerogative,’ he said.

WHAT HAPPENS IF DEMOCRATS CHALLENGE A TRUMP-DECLARED BORDER ‘EMERGENCY’ IN COURT?

If President Trump declares that a national emergency exists on the U.S.-Mexico border, it’s likely that court challenges will quickly seek to stop him from exercising the powers federal law would give him.

Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley said Thursday that ‘the Constitution grants Congress the authority to appropriate federal dollars, so I’m sure such action will be litigated in the courts.’

Congress passed the National Emergencies Act in 1975 in order to force post-Watergate presidents to explain themselves if they claim powers beyond what Congress has authorized.

Trump would have to cite the specific laws he’s relying on for emergency spending power.

The most likely basis is found in Section 2808 of Title 10 of the U.S. Code. It allows presidents to order the Defense Department to ‘undertake military construction projects’ during times of emergency ‘that are necessary to support … use of the armed forces.’

Trump began sending military troops to the southern border last year, tasking them with supporting border patrol units. Among their jobs has been hanging more than 150 miles of razor wire as a barrier to protect the border agents.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, who met with Trump in the Oval office on Thursday afternoon, said in a Feb. 4 speech ‘they’re putting up barbed wire. What’s the difference between barbed ware and a steel slat? I’m confident the president has the legal ability to do this.’

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said Thursday that ‘it will be challenged in court and is of dubious constitutionality.’

Trump’s opponents will have to find a loophole in Section 2293 of Title 33, which allows presidents to repurpose military ‘civil works’ budgets to build ‘authorized’ projects ‘that are essential to the national defense.’

That law applies in times of war or ‘national emergency.’

The largely civilian Army Corps of Engineers has already spent the past 18 months contracting out the work of building miles of border walls. It’s the Pentagon’s civil-works construction agency

It’s unlikely a federal court would weigh in on whether Trump has the legal authority to use his own discretion in declaring declare a national emergency. The 1975 law leaves that judgment up to the White House.

Every president since Gerald Ford has used it at least once. Barack Obama did it 12 times. Americans are still living under the conditions of 31 of the 58 declared ’emergencies.’ The U.S. Supreme Court has never invalidated one.

But his opponents would likely argue that Section 2808 can’t be used to build permanent walls that go beyond what’s necessary to protect the troops on border deployments.

And lawyers will squabble over whether Section 2293’s reference to ‘national defense’ includes border security in the first place.

A White House official said Thursday that the Secure Fence Act of 2006, which provided for wall construction along the border, is enough to show Congress has ‘authorized’ what Trump might want to fund unconventionally.

The official said the administration is betting that federal judges won’t want to weigh in on what is and is not related to national defense, a concept federal law has never clearly defined.

Trump said on Feb. 1 that while he expects legal challenges, ‘we have very, very strong legal standing to win.’

It would be ‘hard’ for Democrats to stymie him, he claimed, ‘but they tend to go to the Ninth Circuit,’ traditionally America’s most liberal and most often-overturned bank of judges.

‘And when they go to the Ninth Circuit, things happen.’

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told fellow senators Thursday that Trump was ‘prepared to sign’ the budget deal, and the White House soon confirmed it with stronger language.

Said White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders in a statement: ‘President Trump will sign the government funding bill, and as he has stated before he will also take other executive action – including a national emergency – to ensure we stop the national security and humanitarian crisis at the border. The President is once again delivering on his promise to build the wall, protect the border, and secure our great country,’ she added.

With the flurry of action Thursday afternoon, the Senate and House were set to vote in sequence on the $328 billion package.

McConnell made his announcement on the Senate floor after signals of indecision from the White House were once again raising fears of a government shutdown after Friday.

Joint statement from Democratic leaders Schumer and Pelosi on possible declaration of ‘national emergency’

‘Declaring a national emergency would be a lawless act, a gross abuse of the power of the presidency and a desperate attempt to distract from the fact that President Trump broke his core promise to have Mexico pay for his wall.

It is yet another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law.

This is not an emergency, and the president’s fear-mongering doesn’t make it one.

He couldn’t convince Mexico, the American people or their elected representatives to pay for his ineffective and expensive wall, so now he’s trying an end-run around Congress in a desperate attempt to put taxpayers on the hook for it.

The Congress will defend our constitutional authorities.’

McConnell spoke to Trump Thursday, and told his colleagues the president ‘indicated he’s prepared to sign’ the deal, which was inked Wednesday night.

Declaring a national emergency will allow Trump to repurpose billions of dollars Congress approved last year for other projects at the Pentagon and other agencies. The White House and Democrats have indicated that they expect interest groups to sue, challenging the president’s power to sidestep lawmakers’ power of the purse.

With Washington on edge a day before another shutdown deadline with no clear signal from the White House, McConnell told colleagues: ‘I’ve just had an opportunity to speak with President Trump, and he would, I would say to all my colleagues, has indicated that he’s prepared to sign the bill.’

‘He will also be issuing a national emergency declaration at the same time. And I’ve indicated to him that I’m going to prepare – I’m going to support the national emergency declaration. So for all of my colleagues, the President will sign the bill. We’ll be voting on it shortly,’ McConnell said.

A top Democrat immediately blasted the move to declare an emergency for funds Congress would not approve.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland intruded on an NBC live broadcast to say ‘declaring a national emergency when there is no national emergency is not good for a President to do, and frankly I don’t think it’s good for precedent for future Presidents.’

A leading Senate Republican opened Thursday’s session with a prayer that President Trump would have the ‘wisdom’ to sign a bipartisan spending deal – after another day of mixed signals from the White House.

‘Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,’ said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who has been a powerful defender of Trump’s but who also is pushing to make sure Special Counsel Mueller’s report gets shared with Congress.

Grassley’s appeal to a higher authority came hours after a senior Trump advisor said only that Trump was ‘taking a look’ at the legislation, which a bipartisan panel of House and Senate lawmakers agreed to Wednesday night.

Vice President Mike Pence, traveling in Poland, said Trump is ‘not happy’ with the deal – which includes just a quarter of the amount he wanted for a border wall, with funds restricted to existing forms of fencing.

‘I think he’s been very clear that he’s not happy with it. Seeing less than $ 1.4 billion dollars in border wall funding I know is a disappointment to the president, but he’s considering the bill,’ Pence said.

The president himself was circumspect, tweeting: ‘Reviewing the funding bill with my team at the @WhiteHouse!’

Trump’s earlier Twitter effort was even less revealing. It said simply ‘funding bill’, and was an apparent typo.

Other senior Republicans were taking a wait-and-see approach to avoid getting out ahead of the president. Prominent voices on the right came out Thursday to urge Trump not sign onto the deal.

 ‘This bill must NOT be signed by @realDonaldTrump,’ wrote conservative host Laura Ingraham. She added: ‘This bill is tantamount to an illegal immigration ‘stimulus’ — de facto amnesty to any ‘sponsor,’ family member or ‘potential sponsor’ of an unaccompanied minor. #ChainMigrationAmnesty,’ and in another swipe, wrote: ‘This 1,169 page monstrosity will green light more ‘family units’ crossing illegally—without a doubt.’

'Let's all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn't shut down,' said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa

‘Let’s all pray that the president will have wisdom to sign the bill so the government doesn’t shut down,’ said Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa

The president said only he was 'reviewing' the bill

The president said only he was ‘reviewing’ the bill

TAKE ONE: Trump deleted his initial tweet

TAKE ONE: Trump deleted his initial tweet

On Thursday morning, the White House had yet to signal Trump was certain to sign the deal, after high-profile conservative commentators balked at the arrangement, which gives the president far less than the $5.7 billion he demanded for a border wall.

White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters Thursday Trump was still ‘looking at’ the compromise that finally reached written form late Wednesday.

‘He’s looking at it. I think it came in very late last night. He’s taking a look at that, you’ll hear more about it when he’s ready,’ Kudlow said.

Lawmakers released the text of the 1,159-page bill Wednesday night.

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he is 'sure' the deal will pass

House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., said he is ‘sure’ the deal will pass

'I think he's been very clear that he's not happy with it,' Vice President Mike Pence said of Trump

‘I think he’s been very clear that he’s not happy with it,’ Vice President Mike Pence said of Trump

White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters Thursday Trump was still 'looking at' the compromise that finally reached written form late Wednesday

White House economic advisor Larry Kudlow told reporters Thursday Trump was still ‘looking at’ the compromise that finally reached written form late Wednesday

The deal restricts fencing to existing types already in use

The deal restricts fencing to existing types already in use

Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama tweeted Wednesday that Trump ‘was in good spirits,’ and once again called the bill a ‘down-payment’ on the wall. Trump has indicated he will use other methods to procure wall funds.

Following the 35-day shutdown, Trump allowed a bipartisan group of lawmakers from both parties to negotiate a compromise. Pulling away from it could once again tag Trump with producing a shutdown.

The agreement provides $1.4 billion for border fencing, but not the $5.7 Trump demanded for wall construction. Trump has been tweaking his rhetoric as the deal approached. His Tuesday rally at the Texas border city of El Paso had banners that said ‘finish the wall,’ and Trump says repeatedly that it is already being built.

Trump said Wednesday he is taking a ‘very serious’ look at a bipartisan compromise deal to give him just a quarter of the $5.7 billion he wants for a border wall – following reports sourced to his advisors that he is preparing to sign it.

Government funding legislation is once again hinging on President Trump's support for a border wall

Government funding legislation is once again hinging on President Trump’s support for a border wall.

‘A pretty good deal’: Senators react to border spending bill

‘We haven’t gotten it yet,’ Trump said, in reference to the bipartisan compromise that has yet to be turned into final bill language. ‘We’ll take a very serious look at it,’ Trump added during a meeting with the president of Colombia.

He said he would look for ‘landmines’ surreptitiously buried in the legislation negotiated by Republicans and Democrats from both chambers of Congress, but would not formally commit to signing it.

There was a last minute standoff over back-pay for federal contractors who lost millions during the shutdown that began in December.

Republican Sen. Roy Blunt said he was told the president would not back the effort.

Senate Appropriations chair Richard Shelby of Alabama says he told Trump the wall funding was a 'down payment'

Senate Appropriations chair Richard Shelby of Alabama says he told Trump the wall funding was a ‘down payment’

A bipartisan compromise would provide $1.37 billion for new border fencing

A bipartisan compromise would provide $1.37 billion for new border fencing

'We'll be looking for landmines, because you could have that,' Trump said, indicating his advisors would be scrubbing legislation to fund the government in search of any surprises. Trump said he would take a 'very serious' look at bipartisan legislation to fund the government

‘We’ll be looking for landmines, because you could have that,’ Trump said, indicating his advisors would be scrubbing legislation to fund the government in search of any surprises. Trump said he would take a ‘very serious’ look at bipartisan legislation to fund the government

‘I’ve been told the president won’t sign that,’ Blunt said Wednesday, adding ‘I guess federal contractors are different in his view than federal employees.’ Negotiators left the proposal out of the final compromise.

‘I’m sure it’s going to pass. I don’t know of any drama,’ said House Democrats’ chief vote-counter, Rep. James Clyburn, D-S.C., told the Associated Press.

President Donald Trump hasn't given his final signal that he will sign a bipartisan compromise with $1.37 billion for border fencing, after a lengthy shutdown where he was demanding $5.7 billion for wall construction, though he is expected to do so

President Donald Trump hasn’t given his final signal that he will sign a bipartisan compromise with $1.37 billion for border fencing, after a lengthy shutdown where he was demanding $5.7 billion for wall construction, though he is expected to do so

By accepting the compromise, Trump avoided yet another shutdown after the 35-day partial federal shutdown that began in December, battering Trump and Republicans in public opinion polls.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6703509/Border-security-brawl-near-serene-resolution.html

SPECIAL REPORT: President Trump to declare national emergency6:30

In a surprise development Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced on the Senate floor that President Donald Trump told him he would sign a border security funding bill that would avert a government shutdownbut also would declare a national emergency in order to get more funding for his proposed border wall.

McConnell’s announcement caught Capitol Hill off guard. The Senate then voted to overwhelmingly approve the measure 83-16, sending it to the House for a vote late Thursday. The House approved the measure 300-128.

ABC News has learned the president plans to announce on Friday his intention to spend about $8 billion on the border wall with a mix of spending from Congressional appropriations approved Thursday night, executive action and an emergency declaration.

A senior White House official familiar with the plan told ABC News that $1.375 billion would come from the spending bill Congress passed Thursday; $600 million would come from the Treasury Department’s drug forfeiture fund; $2.5 billion would come from the Pentagon’s drug interdiction program; and through an emergency declaration: $3.5 billion from the Pentagon’s military construction budget.

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walks onto the Senate floor at the Capitol, Feb. 14, 2019.

(Erik S. Lessser/EPA/Shutterstock)  Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell walks onto the Senate floor at the Capitol, Feb. 14, 2019.

Many Republicans, including McConnell, had advised the president against declaring a national emergency, which is a challenge to Congress’ “power of the purse” — the power to decide how and where taxpayer money is spent. However, McConnell, in announcing the president’s decision Thursday afternoon, said he now supported the move.

“I will fully support the enactment of a joint resolution to terminate the President’s emergency declaration, in accordance with the process described in the National Emergencies Act, and intend to pursue all other available legal options,” Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement. “The Judiciary Committee will also use its authority to hold the Administration to account and determine the supposed legal basis for the President’s actions.”

Democrats and some Republicans came out against the president’s plans.

 Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi talks to reporters during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 31, 2019.

(J. Scott Applewhite/AP)  Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi talks to reporters during a news conference at the Capitol in Washington, Jan. 31, 2019.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in a joint statement, said the declaration would be a “lawless act” and a “gross abuse of the power of the presidency.”

“It is yet another demonstration of President Trump’s naked contempt for the rule of law,” their statement said, calling it “a desperate attempt to put taxpayers on the hook” for his border wall, adding that Congress “will defend our constitutional authorities.”

In a statement late Thursday, Rep. Joaquin Castro, D-Texas, said, “If President Trump declares a national emergency to fund his border wall, I’m prepared to introduce a resolution to terminate the President’s emergency declaration.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said Thursday afternoon, “This approach does set a very bad precedent for future presidents, whether it’s a Democrat or a Republican, to feel that they can get around Congress’s constitutional role to allocate funding.

“It’s very serious and troubling to me,” she added.

Senior House Democrats and aides were waiting for Trump’s emergency declaration Thursday before deciding on how to best respond, but one aide said the House could take up and pass a joint resolution disapproving of any national emergency declaration — a move that would force Republican senators to go on the record on Trump’s controversial move.

 People work on the U.S./Mexican border wall, Feb. 12, 2019, in El Paso, Texas.

(Joe Raedle/Getty Images)  People work on the U.S./Mexican border wall, Feb. 12, 2019, in El Paso, Texas.

“We’re going to fight him,” Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass., the chairman of the House Rules Committee, said of Trump’s plans. “I think he’s going well beyond his constitutional powers, and he’s in for a hell of a fight.”

The spending deal crafted by top appropriators funding for the Department of Homeland Security and a handful of other federal agencies impacted by the 35-day government shutdown last month.

It includes $1.375 billion to build a physical barrier on the southern border – enough to construct about 55 miles of new fencing in new geographic areas, but less than the proposal rejected by the president late last year ahead of the shutdown.

 Rep. Hakeem Jeffries questions acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker as he testifies to the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 8, 2019.

(Joshua Roberts/Reuters)  Rep. Hakeem Jeffries questions acting U.S. Attorney General Matthew Whitaker as he testifies to the House Judiciary Committee on oversight of the Justice Department on Capitol Hill in Washington, Feb. 8, 2019.

It also includes hundreds of millions of dollars in funding for new border security and inspection technology at points of entry, and humanitarian relief, along with additional funding to increase the number of immigrant detention beds.

The increase in funding for the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, was enough for a handful of prominent progressive House Democrats to oppose the deal.

 House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Kay Granger speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol, Feb. 13, 2019, in Washington, DC.

(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)  House Appropriations Committee ranking member Rep. Kay Granger speaks during a news conference at the U.S. Capitol, Feb. 13, 2019, in Washington, DC.

“We want to be abundantly clear: this is not a rebuke of federal workers or those who depend on the services they provide, but a rejection of the hateful policies, priorities, and rhetoric of the Trump Administration,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass., Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., said in a statement.

Hours later, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, also said she would vote against the deal.

“Congress must pass a strong DHS appropriations bill to bring accountability and humanity to our detention system. Unfortunately, this bill did not accomplish this and that is why I will vote no,” she wrote.

ABC News’ Sarah Kolinovsky and Trish Turner contributed to this report.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/landmines-border-bill-trump-hell-sign/story?id=61047358

The bipartisan spending binge is now worse than under Bush and Obama

 · February 15, 2019

Money in a suitcase

We’re now $22 trillion in debt, yet despite all that red ink, the Mexican cartels have control of our border and we’re not one bit closer to spending money on our own security. We’ve gone into deep debt for everything except the core function of the federal government.

It feels like it was yesterday when I was watching the news as a kid with my parents in 1995, listening to Newt Gingrich, during the infamous shutdown fight, warn about the dire consequences of crossing the $5 trillion debt milestone. It feels like it was yesterday when I was writing press releases for candidates in “the year of the Tea Party” on how Obama and the Pelosi Congress took the debt to $14 trillion in such a short period of time. Now, over eight years into varying degrees of GOP control of Congress and the White House, we have crossed the $22 trillion mark, expanding the debt more rapidly than at any time in our history. Whereas the debt exploded by $5 trillion during Bush’s eight-year tenure, a shocking figure at the time, it has now increased $8 trillion just since Republicans controlled the House in 2011 and by $4 trillion over the past four years, since they controlled at least two of the three political organs of government.

Now, the only question Republicans have is how many pennies of border security they will fight for, while refusing to challenge any of the nonessential and even harmful programs of the federal government. The GOP platform on debt and spending is a lie from top to bottom, as Republicans plan to pass more budget bills allowing us to blow through the budget caps without any effort to systemically reform the way we budget.

Now that Republicans are planning to cave on border funding, can they at least force a confrontation with Democrats over spending levels for functions of government that are nowhere near as important as border security? Thus, departments like HUD, which were able to completely shut down for a month with nobody noticing, will continue to enjoy record spending. We will continue to provide security for Kabul and Baghdad with the beefed-up military budget since last year’s budget deal, but no funding for our border or meaningful use of the military to protect our own sovereignty from the daily incursions by the most brutal cartels on earth.

Why even have a Republican Party any more?

Even more indefensible, unlike during the end of Bush’s years and the beginning of Obama’s tenure, when we first began accruing trillion-dollar annual deficits, we are not facing a deep recession. In fact, we are enjoying the most robust period of job growth since the late 1990s, and revenue is at a record high baseline.

Let it be known for all of time that dire predictions of revenue slumping as a result of the tax cuts were fake news. The entirety of the current deficit problem is due to increased spending.  According to the latest monthly report released by the Treasury Department yesterday, spending was up 9.6 percent for the first three months of fiscal year 2019 relative to the first three months of FY 2018. What about revenues? They actually rose slightly by 0.2 percent, despite some declines in certain revenue categories. This is an important statistic, because it is the first clean metric we have comparing a period of time with the tax cuts in full implementation to a period before the tax cuts.

Moreover, some of the increased tax revenue from more payroll taxes likely would not have occurred without the job creation spawned by the tax cuts. If you isolate the revenue tallies for individual and corporate taxes, the government obviously did lose some revenue in certain categories, but it was made up by a $15 billion increase in payroll tax revenue (FICA, Social Security taxes), in addition to increased revenue from excise taxes.

The annual deficit after just three months stood at $319 trillion, well on pace to smash the trillion-dollar deficit mark for the first time in a booming economy.

Thus, this bipartisan era of debt is worse than anything we’ve seen this generation, and it is all happening with record revenue and a booming economy – with no world war consuming our economy and budget.

Thanks to Republican-approved budget deals, for the first three months of the fiscal year, outlays for HHS are up 12.5 percent, outlays for the Department of Education spiked 23 percent, and outlays for the Department of Commerce have doubled! Meanwhile, outlays on Homeland Security have actually been down by 30 percent because of less disaster spending under FEMA than last year. But it’s not like we went on a spending binge for Border Patrol and ICE. Outlays on military spending are up 8.45 percent, but again, what is the purpose of the military if we use it everywhere else in the world except against those who most directly harm us at our own border?

 

All of this spending is creating a crisis with interest payments on the debt. Net interest payments for the first quarter are up to $100 billion. That is an annualized pace of $400 billion, almost twice the level it has been in recent years. And this is just the beginning.

What is driving the most debt? The issue where Republicans now agree with Democrats: socialized medicine. House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., is now bashing the Freedom Caucus for opposing the key element of Obamacare responsible for driving up the cost of insurance, thereby generating the massive spending and the monopoly created by the health care industry.

Health care is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Federal spending on health care (not including state expenditures) is projected to be $17 trillion over the next 10 years, dwarfing the cost of Social Security and the military. By 2047, health care spending will be about 25 percent greater than the insolvent and crushing cost of Social Security. As such, health care in itself is the largest driver of the other great crisis, as noted: the mushrooming cost of the interest on the debt itself. Health care spending alone will be greater than all the revenue from payroll taxes and corporate income taxes combined and almost as large as individual income tax revenue.

This is all going to the creation of a monopoly in a circuitous death spiral of price inflation and increased government spending. It’s no mystery why our national expenditures on health care have popped from $27 billion in 1960 to over $3.3 trillion today. Assuming health care would rise at the same rate as the rest of the economy, that number would be under $250 billion today. If we flushed $1.6 trillion down the toilet every year, we’d come out with a better result because we’d just waste money. Now, we are taking that wasted money and artificially inflating the cost of health care to the point that nobody can afford it without government continuing the death spiral of spending, monopolizing, and price inflation.

Yet Republicans have acquiesced to every degree of this baseline and are only debating how much more socialized medicine they will countenance while fake-fighting the rest. Then they will say we have to agree to the new socialized medicine in order to fight the next plan. Rinse and repeat.

Now, instead of looking to cut spending elsewhere, Republican senators met with Ivanka Trump to see how they can create a new entitlement of paid family leave like they have in Europe, but of course without adding to the deficit and distorting our job market! They will find a “conservative way” to agree to Democrats.

With the deficits for FY 2019 skyrocketing just as much as the illegal immigration numbers, at some point conservatives need to asses their rate of return on the Republican Party.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/bipartisan-spending-binge-now-worse-bush-obama/

Story 2:  When Will Trump Order The Investigation and Prosecution of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — The Greatest Scandal in United States History!  — Twelve of Never or Will Attorney General Bill Barr Bust All The Conspirators? — Statue of Limitations Is Running — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch! — Videos Videos

 

Andrew McCabe tells “60 Minutes” why he opened investigations involving Trump

DOJ’s Bruce Ohr shared intel from dossier author with prosecutors now on Mueller’s team

Joe diGenova on Trump Attorney General William Barr Dec 12 2018

Tom Fitton: The Clintons, President Trump, & the Scandal of Our Generation

Perkins Coie is going to be sued: Joe diGenova

Grand Jury impaneled to probe fired FBI director Andrew McCabe: report

BREAKING: They’re All Flipping On Comey And McCabe – Will Testify

Joe diGenova: Walls closing in on Obama DOJ officials

3/19/18 Joe Digenova Goes After Dirty Cops Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, John Brennan

Joe diGenova – How Can Sessions Not See A Coup d’état?

Former US attorney: FBI officials will likely face charges

DiGenova: There was brazen plot to frame Trump

Former US attorney Joe DiGenova says there was a brazen plot within the FBI to exonerate Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing and to frame Trump of a falsely constructed crime if she lost the presidential election. DiGenova also says the ‘lost’ texts beteween two FBI agents can be recovered

 

 

 

McCabe: There were 25th Amendment discussions at DOJ to remove Trump from office

Dylan Stableford

Senior Editor,
Yahoo News
.

Former FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe says that after President Trump fired his boss, FBI Director James Comey, there were discussions within the Department of Justice about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

Last year, the New York Times reported that Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein discussed recruiting Cabinet members to invoke the 25th Amendment.

McCabe confirmed the report in a new interview with “60 Minutes” host Scott Pelley, who relayed what McCabe told him on “CBS This Morning” Thursday.

“There were meetings at the Justice Department at which it was discussed whether the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet could be brought together to remove the president of the United States under the 25th Amendment,” Pelley said.

In a statement released by the Justice Department, Rosenstein said McCabe’s account of a discussion of invoking the 25th amendment was “inaccurate and factually incorrect.”

Trump responded in a pair of tweets later Thursday morning.

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Disgraced FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe pretends to be a “poor little Angel” when in fact he was a big part of the Crooked Hillary Scandal & the Russia Hoax – a puppet for Leakin’ James Comey. I.G. report on McCabe was devastating. Part of “insurance policy” in case I won….

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

….Many of the top FBI brass were fired, forced to leave, or left. McCabe’s wife received BIG DOLLARS from Clinton people for her campaign – he gave Hillary a pass. McCabe is a disgrace to the FBI and a disgrace to our Country. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!

The discussions occurred between the time of Comey’s firing in May of 2017 and the appointment eight days later of special counsel Robert Mueller to oversee the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.

According to the Times, Rosenstein also suggested that he secretly record Trump in the White House. Rosenstein disputed the account, and a Justice Department official said he made the remark sarcastically. But McCabe told Pelley that Rosenstein’s offer to wear a wire was made more than once and that he ultimately took it to the lawyers at the FBI to discuss.

McCabe, who was named acting director of the bureau after Comey’s firing, launched obstruction of justice and counterintelligence investigations into whether Trump obstructed justice by firing Comey.

He told Pelley he did so in order to preserve the FBI’s Russian probe in case there was an effort by Trump to terminate it.

“I was very concerned that I was able to put the Russia case on absolutely solid ground, in an indelible fashion,” McCabe said. “That were I removed quickly, or reassigned or fired, that the case could not be closed or vanish in the night without a trace.”

Former FBI Acting Director Andrew McCabe and President Trump. (Photo Illustration: Yahoo News; photos; Alex Wong/Getty Images, AP)
More

McCabe’s comments come ahead of the release of his new book, “The Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and Trump,” due out next week.

In an excerpt of the book published Thursday in the Atlantic, McCabe describes a phone call he received from Trump on his first full day on the job as acting director of the FBI. According to McCabe, Trump told him that he had “hundreds of messages from FBI people [saying] how happy they are that I fired [Comey].”

“You know — boy, it’s incredible, it’s such a great thing, people are really happy about the fact that the director’s gone, and it’s just remarkable what people are saying,” Trump said, according to McCabe. “Have you seen that? Are you seeing that, too?”

McCabe was eventually fired in March 2018, less than two days before he would have collected a full early pension for his FBI career.

“Andrew McCabe FIRED,” Trump tweeted on the day of McCabe’s dismissal. “A great day for the hard working men and women of the FBI – A great day for Democracy.”

Trump has since railed against McCabe dozens of times on Twitter. “He LIED! LIED! LIED! McCabe was totally controlled by Comey – McCabe is Comey!” he exclaimed last April. “No collusion, all made up by this den of thieves and lowlifes!”

https://news.yahoo.com/mccabe-25th-amendment-discussions-doj-remove-trump-office-140646145.html

Johnny Mathis – The Twelfth Of Never (Live)

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1208

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 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 1207, February 13, 2019, Story 1: There Was No Evidence of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign Concludes Senate Intelligence Committee — Massive Lying By Democrats and Big Lie Media To Cover-up Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Will Double The Human Border Barrier By Adding 300 Miles of Human Border Barrier Next To Existing 300 Miles of Vehicle Barrier Plus 50 More Miles — Videos — Story 3: Central Banks Buying Gold and Dumping Dollars and Other Fiat Currencies — A Return To The Gold Standard? — Videos

Posted on February 14, 2019. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Business, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Eating, Elections, Empires, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Military Spending, National Interest, National Security Agency, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Corruption, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Socials Security, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Fraud, Taxation, Taxes, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1207 February 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1206 February 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

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

See the source image

Story 1: Senate Intelligence Committee Finds No Evidence of Russian Collusion With Trump Campaign — Massive Lying By Democrats and Big Lie Media To Cover-up Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy — Videos

Senate Intelligence Chairman says no sign of Russia collusion yet

Senate Intel chair Richard Burr speaks to CBS News on Russia probe

Nunes reveals criminal referral plans once Barr is AG

FBI emails show officials coordinating Hillary, Weiner probes

Senate Has Found No Direct Evidence Of Collusion Between Trump And Russia | Hallie Jackson | MSNBC

Tucker: There was no Russian collusion

Trump and Russia: An Introduction to What We Know (and What We Don’t)

New insight into the Senate’s Russia investigation

Senate Intel Committee is run by the Democrats: Tom Fitton

Steyn: Hillary just can’t accept she lost to Trump

Hume: Hillary just can’t own up to her mistakes

Steyn: Hillary was the ‘entitled candidate’

Dems now don’t think Russia collusion is a big deal?

Did Hillary Clinton collude with the Russians to get ‘dirt’ on Trump to feed it to the FBI?

Story 2: President Trump Will Double The Human Border Barrier By Adding 300 Miles of Human Border Barrier Next To Existing 300 Miles of Vehicle Barrier Plus 50 More Miles —

Rove: Trump has the authority reprogram border security funding

The Wall – A Nation Divided

Walls of Shame: The US-Mexican Border l Featured Documentaries

McCarthy sees border deal as down payment on border wall

The Wall: A 2,000-mile border journey

The Wall: Violence on ranchers’ land

The No Man’s Land Beneath the Border Wall

Watch The New Vehicle wall formed by Texas Police to Help Border Wall.

Construction for new Texas border wall begins

The Wall – A Nation Divided

Close look at a Mexican border wall in Hidalgo, Texas

The wall of eyes trained on the US – Mexico border

Ranching in No Man’s Land

Border security US rancher’s warning on immigration reform

(Part II) A Day in the Life of an Arizona Rancher: Fences, Illegal Aliens, and One Man’s Watchtower

Story 3: Central Banks Buying Gold and Dumping Dollars and Other Fiat Currencies — A Return To The Gold Standard? — Video

David Stockman – Central Banks Created Fiscal Doomsday Machine

Central Banks Are Buying Gold – That is All I Need To Know!

Central Banks Gold Buying Hits Highest Level In Half A Century

Gold Alert: Central Bank Increases Reserves By 1000% – Mike Maloney

Central Banks Are Stocking Up On Gold

Keiser Report: Crypto-collateralized contracts (E1344)

Keiser Report: Are We Back on a Gold Standard? (E1342)

[yotuube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0BQ2H8zc6c]

Why Are Central Banks Buying GOLD & SILVER At Record Pace?? Paradigm Shift Imminent!

Jim Rickards – The New Axis of Gold – How emerging market central banks are accumulating gold

David Stockman Warns “Gold Is The Only Safe Asset Left”

 

Central banks are buying the most gold since the end of World War II — here’s why

gold bars

Gold is in vogue.

 REUTERS/Beawiharta

  • Central banks have bought the most gold since the end of World War II, with the commodity becoming an increasingly valuable hedge against growing global instability.
  • The near-record buildup in government debt globally, particularly in the US, makes other perceived risk-free assets less attractive.
  • Gold is seen to have returns similar to equities in the current cycle, and a dip in supply makes it a more valuable asset for central banks and investors alike.

Central banks have been buying up gold at a rate not seen since World War II as concerns about geopolitics and the strong dollar see a shift in appreciation for the quintessential risk-free asset.

A broad combination of factors have led to gold’s resurgence, according to the research firm Bernstein. They include geopolitical risk, concerns about government debt, supply issues, and the perception that gold gives better returns over other assets.

“Beyond just the threat of inflation, it is also remarkable that, for the first time since the end of Bretton Woods and, indeed, since the end of the Second World War, central bank buying of gold has actually increased,” a note sent to clients by the firm said on Monday.

Equally, the case for gold purchases is boosted by the near-record levels of government debt in the US, which makes other potential risk-free assets more questionable and could increase inflation figures.

Gold is trading at $1,310 an ounce, up nearly 10% from its recent low in September.

As well as its value related to inflation, gold is likely to see demand increase, while supply will stay “flat at best,” Bernstein said, boosting its value to central banks and investors alike. “As with any other commodity, robust demand and weak supply implies price appreciation,” Bernstein’s analysts wrote.

Gold holdings had been on the decline for years but have seen a clear boost recently.

Bernstein also pointed out that beyond the conversation about central banks’ holdings of gold was its increase in use over jewelry. Both private and public “monetary” holding of gold have overtaken jewelry demand as the primary source of demand growth for gold in recent years, according to Bernstein.

https://www.businessinsider.com/central-banks-buy-gold-at-rate-not-seen-since-wwii-2019-2

Central bank gold buying hits highest level in half a century

  • in 2018, Central banks bought the most gold by volume since 1967.
  • The Russian central bank is leading the way as it looks to reduce its reliance on dollar reserves.

Gold bars sit in a vault at the Perth Mint Refinery, operated by Gold Corp., in Perth, Australia, on Thursday, Aug. 9, 2018.

Carla Gottgens | Bloomberg | Getty Images
Gold bars sit in a vault at the Perth Mint Refinery, operated by Gold Corp., in Perth, Australia, on Thursday, Aug. 9, 2018.

The amount of gold bought by central banks in 2018 reached the second highest annual total on record, according to the World Gold Council (WGC).

Central banks bought the most gold by volume since 1967, according to the industry research firm, which also highlighted it was the largest amount since former U.S. President Nixon Richard’s decision to end the dollar’s peg to bullion in 1971.

Central bank net purchases reached 651.5 metric tons in 2018, 74 percent higher than in the previous year when 375 tons were bought. The WGC has estimated that central banks now hold nearly 34,000 tons of gold.

The Federal Reserve is reported to hold the most, amounting for almost three quarters of the nation’s foreign-exchange reserve pot.

Futures Now: Gold's gleaming rally

Futures Now: Gold’s gleaming rally  

Taking the current spot price of $1,321.15 per troy ounce, gold purchases by central banks in 2018 amounted to a $27.7 billion spending splurge on the precious metal.

“Heightened geopolitical and economic uncertainty throughout the year increasingly drove central banks to diversify their reserves and re-focus their attention on the principal objective of investing in safe and liquid assets,” said the report released on Thursday.

The WGC said the bulk of the buying was carried out by a handful of central banks with Russia leading the way as it looks to swap out dollars from its portfolio. The Russian central bank sold almost all of its U.S. Treasury stock to buy 274.3 tons of gold in 2018.

The central bank of Turkey increased gold reserves by 51.5 tons in 2018. That marked a second consecutive year of net purchases but was 40 percent lower than the volume it bought in 2017.

Other big central bank buyers were Kazakhstan, India, Iraq, Poland and Hungary.

Net sales of gold from central banks remained small, totaling less than 15 tons. Australia, Germany, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Ukraine accounted for almost all of that figure.

WGC said total gold demand in 2018 reached a total of 4,345.1 tons. The biggest demand came from jewelry which, while flat on the 2017 figure, accounted for just over half of the total. Bars and coins contributed 1,090 tons in 2018, marking a 4 percent rise from the previous year. Gold used in technology climbed marginally to 334.6 tons.

The price of gold has risen around 9 percent in the last three months.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/31/world-gold-council-central-banks-buy-most-gold-since-1967-.html

Central Banks Buy Their Most Gold In Years As They Look To Reduce Risk

Adem Tumerkan November 2, 2018
Category: Research

– This is a repost of the recent Palisade Weekly Letter –

 

Less than a month ago  – Hungary’s Central Bank announced that they increased their gold holdings from 3.1 metric tons to over 31 metric tons.

That’s a tenfold increase – meaning 1,000%. . .

The Hungarian Central Bank governor – Gyorgy Matolcsy – called this a significant move of “economic and national strategic importance”. He also boldly stated that this was a way to improve the security of the small nation’s wealth.

This news comes right after Poland’s recent decision to charge into gold as well. . .

Poland also added nearly 10 metric tons of gold to the country’s reserves in July and August as prices fell.

This marks the country’s largest gold purchase since 1998. And bullion reserves now sit at the highest they have since 1983.

True – Poland and Hungary both still rank outside the world’s top 30 largest gold holders.

And to give you a little context – Russia’s adding 20 tons of gold on average each month to their vaults. . .

So – in the bigger macro picture – their recent gold purchases aren’t that noticeable. And is probably why many mainstream analysts didn’t care much about it.

But it actually is a big deal. . . 

This highlights the trend we’ve seen by central banks charging in to gold since after the 2008 crisis.

I wrote two weeks ago (click here if you missed it) that post-2008, central banks – especially the Emerging Markets – have insatiable gold appetite. And I believe this is helping to put a floor under the price of gold.

Just look for yourself. . .

After two decades of selling – throughout the 1990’s and early 2000’s – central banks worldwide are now diversifying their dollar reserves with gold.

The latest report by the World Gold Council (WGC) showed that central bank gold reserves grew 150 tons in the third-quarter 2018.

That’s up 22% from 2017 – one year ago.

This marks the 8th straight year of central bank gold buying – and the highest level of net purchases since 2015 – both quarterly and year-to-date.

But most importantly – the number of central banks doing the buying was notable.

To name just a few: India – Turkey – Kazakhstan – China – Russia – Poland – Hungary – Iraq – and Mongolia. . .

What did all this buying from various central banks have in common? It was the lower price of gold triggered a buying opportunity. Meaning central bankers wanted to take advantage of the stronger dollar and buy cheaper gold.

Remember – when the dollar’s stronger, gold costs less (i.e. it takes fewer dollars to buy that same gold ounce – vice versa.)

And this trend of heavy central bank buying doesn’t seem like it will be slowing down anytime soon.

According to JP Morgan Chase & Co – central banks will buy another 300-plus tons in 2019. And I expect that to continue throughout the 2020’s.

So – here’s the bigger question. . .

Is all this central bank gold buying signaling trouble in the global economy?

I think so.

Let’s just go over a few troubling issues:

We’ve seen slowing growth in the Emerging Markets, European Union, and China. All while the Federal Reserve continues tightening – spurring a global dollar shortage (read more here).

There’s also the three-plus trillion in Emerging Market debt coming due (i.e. bonds maturing) over the next two-and-a-half years (I just wrote about this problem – you can read here).

With short-term rates rising and a stronger dollar – these debtors will have trouble rolling the debt over (refinancing it). Now markets must worry about a wave of dollar-debt defaults – like we’ve already seen in China this year (read more here).

We also can’t ignore the market beginning to worry about next year’s corporate earnings – which I fully believe will be horrid (more here). Equity prices have been volatile because of this – leaving the NYSE nearly down on the year.

Another troubling indicator is the Chinese currency – the yuan – has devalued significantly over the past few months. It’s getting close to breaking through the $7.00 USD-to-yuan mark.

The last time we saw the yuan devalue so much – August 2015 – global markets imploded.

So yes – it’s no surprise central banks and retail investors are buying gold.

Going back to what Gyorgy Matolcsy – the Hungarian Central Bank Governor – said. . .

‘Gold is key for risk reduction’

Having a certain amount of gold in a portfolio works well to protect against sudden market drops – as I’ve shown previously (read here).

As I wrote then – Just look at the average price of gold during times when the S&P 500 fell more than 15% over the last 20 years. . . You can see that during times when market’s collapse more than 15%, gold positions would do very well. The gold mining equities and warrants do even better. . .”


Therefore – we see that during large market drops – the price of gold increases enough to offset any losses.

But that’s not all. . .

Having gold also improves a portfolio’s Sharpe Ratio.

For those of you that don’t know – the Sharpe Ratio is a popular metric that helps investors understand the return of an investment compared to its risks. Meaning it measures a portfolio’s risk-adjusted returns relative to peers based on a ‘standard deviation’ (a black swan event).

Thus the higher the ratio – the better the risk adjusted returns. . .

And as New Frontier Advisors and U.S. Global Investors discovered – an institutional portfolio with at least 6% weighting in gold has a significantly higher Sharpe Ratio compared to portfolio’s that didn’t have any gold at all.

What this means is – gold in a portfolio greatly reduces volatility without hurting overall returns. . .

Now that we know this – It’s not hard to see why Hungary’s Central Bank Governor increased gold holdings tenfold.

This also helps explain why other central bankers worldwide are opting for gold as well.

That’s because of Balance Sheet Theory – coined by Michael Pettis (one of my favorite economists). 

Balance Sheet Theory basically means that investors – during a crunch period – look at governments and central banks as if they are looking at a corporate balance sheet.

The better the assets are against the liabilities – the more robust things are. . .

But the worst the assets are against growing liabilities – the more fragile things are. . .

And as we watch the Emerging Markets get slaughtered this year in 2018 – it’s not hard to see why. They have horrid balance sheets with mounting liabilities against diminishing assets.

So keep all this in mind when you ask yourself, ‘why are central banks buying so much gold since 2008?’

They are doing it to protect themselves. .

https://palisade-research.com/central-banks-buy-gold/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/12/national-debt-tops-22-trillion-first-time-ever/2849978002/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1207

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 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 1205, February 11, 2019, Story 1: Fake Fence Funding Fraud — Need $30 Billion To Build 1500 Miles of New Border Barrier and Road or $2 Billion Per 100 Miles of Border Barrier and Road — Videos — Story 2:  President Trump Stands Firm on Demand For $5.7 Billion To Build Nearly 300 Miles of Border Barrier of 1500 New Border Barrier — Democrats Siding With Drug Dealers and Criminal Illegal Aliens Against The Safety and Security of American People — Trump Wins in 2020 If Border Barrier Built — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Approval Rating Hits 52% Despite Big Lie Media’s Two Year Negative Smear Campaign Against Trump — Progressive Propaganda Poop — PooPourri — Videos — Story 4: American People’s Confidence Keeps Rising — Videos

Posted on February 12, 2019. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, Addiction, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Bribes, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, College, Communications, Computers, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Eating, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, History, Homicide, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Killing, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mental Illness, Mexico, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Private Sector Unions, Progressives, Public Corruption, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Sexual Harrasment, Spying, Spying on American People, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1205 February 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1204 February 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageLine graph. A near-record 69% of Americans say they expect to better off financially a year from now.Image result for trump approval hits 52%

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

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

See the source imageSee the source image

Story 1: Fake Fence Funding Fraud — Need $30 Billion To Build 1500 Miles of New Border Barrier and Road or $2 Billion Per 100 Miles of Border Barrier and Road — Videos —

Donald Trump’s wall will be more like 550 miles, not all 2,000 miles of U.S.-Mexico border, he says

December 25, 2018 2:11 pm

 President Donald Trump said Tuesday that the government would not reopen until the country has a border wall or fence to stop “very bad criminals” coming into the country.

With a fight over border wall funding keeping the U.S. government shut down, President Donald Trump said Tuesday that construction is set to start on “probably the biggest section” of the wall in Texas next month.

Speaking to reporters on Christmas morning, Trump said the federal government yesterday handed out a contract to build 115 miles (about 185 kilometres) of wall, which represents about a fifth of the total 500 to 550 miles (805 to 885 kilometres) he expects to see constructed along the U.S.-Mexico border.

WATCH: Trump claims part of border wall built, cites Israel as proof a wall works

He hopes to have all 550 miles built by November 2020, when the next U.S. election rolls around.

“It’s a 2,000-mile border, but much of it has mountains and region where you can’t get across so we’re looking at between 500 and 550,” Trump said.

He also said the government has renovated a “massive amount of wall and, in addition to that — and I think very, very importantly — we built a lot of new wall.”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

I am in the Oval Office & just gave out a 115 mile long contract for another large section of the Wall in Texas. We are already building and renovating many miles of Wall, some complete. Democrats must end Shutdown and finish funding. Billions of Dollars, & lives, will be saved!

Trump’s remarks drew some scrutiny on Tuesday morning.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Trump pledged to build a “great, great wall” on the border and said Mexico would pay for it.

But Tuesday represented the first time he said how much he’d build or made any suggestion that renovating existing barrier would count toward realizing his promise, according to the Dallas News.

READ MORE: Donald Trump would settle for less border wall money: White House

Trump wants $5 billion to build the wall, and that amount would take care of approximately 215 miles — half of which would be replacements, it added.

The cost of a wall along America’s southern border has been pegged at anywhere between $12 billion (Trump’s estimate) and $21 billion (Homeland Security’s estimate).

The idea of building one has repeatedly been criticized, however, with some suggesting that there’s no crisis that the wall would solve. Opponents have also noted previous efforts to strengthen the border that have been cheaper than building a wall.

READ MORE: ‘There is no crisis at the border’: U.S. unauthorized immigration near 12-year lows, report shows

U.S. border apprehensions hit a decade-long high in 2007 and fell every year until 2011, when they started to fluctuate from one year to the next.

Former president Barack Obama also took tough action on the border, which included a $600-million spending bill that helped to pay for more border agents, drones and personnel for Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Trump expects to go to Texas for a groundbreaking ceremony next month.

Donald Trump’s wall will be more like 550 miles, not all 2,000 miles of U.S.-Mexico border, he says

Beyond the wall: Dogs,
blimps and other things
used to secure the border

 Back to top

Regardless of what “the wall” is made of or how much more of it is ever built, it will always be just one of many instruments in the toolbox of security measures on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Many devices, technologies and personnel work together to prevent drugs and people from illegally entering the United States.

Here are two common scenarios that require completely different tactics.

Sorting contraband from cargo at ports of entry

During “pre-inspection,” while a line of cars is waiting to cross, a drug-sniffing dog alerts its handler to something inside a truck. The vehicle is flagged for secondary inspection.

A cargo scanner scans the truck and the image reveals a suspicious compartment in its bed.

An officer uses a handheld elemental isotope detector to confirm heroin residue. The driver is arrested.

The U.S.-Mexico border has 47 land ports of entry through which about a half-million commercial trucks, cars and pedestrians enter the United States every day. U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers have the difficult job of expediting traffic while keeping an eye out for illegal crossers and cargo. Everyone and everything undergoes a primary inspection, in which license plates are scanned and passports are checked against Homeland Security data, said Blas Nuñez-Neto, a researcher at Rand Corporation and former senior advisor to the CBP commissioner.

Detecting and tracking people in remote areas

In the middle of the night, a ground sensor detects human footsteps in an area miles from the nearest Border Patrol station.

Agents in a control center check footage from surveillance towers in the area, spot a group of people and track them as they walk.

Other agents in an SUV head toward the area with mobile surveillance gear and night-vision goggles to locate and apprehend the group.

Between ports of entry, Border Patrol agents may be stationed miles apart, so they depend on various types of electronic surveillance to detect and track suspicious activity until they get there. If people move out of surveillance range, agents use classic tracking methods such as following footprints from the last known location.

We wanted to know not just what is there but also the strengths and limitations, so we talked to two experts who provided some perspective: Nuñez-Neto, formerly of CBP, and Adam Isacson, who analyzes border security for the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA).

Physical barriers (a.k.a. “the wall”)

PROS Delay would-be border crossers long enough for agents to catch them.

CONS Largely ineffective in remote areas; susceptible to vandalism; expensive to maintain; obvious and immovable, so people may simply go elsewhere.

About a third of the southern border, nearly 700 miles, is lined with some kind of wall or fence.

Imposing pedestrian barriers comprise about half of that and are most useful in densely populated areas where nearby law enforcement officers can apprehend people quickly. They are made of materials such as bollards, steel slats with mesh panels, fences topped with concertina wire — even rows of carbon steel Vietnam-era helicopter landing mats. Some areas have two or three rows of barriers separated by a Border Patrol road.

[Analysis: The history of U.S. border apprehensions]

The rest of the barriers are mostly low-slung vehicle barriers that stop cars and trucks but not people on foot. Sometimes barriers attempt to funnel people or vehicles to open places where agents can most easily intercept them.

In San Diego, a segment of wall stretches along the U.S. border with Tijuana, Mexico, at right. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Cargo scanners

PROS Very effective; next-generation models will be able to scan vehicles in line before they arrive at a port of entry.

CONS Expensive; require extensive training; more are needed; some date from the early 2000s and need to be upgraded.

Most illegal drugs that come into the United States from Mexico are smuggled through ports of entry, often mixed among legitimate goods, hidden in secret compartments or even in vehicle’s gas tanks.

Large X-ray and gamma-ray scanners identify illicit substances or hidden people by looking for differences in the density of cargo, such as a recent truckload of cucumbers that also contained almost 650 pounds of fentanyl and methamphetamine under a false floor. These scanners are mounted next to traffic or on moveable trucks and peer into vehicles horizontally as they pass by. Radiation detection devices are also used.

Ground sensors

PROS Provides ears on the ground rather than just eyes.

CONS Many false alarms because calibrating them to tell a person from, say, a deer can be difficult; smugglers figure out where they are; no tech has reliably detected tunnels.

Buried seismic sensors, often paired with cameras, detect when a person (or animal, car or even a low-flying plane) is moving in the area, and the sensors ideally can differentiate among those things. The sensors ping border agents in a control center so they can take a look at camera footage of the area. Other aboveground sensors and ground-penetrating radar are used to find tunnels.

Aerostats

PROS Can stay aloft for weeks at a time; not thwarted by undulating terrain.

CONS Sidelined by bad weather; radar can’t penetrate thick foliage; expensive to operate; may raise privacy concerns; one once broke loose and wreaked havoc.

Six roughly 200-foot-long unmanned, blimplike aerostats float thousands of feet above key areas of the U.S.-Mexico border. Each carries a downward-pointing radar system that can detect vehicles within a 200-mile radius and send data through its tether to a control station on the ground.

Aerostats are particularly good at detecting low-flying aircraft, such as the ones drug smugglers use, because their radar isn’t blocked by hilly terrain the way ground-based radar can be. And newer, smaller versions fly closer to the ground and carry radar that can better identify people. But Nuñez-Neto said it’s no secret that aerostats can’t fly in bad weather, and “the smugglers can read the weather forecast just as well as we can.”

An aerostat used by the Air and Marine Operations division of U.S. Customs and Border Protection in Eagle Pass, Tex., in 2017. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

Drones

PROS Excellent image quality; Predators theoretically can stay in the air for 24 hours; small drones are portable, agile and quick to deploy.

CONS Expensive; require a lot of manpower; dependent on good weather; raise privacy concernsfor nearby residents.

Since 2006, huge Predator B surveillance drones have patrolled the border from above 19,000 feet, capturing and transmitting live video and detailed infrared and radar images of people on the ground. More recently deployed smaller drones produce even better images, which reportedly are sharp enough to identify a person’s height, weight and hairstyle.

Like aerostats, however, drones can’t fly in bad weather.

Fixed surveillance towers

PROS Most effective in flat, wide-open areas.

CONS Radar can be blocked by hilly and leafy terrain; very visible, so people can see and try to avoid them; require people to monitor the feeds.

“Integrated Fixed Towers” as they are officially called look like TV station towers that soar to 160 feet high. Each is equipped with radar, high-resolution daytime cameras and infrared cameras to monitor up to a seven-mile radius. Their feeds are linked to a control center, where agents can track suspicious people and vehicles over a larger area. Smaller types of fixed towers provide additional camera surveillance.

A Border Patrol surveillance tower stands near the Rio Grande River bank in Hidalgo County, Tex. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Planes and helicopters

PROS Carry some of the most sophisticated surveillance equipment in the CBP’s arsenal.

CONS Expensive; require a lot of maintenance and personnel.

Fixed-wing surveillance planes often have under-mounted infrared cameras and powerful night-vision equipment on board. If radar pings something, Air and Marine officers on board can verify what it is and follow along, alerting law enforcement on the ground.

“There are parts of the border where you don’t want to apprehend as soon as you see someone,” said Nuñez-Neto. “You want to be able to keep eyes on them but let them get to a part of the border where you have the tactical advantage.”

Planes are mostly used for reconnaissance, but helicopters often transport people and help with search and rescue.

A CBP helicopter flies over as a group of men who crossed the U.S. border illegally and tried to run from Border Patrol agents are detained in Mission, Tex., in August 2018. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Satellite surveillance

PROS Another set of eyes.

CONS Expensive to use; can’t penetrate cloud cover; civil liberties concerns on U.S. soil.

Satellite images are used much like images collected by other air surveillance from remote places, Nuñez-Neto said. Agents will compare images taken of the same location at different times to look for changes, such as evidence of new or different patterns of foot traffic. Some people fear satellites will be able to zoom in on individuals.

Radio and cell data surveillance

PROS Can be used for search and rescue.

CONS Communication can be spotty in many areas.

The Department of Homeland Security says law enforcement may use commercially available location data “to identify the presence, but not the identity, of individuals within the border area.” Isacson said narco-traffickers in Mexico and Colombia have been tracked by triangulating their cell signals.

In remote areas, cell coverage is new or nonexistent, so smugglers often communicate by radio or walkie-talkie, and Border Patrol can sometimes intercept their signals.

Mobile surveillance equipment

PROS Mobile; able to operate in extreme places.

CONS Older cameras have bad resolution; some types are not integrated with other systems; not automated, so people need to watch the feeds.

Agents need different types of on-the-go surveillance gear, such as portable radar, daytime and nighttime cameras and thermal imaging equipment that allows them to see for miles in the dark.

The largest and least-agile device in this category is an 80-foot tower on a trailer platform that can be driven (slowly) to new sites. It contains powerful Remote Video Surveillance System (RVSS) cameras, which send images to a central control center and were responsible for the discovery of at least one smuggling tunnel. (RVSS systems can be mounted on fixed towers, poles and buildings, as well.)

Other devices are truck-mounted, and still others are small enough to be handheld or perched on tripods. Many of the smaller devices don’t link to a control center.

A fixed surveillance tower stands in Mission, Tex. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Specialized gear

PROS Allow agents to be faster and more effective.

CONS Agents in different areas need different equipment; off-the-shelf products rarely work in hot, sandy, windy environments.

Border agents and CBP officers have all kinds of additional devices to help them do their jobs. Among them are Defense Department surplus night-vision goggles, elemental isotype analyzers that can identify illegal substances, medical supplies and even gizmos that lasso the tires of fleeing vehicles. Some gear may be as simple as a stick that taps on cars so that well-trained ears can make sure that certain parts sound hollow, kind of like thumping a melon.

Biometrics

PROS Biometrics are a very effective way to cut through fraudulent documents and identify known criminals or people who may have previously used other identities.

CONS Readers and scanners can be glitchy and wear out quickly; facial recognition tech is new and is already raising privacy and civil liberties concerns.

Fingerprint readers often are used when agents in the field apprehend people and may also be used at ports of entry if officers have reason to believe a person is trying to enter the country illegally.

Biometric options beyond fingerprinting are becoming more robust and more precise, although they are not yet used at the U.S.-Mexico border. However, trials are underway at several airports and at least one seaport in which live photos and passport photos are matched so that your face is basically your boarding pass.

Patrol boats

PROS Can go places along the river that are hard to reach over land.

CONS Loud and easy to hear coming; some parts of the Rio Grande are too shallow to navigate.

While most agents and officers travel in SUVs, some ride ATVs, bikes, horses — and boats.

Air and Marine agents may carry cameras, radar and other equipment that helps them detect, track and intercept unfamiliar boats and look for smuggled goods. They also assist the Coast Guard and other law enforcement with disaster relief, searches and rescue operations.

Boats on the Mexican border are used mostly along the lower Rio Grande at the southern part of Texas. (The Coast Guard has jurisdiction on the coasts, so they’re the ones most likely to intercept drug boats headed to California, for instance.)

A CBP marine unit passes patrols the Rio Grande in August 2018 in Mission, Tex. Mexico is visible across the river. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Dog teams

PROS Fantastic at finding whatever they’ve been trained to detect.

CONS Need lots of breaks, particularly in hot, desert areas; a tiny inhaled dose of ultra-potent drugs, such as fentanyl, can be deadly.

More than 1,500 CBP canine teams work on U.S. borders, and they are extremely successful at sniffing out drugs, weapons, currency and other contraband. They also help find people (and human remains), whether concealed in vehicles or lost in the wilderness.

On the Mexico border, dog teams operate primarily at ports of entry and checkpoints.

Dogs who successfully detect drugs — or people, such as in this simulation in Jamul, Calif. — are often rewarded with extra play time. (U.S. Customs and Border Protection)

Agents and officers

PROS Nothing happens without them.

CONS Very expensive (nearly all the CBP’s budget goes to salaries, said Nuñez-Neto); high turnover rate; months long hiring process.

Notice the word “agent” or “officer” appears in everyone of these descriptions? Without them, all the surveillance, barriers and devices are useless.

“If you don’t have the people available,” Isacson said, “you’re just watching movies of people doing bad things.”

However, hiring and keeping agents can be difficult. Nearly 17,000 Border Patrol agents worked at the southern border as of the end of 2017, down from an all-time high of 18,501 in 2013 according to CBP, despite more money earmarked for hiring.

That’s because the work is tough and dangerous, the pay is not great, Isacson said, and the jobs require living and working in desolate, undesirable areas. Hiring can take months because of rigorous security and background checks, and about 65 percent of applicants reportedly fail a mandatory polygraph test.

Nevertheless, those agents are the one piece of the border security puzzle that is absolutely necessary.

Border Patrol agent Robert Rodriguez reports a smuggler near the Rio Grande River in Hidalgo County, Tex., in August 2018. (Carolyn Van Houten/The Washington Post)

Joe Fox contributed to this report.

About this story

Additional sources: Spokesman Rick Pauza of the Laredo, Tex., office of U.S. Customs and Border Protection; CBP documents; General Accountability Office report on border security; Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection photos from CBP Flickr page. Some illustrations are based on references from CBP photos.

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2019/national/what-is-border-security/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.98497d4fe0c1

Story 2:  President Trump Stands Firm on Demand For $5.7 Billion To Build Border Barrier — Democrats Siding With Drug Dealers and Criminal Illegal Aliens Against The Safety and Security of American People — Trump Wins in 2020 With Landslide Victory If 1500 Mile Border Barrier Built — Videos

Bipartisan negotiation on funding a border wall hitting a snag

Congress Under Pressure To Reach A Deal As Shutdown Deadline Looms | Sunday TODAY

 

Why the Wall Won’t Work

Donald Trump captured the imagination of many American voters with a single campaign promise. “I will build a great, great wall on our southern border,” he boasted in June 2015. For good measure, he added, “And I will have Mexico pay for that wall.” The twin pledges-which followed a tirade about Mexican rapists and drug dealers-neatly captured everything that was either attractive or repulsive to voters in the real estate mogul’s presidential run: bravado, nationalism, and controversy.


Joanna Andreasson

Trump was often criticized for lacking precision in policy ideas, but he had bold and detailed requirements for his wall. It would be 1,000 miles long. (The other 1,500, he said, were covered by “natural barriers.”) He gave various estimates of its height-between 30 and 50 feet, with the most common number being 35. His barrier would be an “impenetrable physical wall” composed of “precast [concrete] plank…30 feet long, 40 feet long.” He also insisted that it would be aesthetically pleasing.While he said after the election that a fence may be appropriate in “some areas,” he added that a wall would be better, and he has since vigorously corrected reporters who describe the project as a “fence.” Throughout the campaign, he described the current fences as a “joke,” implying that he would not only build a superior barrier, but that he would replace the one that exists at some points now.

The History
The president’s proposal has a decadeslong history. After the 1986 “amnesty,” when President Ronald Reagan traded increased border security for the legalization of 3 million unauthorized immigrants, the San Diego Border Patrol constructed a 10-foot welded steel fence along the 14-mile section of the border closest to the Pacific. In 1996, a new law provided funds for a second layer. Despite repeated requests from the Border Patrol for more, by the year 2000 just 60 miles of the southern border had fencing, almost all of which was in urban areas. Only San Diego had a second layer.

After 9/11, border hawks launched another push for fences, with little success. Most immigration enforcement funds were going to a surge in border agents. But President George W. Bush’s push for comprehensive immigration reform, which would have legalized the unauthorized immigrants in the United States, gave the hawks their opportunity. In 2006, Congress approved the Secure Fence Act mandating nearly 700 miles of fencing on the border.

The legal, practical, economic, and moral case against Trump’s border barrier.

The president signed on to the bill hoping to placate the secure-the-border-first crowd and obtain the humane immigration changes that he wanted. This sales job enabled it to pass with bipartisan support from the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. The immigration reform never materialized, but fence construction was nearly complete by 2009, and there are now 617 total miles of physical barriers, 36 miles of which have two layers.

Yet the hawks were not placated. They complained that there was no second layer in most places. They stewed that half the fence was just “vehicle barriers”-concrete posts that provide obstacles for drivers but not pedestrians. Moreover, the 317 miles of real pedestrian fences dramatically vary in height and quality. The Border Patrol uses half a dozen types of fencing materials-wire mesh, landing mats, chain-link, bollard, aesthetic, and sheet piling-just to control on-foot crossings. These barriers are mainly a combination of steel posts and bars supplemented in places with wire, ranging in height from 6 to 18 feet.

The Legal Obstacles
Trump has been adamant that his wall will be built “ahead of schedule.” For that to happen, he’ll need to avoid the various legal issues that plagued earlier efforts. Entities other than the federal government-states, Indian tribes, private individuals-control over two-thirds of borderland property. Private parties own the vast majority of the border in Texas, and for this reason, roughly 70 percent of the existing border fence is located in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. Almost all of it is on federally controlled land.

The Bush administration bullied property owners, threatening to sue them if they did not “voluntarily” hand over the rights to their land. It offered no compensation for doing so. Thinking that they had no recourse, some people signed off, but others refused. The government then attempted to use eminent domain, a procedure Trump has long defended, to seize their property, but the lawsuits imposed serious delays-seven years in one case.

In 2009, the Homeland Security inspector general concluded that the Border Patrol had “achieved [its] progress primarily in areas where environmental and real estate issues did not cause significant delay.” One intransigent resident had owned his property since before the “Roosevelt easement,” which gives the federal government a 60-foot right of way along the border. He fought the administration, so the fence had until recently a 1.2-mile gap on his land. Border residents fought more than a third of all land transfers, in fact. Because the Constitution promises just compensation for takings, Trump can do little to speed this process.

Native American tribes also have the capacity to stop construction of barriers. The Tohono O’odham Nation, which has land on both sides of the border, has already pledged to fight any efforts to build a wall there. In 2007, when the tribe allowed vehicle barriers to be constructed, the Bush administration ended up desecrating Indian burial grounds and digging up human remains. The new president would need a stand-alone bill from Congress to condemn their land. Senate Democrats can (and likely would) filibuster such an effort.

Even federal lands can be problematic. In 2010, two-thirds of patrol agents-in-charge told the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that land management laws had delayed or limited access to portions of federal lands, for fence building or repairs and other purposes, with more than half stating they did not get a timely response when they requested permission to use the lands. In one case, it took nearly eight months for the Border Patrol to get the OK to install a single underground sensor.

Water rights have also been a problem for the fence. A 1970 treaty requires that the floodplain of the Rio Grande remain open to both sides of the border. The Obama administration attempted to build fences along the river anyway, but the treaty and the river’s floods forced the barrier to be placed so far into the interior of the United States that it has many holes to allow U.S. residents access to their property. These also provide an opportunity for border crossers.

At the same time, the fence can cause Mexico to receive too much water. Even when a fence has holes, which a wall would not, debris can turn the fence into a dam. Thanks to the barrier, some floods have fully covered the doors of Mexican buildings in Los Ebanos, across the Rio Grande, while producing little more than deep puddling on the U.S. side. The International Boundary and Water Commission that administers the treaty has rebuffed the Border Patrol’s attempts to replicate this disaster in other areas of the Rio Grande Valley.

The Practical Considerations
Fences or walls obstruct crossers’ paths, cutting off a straight shot into the interior of the country. But a barrier is not the permanent object that some people imagine. Natural events can knock down parts of a border fence. One storm in Texas left a hole for months. Fences and walls can also erode near rivers or beaches, as the one in San Diego did. And they can be penetrated: Some fencing can be cut in minutes, and the Border Patrol reported repairing more than 4,000 holes in one year alone. They neglected to mention whether that number equaled that year’s number of breaches.

Much of the current fencing can be easily mounted with a ladder or from the roof of a truck. In some cases, border crossers can scale the fence without any additional equipment. One viral video from 2010 shows two women easily climbing an 18-foot steel bollard-style pedestrian fence in less than 20 seconds. Smugglers can even drive over the fence using ramps, a fact that was discovered only when a couple of foolish drug entrepreneurs managed to get their SUV stuck on top. (They took the dope and split.)


U.S. Customs and Border Protection (data); GAO-15-399 (map)

U.S. Customs and Border Protection, June 2011

A wall would probably be less easily damaged by man or nature. But in at least some areas, its impassibility could also become a maintenance liability. Border Patrol agents have told Fox News that a border wall would still “have to allow water to pass through, or the sheer force of raging water could damage its integrity, not to mention the legal rights of both the U.S. and Mexico to seasonal rains.” In 2011, for example, a flood in Arizona washed away 40 feet of steel fence.

While not “impenetrable,” a concrete wall would impede efforts to cut through it. Trump has also claimed that no one would ever use a ladder to go over his wall because “there’s no way to get down.” After pondering the question for a second, he then conceded, “maybe a rope.” Nonetheless, the height might discourage some people from attempting to climb it, and it would certainly take them longer to do so, giving Border Patrol agents additional time to reach them.

If not over or through, some crossers may opt to go under. Tunnels are typically used more for drug smuggling, but they still create a significant vulnerability in any kind of physical barrier. From 2007 to 2010, the Border Patrol found more than one tunnel per month, on average. “For every tunnel we find, we feel they’re building another one somewhere,” Kevin Hecht, a Border Patrol tunnel expert, told The New York Times last year. A wall would likely increase the rewards for successful tunneling as other modes of transit grow more expensive.

Trump is unconcerned, asserting that “tunnel technology” will rule out any such subterfuge. Effective tunnel detection equipment is seen as the Holy Grail of Border Patrol enforcement, but the Homeland Security Department’s Science and Technology Directorate has so far concluded that no current technology for detecting tunnels beneath the border is “suited to Border Patrol agents’ operational needs.”

But the biggest practical problem with a wall is its opacity. In fact, many Border Patrol agents oppose a concrete wall for precisely this reason (albeit quietly, given that they were also some of Trump’s biggest supporters during the election). “A cinder block or rock wall, in the traditional sense, isn’t necessarily the most effective or desirable choice,” Border Patrol agents told Fox News. “Seeing through a fence allows agents to anticipate and mobilize, prior to illegal immigrants actually climbing or cutting through the fence.”

The agency is already desperate to switch out the nontransparent landing-mat fences in use in some places. These metal sheets were adapted from helicopter landing pads left over from Vietnam, and while inexpensive, they are ill-suited to their purpose. Popular Mechanics described these parts of the fence as “obsolete, in need of replacement,” noting that they “can be easy to foil since Border Patrol agents can’t see what’s going on on the other side.” If a wall slows down agents as much as it does smugglers and migrants, it provides no advantage on balance.

To put it most simply, border barriers will never stop illegal immigration, because a wall or fence cannot apprehend crossers. The agents that Fox News spoke to called a wall “meaningless” without agents and technology to back it up. Mayor Michael Gomez of Douglas, Arizona, labeled the fence a failure in 2010, saying “they jump right over it.” Former Border Patrol spokesperson Mike Scioli has called the fence little more than “a speed bump in the desert.”

The Efficacy of a Wall
Trump speaks with absolute certainty of a wall’s ability to repel entries, yet the efficacy of the existing barriers has gone largely unstudied. The president is proposing a project likely to cost tens of billions of dollars and to suck up many other resources, and he is doing so without a single evaluation of the barrier. Obviously, any obstacle to passage will reduce entries at the margin. But would other options work better?

Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) of the House Homeland Security Committee failed to obtain an answer to this exact question from the Obama administration. Chairman Michael McCaul (R-Texas) concluded in 2013 that “it would be an inefficient use of taxpayer money to complete the fence,” but he gave no indication of how he evaluated the costs and benefits. A 2016 Migration Policy Institute review of the impact of walls and fences around the world turned up no academic literature specifically on the deterrent effect of physical barriers relative to other technologies or strategies, and concluded somewhat vaguely that walls appear to be “relatively ineffective.”

Fences can have strong local effects, and the case for more fencing often relies completely on these regional outcomes. Take the San Diego border sector, probably the most commonly cited success story in this debate.

From 1990 to 1993, it replaced a “totally ineffective” fence with a taller, opaque landing mat fence along 14 miles of the border. This had little impact on the number of border crossers. “The primary fence, by itself, did not have a discernible impact on the influx of unauthorized aliens coming across the border in San Diego,” the Congressional Research Service concluded.

From 1994 to 1996, Operation Gatekeeper doubled the number of agents in the sector to reinforce the fence, but this too had little effect on the number of apprehended migrants. (Researchers use apprehensions as a proxy for illegal immigration because they usually track closely to the number of total entries.) Instead, the apprehensions shifted dramatically away from the areas guarded by western stations at Imperial Beach and Chula Vista, where fences were built, and toward eastern stations. The net flow remained the same.

From 1997 to 1999, when the San Diego sector was reinforced with nine miles of secondary fencing and even more agents were added, the numbers did finally slow. But looking at the apprehension figures, it appears that San Diego simply pushed its problem even further east, to the El Centro, Yuma, and Tucson sectors. Each agent in those places ended up apprehending more people after the fence was built than before.

Ideally, we would perform the same type of before-and-after analysis of the impact of the Secure Fence Act of 2006. The problem is that those barriers were rolled out at the same time that Congress almost doubled the size of the Border Patrol, increasing it from 12,000 to 21,000 agents. Moreover, fences went up in many different sectors, making it difficult to isolate the effects. To complicate matters further, this period saw the collapse of the housing bubble, which caused a huge exodus of unauthorized workers back to Mexico.

The Unintended Consequences
The numbers from this period also suggest that counting “reduced crossings” as a victory may be misleading. As the amount of fencing and the number of agents grew, the share of unauthorized immigrants entering illegally fell, but the number entering legally (and then staying illegally) rose.

In 2006, the Pew Research Center calculated that more than a third of all unauthorized immigrants entered lawfully and then simply overstayed their visas. People who come to the U.S. as tourists or temporary business travelers are forbidden from working, so a small number remain after their visa expires to work under the table. For every three border crossers in 1992, there was one overstay. But by 2012, visa overstays accounted for 58 percent of all new unauthorized immigrants. A wall not only will do nothing to stop these people from entering, but it may actually incentivize more people to stick around without authorization.


Border fencing, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, June 2011

Using reduced border crossings as the standard of success also obscures the wall’s effect on the total population of undocumented residents in the country.Until the first fence was built in 1990, workers could circulate freely across the border, coming to harvest crops during the summer and then returning home in the winter. They crossed with a goal of bettering their lives south of the border. The 1980s had more total crossings than the 1990s, but because as many people left each year as arrived, the total number of unauthorized immigrants remained roughly constant at about 3 million. The true measure of of a barrier’s efficacy should be not the gross flow but the net flow, taking into account both entries and exits.

Increased enforcement in the 1990s raised the cost to cross the border, which obviously prevented some migrants from crossing at the margin. In fact, the cost of a single border crossing exploded from $500 in 1995 to $3,000 in 2009. Increasing the price of illegal activity is law enforcement’s main measurement of success. The Drug Enforcement Administration would be thrilled to claim it had driven up illicit drug prices 600 percent in a decade and a half.

But this strategy backfired. The increased costs and risks disincentivized people from returning home. In 1996, just as the secondary fencing was going up in San Diego, a majority of new unauthorized entrants left within one year, according to a study by the University of Pennsylvania sociologist Douglas Massey. By 2009-with three times as many agents, 650 miles of barriers, and constant surveillance along the border-an illegal immigrant’s likelihood of leaving within one year had dropped to a statistically insignificant level. Border security had essentially trapped them in.

The illegal population grew in tandem with the increases in smuggling prices, which in turn paralleled the growth in the number of border officers. This process continued from 1990 to 2007, when the housing collapse finally set Mexican migration into reverse.

Massey calculates that as of 2009, 5.3 million fewer immigrants would have been residing in the United States illegally had enforcement remained at the same levels as in the 1980s. He argues that a large guest worker program, similar to the one that the United States last had in the early 1960s, would reduce not just border crossings but the population of immigrants living in this country-seemingly a nationalist two-for-one.

The Price Tag
Congress set aside $1.2 billion for the 700-mile border fence in 2006. It ended up spending $3.5 billion for construction of the current combination of pedestrian fences and vehicle impediments. In 2009, the Border Patrol estimated it would need to spend an average of $325 million per year for 20 years to maintain these barriers. The Congressional Research Service found that by 2015, Congress had already spent $7 billion on the project, more than $11.3 million per mile per decade.

Of course, it hardly makes sense to look at averages, given that half the fence is inexpensive vehicle-only barriers. Of the 317 miles of true pedestrian fencing, the GAO found that construction alone for the first 70 miles cost $2.8 million per mile on average. In the more difficult, non-urban areas, costs grew dramatically: For the next 225 miles, they rose to $5 million per mile on average. In a mountainous region east of San Diego, they hit $16 million per mile. After about 290 miles, the GAO assumed the average cost for the final 26 miles would be $6.5 million.

If Trump backs away from his promise or if Congress ignores his requests for new funding, he may choose to simply build out the existing pedestrian fence for the remaining 683 miles to reach his 1,000-mile goal. Using the $6.5-million-per-mile figure, Congress will still need to front at least $10 billion over 10 years. The entire fence would price out at $18 billion, accounting for inflation. Add in the costs associated with acquiring private land and building in less accessible areas and the price tag goes even higher.

Trump, who still insists that his wall will be not a fence but an “impenetrable physical wall” of concrete, claims that it will cost between $10 billion and $12 billion. In early 2017, House Speaker Paul Ryan suggested that a similar amount of appropriations would be needed for the wall. Neither the president nor the speaker has revealed his methodology. But since we know that just building out the existing fence would cost at least that much, the wall will undoubtedly cost far more.

Not only that, but the existing fences were relatively inexpensive to build because they were constructed from materials such as old metal from helicopter landing pads and built low to the ground in some places. Trump has criticized them for, among other things, their inability to prevent tunneling, their materials, their height, and their aesthetics. Trump’s wall would use, according to one engineer’s estimate, more than 1.5 times as much concrete as the Hoover Dam.

For the full 1,000 miles, Trump’s 30-foot wall (with a 10-foot tunnel barrier) would cost $31.2 billion, or $31.2 million per mile, according to the best estimate from Massachusetts Institute of Technology engineers. Two other estimates placed the construction cost of the wall in the $25 billion range. An internal Department of Homeland Security report from February 2017 concluded the project would cost $21.6 billion for “a series of fences and walls” along 1,250 miles of the border. And these are solely upfront construction costs. They don’t include ongoing maintenance, which has accounted for roughly half of the price of the existing barriers over a decade.

The Economic Downside
Donald Trump has insisted from the start of his campaign that Mexico will pay for the wall. When he presented a proposal to Congress to fund the wall’s construction in January, he continued to insist that Mexico would repay the United States. For his part, Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto has said that he would refuse to pay for any portion of the wall, and the back-and-forth became so heated in January that he canceled a meeting with Trump.

The U.S. president has remained vague about how this reimbursement will happen without Mexico’s cooperation, and his total lack of understanding of basic economic concepts may be contributing to his erroneous belief. “The wall is a fraction of the kind of money…that Mexico takes in from the United States,” he told CNN in April 2016. “You’re talking about a trade deficit with Mexico of $58 billion.” In other words, he seems to be saying that if the Mexican government does not give him the $31 billion or more that it will take to build the wall, Trump will tax America’s business with Mexico. White House Spokesman Sean Spicer intimated something similar in January 2017.


U.S. Customs and Border Protection

Even if that were to happen, it is simply inaccurate to claim that America’s southern neighbor would be paying for the wall, since the revenue would be coming from U.S. consumers. If the United States imposes a tax on Mexican imports, then people in America buying Mexican goods, from beer to cars, will cover it. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said as much to Trump during a presidential primary debate in January 2016, explaining that the Mexican government “doesn’t pay the tariff-the buyer pays the tariff.” Evidently, the lesson failed to stick.Trump has also floated the idea of cutting off remittances to Mexico of unauthorized immigrants if the Mexican government refuses to pay up. His proposed regulatory method of doing this (claiming that cash wire transfers are actually bank accounts) is legally suspect, but even if it were licit, it would not cover the cost of the wall. Although Mexican immigrants annually send $26 billion to their families in Mexico, only half of the Mexican immigrants in the United States are here illegally, and the majority of the remittances from unauthorized immigrants would likely find a way home through means other than wire transfers.

The Reason
President Trump’s wall would be a mammoth expenditure that would have little impact on illegal immigration. But perhaps that’s not the point. The campaign’s goal was to plant an image in voters’ minds of what making America great again would look like. The president’s goal may now be to create a symbol, an illustration of a nationalism that says to the world that although people of all kinds may want to come here, America was created by and for Americans.

For those who are not nationalists, the wall is a problem. The direct harms are easy to document: the spending, the taxes, the eminent domain abuse, and the decrease in immigrants’ freedom of movement.


Right: Tijuana, Mexico; left: San Diego, California. Public Domain

Even if the wall fails to reduce illegal entries significantly overall, one byproduct of making it harder to enter is that people will choose to cross in increasingly dangerous points along the border (the president’s “natural barriers”). This objective was a purposeful Border Patrol strategy in the 1990s, and it caused the number of deaths to skyrocket as people perished in mountains or deserts. From 1993 to 2005, the number of lives lost in crossing rose from 23 to 500 per year. Since the border fence was built, the number has declined, but the death rate per crossing had more than tripled by 2012.Wasteful security has always been the compromise that non-nationalists give to nationalists to obtain a better immigration system, one that treats people humanely and allows more of them to enter and live here legally. The most optimistic case is that the president builds some kind of barrier and takes credit for the drop in illegal immigration that began a decade ago. Seizing victory, he allows some form of immigration reform palatable to moderate Republicans to pass.

But agreeing to the symbol could be seen as conceding the principle behind it. If Trump understands the costs and the limited benefits of the wall, his true purpose may be to force his opponents to give in to the nationalist viewpoint and spend the ensuing decades building and maintaining its outward sign. Many Republicans, including the president, have adopted a “border security first” philosophy that requires certain metrics to be met before other humane reforms take effect, so the wall could simply be an attempt to move the goalposts for security so far that they can never be reached (especially if Mexico’s reimbursement is a criterion).

Another possibility is that the wall serves as a grand red herring, forcing Trump’s opponents to focus on the symbol while he enforces his true vision in other areas. The president’s executive order mandating the construction of a wall also requires a crackdown on asylum seekers coming to the border from Central America. His order on interior enforcement renders nearly all unauthorized immigrants priorities for removal. He has still further orders planned to undermine the legal immigration system for foreign workers. And of course, he has tried to ban all people from seven majority-Muslim countries from entering at all. As his opponents focus on the wall, the Trump administration targets immigrants from every direction.


Congressional Research Service

In a sense, the wall merely represents the Trump administration’s worst instincts and desires. It is harmful, wasteful, and offensive, but an ineffective wall is nonetheless better than the surge of 5,000 new Border Patrol agents and 10,000 new Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to round up and deport people that the president also wants. No wall has ever arrested, robbed, battered, or murdered nonviolent people, as immigration enforcement has. A wall will not create an interest group to lobby for itself, endorse nationalist presidential candidates, and demand more power and funding, as the Border Patrol union does.The wall is more than a symbol. It will harm the lives of thousands of border residents and immigrants while wasting billions of tax dollars. But in a world run by nationalists, the one small source of comfort for non-nationalists over the next four years may be the knowledge that it could be worse.

Story 3: President Trump Approval Rating Hits 52% Despite Big Lie Media’s Two Year Negative Smear Campaign Against Trump — Progressive Propaganda Poop — PooPourri — Videos —

Trump polls at 52 per cent, his best approval rating in 23 months – Daily News

LATEST POLL: President Trump’s Approval Rating SOARS to 52%

Donald Trump’s entire 2019 State of the Union address | Full speech on CNN

Trump hits 48 per cent approval in his favorite poll as he prepares for State of the Union

Girls Don’t Poop – PooPourri.com

Even Santa Poops – PooPourri.com

You’ve Been Doing The Holidays All Wrong – PooPourri.com

The Best Thing to Happen to Pooping Since Your Butt – PooPourri.com

How to Poop at a Party – PooPourri.com

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Monday, February 11, 2019

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows that 52% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-seven percent (47%) disapprove.

Trump’s highest level of approval since shortly after his inauguration.

The latest figures include 39% who Strongly Approve of the job Trump is doing and 39% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of 0. (see trends).

Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m.  Eastern (sign up for free daily email update).

Now that Gallup has quit the field, Rasmussen Reports is the only nationally recognized public opinion firm that still tracks President Trump’s job approval ratings on a daily basis. If your organization is interested in a weekly or longer sponsorship of Rasmussen Reports’ Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, please send e-mail to beth@rasmussenreports.com .

Total Approval20-Jan-1721-Apr-1724-Jul-1723-Oct-1730-Jan-1801-May-1802-Aug-1801-Nov-1811-Feb-190%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%www.RasmussenReports.comTotal Approve (Trump)Total Approve (Obama)

 

0Approval Index20-Jan-1721-Apr-1724-Jul-1723-Oct-1730-Jan-1801-May-1802-Aug-1801-Nov-1811-Feb-1910%20%30%40%50%60%www.RasmussenReports.comStrongly DisapproveStrongly Approve

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_feb11

Trump’s approval rating among likely voters soars to his best in 23 MONTHS at 52 per cent after State of the Union address as border-wall shutdown talks intensify

  • Rasmussen Reports poll as Trump at 52 per cent approval, his best showing in 23 months and a higher number than his winning edge in 2016
  • Significant up-swing since government-shutdown low of 43 per cent
  • New numbers were collected in the three days immediately following State of the Union address
  • Asked what Monday’s numbers mean, a senior Democratic House aide confided on background: ‘I don’t know yet if it’s horrible, but it sure isn’t good’ 
  • Polling average is just 42.4 per cent, including mostly those surveys that are open to all Americans; Rasmussen polls only ‘likely voters’

That number is his highest since March 6, 2017, less than seven weeks after he took office. It has been even longer since Trump’s ‘strongly approve’ and ‘strongly disapprove’ numbers weren’t under water. They were even at 39 per cent on Monday.

Overall, 47 per cent of likely voters disapprove of Trump’s Oval Office performance. That’s a low water mark since November 2, 2018.

Monday’s numbers came from surveys conducted during the three weekdays following the president’s State of the Union address.  It’s not unusual for presidents to get a polling ‘bump’ after the high-profile annual address.

Asked what Monday’s numbers mean, a senior Democratic House aide confided on background: ‘I don’t know yet if it’s horrible, but it sure isn’t good.’

The White House, however, seemed pleased. Trump himself tweeted an image of this story at the top of The Drudge Report, an influential news aggregation website.

Donald Trump is gaining ground in the nation's only daily presidential approval tracking poll, surging to 52 per cent – a higher level of popular support than he had on Election Day 2016 and his best poll showing since less than seven weeks into his presidency

Rasmussen's poll had Trump at 46 per cent on the day the three-week government shutdown began; he dipped to a low of 43 per cent in mid-January, but is now at 52 per cent after his State of the Union address

Rasmussen’s poll had Trump at 46 per cent on the day the three-week government shutdown began; he dipped to a low of 43 per cent in mid-January, but is now at 52 per cent after his State of the Union address

President Trump boasted his latest approval number by tweeting an image of this story at the top of The Drudge Report

The principal battle is shaping up, as it was in December, over the preisdent’s demand for money to continue construction of a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.

Democrats are pledging to yank their purse-strings tight, while Trump has an ace up his sleeve: a threat to declare a national emergency and build the wall with existing funds Congress appropriated last year.

Trump often cites Rasmussen as a rare example of a trustworthy poll, suggesting others are operated by ‘fake news’ outets that are slanted against him.

The president won 46.1 per cent of the votes cast in the 2016 election, prevailing on the strength of a commanding majority in the Electoral College. 

Rasmussen’s Monday numbers suggest Trump could have a majority of Americans behind him and a leg up on his winning position from two years ago.

The president’s approval had been sliding in recent weeks, reaching a low of 43 per cent in the Rasmussen poll as the recent government shutdown wore on.

An average of presidential approval polls maintained by Real Clear Politics now has the president at 42.4 per cent.

That suggests he still has a steep hill to climb at a time when most Americans still blame him and congressional Republicans for the shutdown – and Washington is growing skittish about the possibiity of a repeat performance Friday night.

Trump’s State of the Union address appears to have earned him a ‘bump’ in his approval rating

The most dire polls included in the current RCP average belong to Reuters and Quinnipiac University, which found last week that just 38 per cent of Americans approve of Trump’s work in the White House.

There are three recent polls that show a whopping 57 per cent disapproving of the president.

Leaders of Congress from both parties, however, consistently fare even worse in national polls.

Unlike most broad samples, which draw from all American adults, Rasmussen surveyers accept responses only from self-described ‘likely voters.’ 

The Rasmussen survey since November has been the only national poll that records the public’s assessment of the president’s performance every weekday. Gallup ended its competing daily tracking poll last year and now only reports monthly averages. 

Real Clear Politics maintains a polling average that puts Trump's overall approval at 42.4 per cent, but Rasmussen's survey is the only one of the bunch that excludes people who are not 'likely' U.S. voters ('LV' in the table above)

Real Clear Politics maintains a polling average that puts Trump’s overall approval at 42.4 per cent, but Rasmussen’s survey is the only one of the bunch that excludes people who are not ‘likely’ U.S. voters (‘LV’ in the table above)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6691891/Trumps-approval-rating-likely-voters-soars-best-23-MONTHS-52-cent.html

Story 4: American People’s Confidence Keeps Rising — Videos

Americans’ Confidence in Their Finances Keeps Growing

Americans' Confidence in Their Finances Keeps Growing

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • 69% expect their financial situation to improve over the next year
  • Optimism about finances over the next year is almost at a record-high level
  • 50% say they are in better shape financially than a year ago

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ optimism about their personal finances has climbed to levels not seen in more than 16 years, with 69% now saying they expect to be financially better off “at this time next year.”

Line graph. A near-record 69% of Americans say they expect to better off financially a year from now.

The 69% saying they expect to be better off is only two percentage points below the all-time high of 71%, recorded in March 1998 at a time when the nation’s economic boom was producing strong economic growth combined with the lowest inflation and unemployment rates in decades.

Americans are typically less positive about how their finances have changed over the past year than about where they’re headed, and that remains the case. Fifty percent say they are better off today than they were a year ago. That 50% still represents a post-recession milestone — the first time since 2007 that at least half of the public has said they are financially better off than a year ago.

Ten years ago, as the Great Recession neared its end, the percentage saying their finances had improved from the previous year was at a record low of 23%. More than half the public, 54%, said they were worse off. Now, with unemployment below 1998 levels and the job market growing steadily, the number saying they are worse off than a year ago has dropped to 26%, the lowest level since October 2000.

Line graph. Half of Americans say they are now better off financially than they were a year ago.

Only 11 times in 109 polls stretching back to 1976 have at least half of those polled said they were in better financial shape than they had been a year prior. Only once in 114 polls going back to 1977 have Americans been more optimistic about their personal finances in the coming year than they are today.

In every one of the 105 Gallup polls since 1977 that asked both questions, more Americans were optimistic about their future finances than said their current finances had improved versus a year prior. On average in those 105 polls, 56% have expected to be better off in the next year, while 39% have believed they were better off than they had been the previous year. For both questions, a substantial percentage of the public volunteered a response of “the same” — indicating either that their finances had not changed in the past year or that they did not expect them to change in the coming year.

Partisanship Plays a Role in Perceptions of Past and Future Finances

Members of most major demographic groups are more likely in 2019 to say their financial situation has improved in the past year than to say they are worse off — with Democrats the one major exception. By 37% to 32%, more Democrats say that compared with a year ago, they are worse off financially rather than better off. However, among some of the key groups that generally vote Democratic, a plurality or majority say they are better off.

  • Sixty-two percent of those under 30 say they are better off; 25% say worse off.
  • Forty-five percent of women say they are better off; 29% say worse off.
  • Forty-five percent of those with annual household incomes of less than $40,000 say better off, 35% worse off.
  • Among liberals, 40% say better off, 31% worse off.

Republicans are at the other end of the spectrum, with 68% saying they are better off, and only 10% saying worse off. Among groups that are more Republican than the national average, 66% of conservatives say they are better off, as do 57% of those with annual incomes of at least $100,000 and 56% of men.

Both Republicans and Democrats significantly changed their perceptions of how they were doing financially when the 2016 presidential election replaced outgoing Democrat Barack Obama with Republican Donald Trump.

The two most recent times the question was asked before Trump’s election, in January 2015 and January 2016, as many Republicans — 37%, on average — said they were worse off as said they were better off. In the two polls since Trump has taken office, one in January 2018 and one last month, a robust majority of 67% have said they are better off, compared with 13% saying “worse off.”

Democrats, who were more than twice as likely to say they were better off (58%) rather than worse off (24%) in the two pre-Trump-election polls, have reversed field, with 35% saying they are better off and 38% saying worse off in the two post-Trump-inauguration polls.

Changing White House Occupants, Changing Views of Personal Finances
Would you say that you are financially better off now than you were a year ago, or are you financially worse off now?
Better off Worse off
% %
2015-2016 polls
Democrats 58 24
Republicans 37 37
2018-2019 polls
Democrats 35 38
Republicans 67 13
Results based on combined January 2015-January 2016 polls and combined January 2018-January 2019 polls
GALLUP

For both Republicans and Democrats, results are more positive over the same time spans for the question asking about financial expectations for the coming year. Though Republicans’ expectations rose after Trump took office and Democrats became less optimistic, majorities from both parties said they expected to be better off in the coming year in both the pre-Trump-election polls and the post-Trump-inauguration ones.

Bottom Line

The United States brought in the new year with a partial government shutdown that stretched through most of January and a growing sense of pessimism about the nation’s economy.

But in spite of the negative turn in the public’s views about the national economic picture, Americans are more upbeat now about their own finances than they have been in years.

Economic conditions can take rapid turns, and lofty expectations can be dashed in the process. But for now, it appears that most Americans believe, at least for their own financial situations, that 2019 will be a good year.

View complete question responses and trends

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1205

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download 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 1203, February 7, 2019, Story 1: Radical Extreme Democrats (REDs): Killing Babies In and Out of The Womb OK — Wearing Blackface Not OK– Morally Bankrupt REDs — Videos — Story 2: The RED New Deal — Santa Claus Socialism — Vote For Me To Get Free Stuff — Government Coercion and Dependence — In Your Guts You Know Socialists Are Nuts — Videos

Posted on February 7, 2019. Filed under: Abortion, Agenda 21, Blogroll, Breaking News, Coal, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Hillary Clinton, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Natural Gas, Oil, Public Corruption, Resources, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Sexual Harrasment, Spying, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United Nations, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Water, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1203 February 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1202 February 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1201 February 4, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1200 February 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1199 January 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1198 January 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1197 January 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1196 January 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1195 January 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1194 January 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1193 January 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1192 January 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1191 December 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1190 December 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1189 December 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1188 December 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1187 December 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1186 December 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1185 December 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1184 December 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1183 December 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1182 December 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1181 December 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1180 December 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1179 November 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1178 November 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

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

Story 1: Radical Extreme Democrats (REDs): Killing Babies In and Out of The Womb OK — Wearing Blackface Not OK– Morally Bankrupt REDs — Videos

See the source image

The Most Important Question About Abortion

A Silent Scream (Short Clip)

[youtuibe=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy5IUTNqHrs]

The Silent Scream [high quality] (The ultrasound of abortion)

Maafa 21 – Black Genocide in 21st Century America – full documentary

Alveda King on the impact of abortion on minorities – ENN 2019-01-17

Alveda King Shares the History of Abortion in the African American Community (1of5)

Mike Wallace Interviews Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

21 Quotes by Margaret Sanger

Eugenics, Hitler, Margaret Sanger’s Planned Murderhood, etc. by Edwin Black

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

Babies In New York Have To Die So This Can Happen In 2020

Virginia Democrat defends bill allowing abortion as woman is giving birth

Virginia governor Ralph Northam: killing live-born babies should be legal

Trump slams Virginia governor over abortion comments

Virginia Governor Targeted By Classmate

“Abortion is clearly wrong.” Jordan Peterson “but it’s not that simple.”

I’m Pro-Life (2nd Edition) | Change My Mind

The Ethics of Abortion

Ben Shapiro DEBATES Dave Rubin On Abortion! (Best of Ben Shapiro)

Blackface Overkill, Hypocrisy, Diversion, Delusion: Media Dumpster Fires and Virtue Signaling Lunacy

Demented Dems Nuts Over 35 Year-Old Blackface Yearbook Idiocy But Indifferent As to Infanticide

INSANE: Dems Now Openly Embrace Infanticide

Ralph Northam’s 1984 Blackface Explanation Is a Racism Dumpster Fire | The Daily Show

Democrats Call on Ralph Northam to Resign After Racist Photo Surfaces: A Closer Look

Cotton and Chick Watts Blackface Minstrel Show Comedy

Even by minstrel show standards, Cotton Watts was far more extreme and offensive than most blackface comedians of his time. This clip includes the classic “Lion Tamer” bit and an excellent dance routine in “slap shoes.” Read more about the history of blackface and minstrel shows at http://black-face.com

Blackface: A cultural history of a racist art form

The racist role of blackface in American society

Understanding the “legacy of oppression” behind blackface

Celeb Defends Whiteface & Blackface | TMZ Live

By the Numbers: U.S. Abortion Statistics

  1. Abortion: Why I’m Pro-Life
  2. The ‘Sanctity of Life’ Ethic
  3. Remembering Roe
  4. The Serpent’s Whisper
  5. What is a Chemical Abortion?
  6. Abortion Complications
  7. By the Numbers: U.S. Abortion Statistics
  8. State Ultrasound Laws
  9. ‘Women’s Right to Know’ Legislation
  10. Abortion and ObamaCare
  11. A Pro-Life Response to Abortion in ObamaCare

Life Issues

The U.S. has seen a steady and significant drop in the number of abortions in recent years.  In 2015, the number of abortions was at its lowest since 1976 – and had dropped almost in half in the last 20 years.

It’s estimated that fewer than one million abortions take place annually and more than 55 million abortions have been performed in the U.S. since 1973, based on accumulative data from the two primary sources of U.S. abortion statistics – U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Guttmacher Institute.

Problematic Reporting

The graph below shows the reported number of legal abortions in the U.S. for selected years according to the CDC’s 2015 Abortion Surveillance Report.

From 1973 to 1997, the CDC received data from all 50 states; however, beginning in 1998, some states did not report, including California.

The sizable drop in abortions between 1997 and 1998 (from 1,186,039 to 884,273) reflects the absence of data from those non-reporting states. The third column of the chart lists the annual percent of change based on the states reporting the previous year and provides the best big picture of abortion trends.

In 2014, several states, including California, Maryland, and New Hampshire – did not report abortions to the CDC. Based on other sources, the total number of abortions in those states in 2014 is approximately 188,000 – the majority occurring in California.

That puts the estimated number of U.S. abortions in 2015 closer to 826,199. However, the downward trend in the abortion numbers continues, even with this adjustment.

Unfortunately, the lack of mandatory abortion reporting for all 50 states hampers the CDC’s ability to accurately report the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

According to the 2015 CDC report:

  • More than 25 percent of abortions are chemical
  • Nearly 75 percent of abortions are surgical
  • 41 percent women who had abortions in the U.S. had no other children
  • 44 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. had at least one previous abortion
  • 86 percent of women who had abortions in the U.S. were unmarried
  • 41 percent of abortions are among women and teens 24-years old and younger

And according to the Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of the nation’s leading abortion seller, Planned Parenthood:

  • At current rates, an estimated 1/4 of American women will have an abortion by the age of 45
  • About 15,000 abortions are attributed to rape and incest — representing 1.5 percent of all abortions.

https://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/life-issues/dignity-of-human-life/abortion-statistics

 

U.S. Abortion Statistics

Facts and figures relating to the frequency of abortion in the United States.

Primary nationwide abortion statistics for the United States are available from two sources—privately from the Guttmacher Institute (AGI) and publicly from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). Guttmacher’s numbers, published every three years, come from direct surveys of all known and suspected abortion providers in the United States. The CDC numbers, published annually, are derived from actual counts of every abortion reported to state health departments. Unfortunately, California, Maryland, and New Hampshire do not publicly report abortion totals. As such, Guttmacher’s abortion numbers are more complete, but they are approximations. Since only 58% of queried providers responded to Guttmacher’s latest survey, abortion totals were estimated for the remaining 42%. These estimates utilized in-state health department data and “service patterns of other abortion-providing facilities in the community.” Whereas the CDC numbers may be too low, Guttmacher’s numbers may be too high. The information on this page has been gleaned from both sources to provide an overview of the frequency and demography of abortion. Additional secondary statistics have been taken from the National Abortion Federation’s (NAF) 2009 teaching text on abortion, Management of Unintended and Abnormal Pregnancy: Comprehensive Abortion Care.

ANNUAL ABORTION STATISTICS

  • Based on the latest state-level data available, approximately 882,000 abortions took place in the United States in 2017—down from approximately 885,000 abortions in 2016 and 913,000 abortions in 2015.
  • According to the Guttmacher Institute, an estimated 926,240 abortions took place in the United States in 2014—down from 1.06 million in 2011, 1.21 million abortions in 2008, 1.2 million in 2005, 1.29 million in 2002, 1.31 million in 2000 and 1.36 million in 1996. From 1973 through 2011, nearly 53 million legal abortions occurred in the U.S (AGI).
  • In 2014, approximately 19% of U.S. pregnancies (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion.1
  • According to the United Nations’ 2013 report, only nine countries in the world have a higher reported abortion rate than the United States. They are: Bulgaria, Cuba, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Romania, Russia, Sweden, and Ukraine.*

    *Though the UN lists China’s official abortion rate at 19.2, China’s actual abortion rate is likely much higher. According to China’s 2010 census, there were approximately 310 million women of reproductive age in the country. An estimated 13-23 million abortions happen annually in China, resulting in an adjusted abortion rate of 41.9-74.2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.

  • In 2014, the highest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in the District of Columbia(38%), New York (33%), and New Jersey (30%). The lowest percentage of pregnancies were aborted in Utah (5%), South Dakota (4%), and Wyoming (<2%). (AGI abortion data + CDC birth data).
  • In 2015, approximately 35% of all pregnancies in New York City (excluding spontaneous miscarriages) ended in abortion (CDC).
  • The annual number of legal induced abortions in the United States doubled between 1973 and 1979, and peaked in 1990. There was a slow but steady decline through the 1990’s. Overall, the number of annual abortions decreased by 6% between 2000 and 2009, with temporary spikes in 2002 and 2006 (CDC).
  • From 2014 to 2015, the number, rate2 and ratio3 of reported abortions all decreased by 2% (CDC).

WHO HAS ABORTIONS?

  • In 2015, unmarried women accounted for 86% of all abortions (CDC).
  • Among married women, 4% of pregnancies currently end in abortion. Among unmarried women, 27% of pregnancies end in abortion (CDC).
  • Women in their 20s accounted for the majority of abortions in 2015 and had the highest abortion rates (CDC).
  • Adolescents under 15 years obtained .03% of all 2015 abortions; women aged 15–19 years accounted for less than 10% (CDC).
  • Percentage of 2015 Reported Abortions by Age of Mother (CDC):
    <15 years 15–19 years 20–24 years 25–29 years 30–34 years 35–39 years ≥40 years
    0.3% 9.8% 31.1% 27.6% 17.7% 10.0% 3.5%
  • Women living with a partner to whom they are not married account for 25% of abortions but only about 10% of women in the population (NAF).
  • In 2015, women who had not aborted in the past accounted for 56% of all abortions; women with one or two prior abortions accounted for 35%, and women with three or more prior abortions accounted for 8% (CDC).
  • Among women who obtained abortions in 2015, 41% had no prior live births; 45% had one or two prior live births, and 14% had three or more prior live births (CDC).
  • Among white women, 10% of pregnancies currenlty end in abortion. Among black women, 28% of pregnancies end in abortion (CDC).
  • Black women were more than 3.5 times more likely to have an abortion in 2015 than white women (CDC).
  • The abortion rate of non-metropolitan women is about half that of women who live in metropolitan counties (NAF).
  • The abortion rate of women with Medicaid coverage is three times as high as that of other women (NAF).
  • In 2014, 30% of aborting women identified themselves as Protestant and 24% identified themselves as Catholic (AGI).

WHY DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?

WHEN DO ABORTIONS OCCUR?

  • 89% of all abortions happen during the first trimester, prior to the 13th week of gestation (AGI/CDC).
  • In 2015, 8% of all abortions occurred between 14-20 weeks’ gestation; 1.3% occurred ≥21 weeks’ gestation (CDC).
  • Percentage of 2015 Reported Abortions by Weeks of Gestation* (CDC):
    ≤6 wks 7 wks 8 wks 9 wks 10 wks 11 wks 12 wks 13 wks 14-15 wks 16-17 wks 18-20 wks ≥21 wks
    34.2% 17.8% 13.3% 8.9% 5.6% 4.7% 3.5% 2.8% 3.5% 2.1% 2.0% 1.3%

    *Gestational weeks are measured from the first day of the woman’s last menstruation and not from the day of conception. Though it does not provide an accurate fetal age (which is roughly 2 weeks less than the gestational age), it is the simplest way for an OB/GYN to age a pregnancy since the day of conception is often not known. Hence, if an abortion occurs at 8 weeks gestation, it is actually aborting a 6 week embryo. The images on our Prenatal Development and Abortion Picturespages are more precisely captioned with fetal ages in accordance with standard teaching texts on prenatal development.

HOW DOES ABORTION TAKE PLACE?

WHO IS DOING THE ABORTIONS?

  • The number of abortion providers declined by 3% between 2011 and 2014—from 1,720 to 1,671 (AGI).
  • In 2011, 42% of providers offered very early abortions (during the first four weeks’ gestation) and 95% offered abortion at eight weeks. Sixty-four percent of providers offer at least some second-trimester abortion services (13 weeks or later), and 20% offer abortion after 20 weeks. Eleven percent of all abortion providers offered abortions past 24 weeks (AGI).
  • Only 5% of U.S. abortions occur in hospitals; 2% occur in physician’s offices. The rest occur in freestanding abortion clinics—without any established doctor-patient relationship (NAF).

ABORTION FATALITY

  • In 2014, six women died as a result of complications from induced abortion. Between 1973-2014, 437 women died due to abortion complications (CDC).
  • The number of deaths attributable to legal induced abortion was highest before the 1980s (CDC).
  • In 1972 (the year before abortion was federally legalized), a total of 24 women died from causes known to be associated with legal abortions, and 39 died as a result of known illegal abortions (CDC).

THE COST OF ABORTION

MEDICAL ABORTION

  • In 2011, 59% of abortion providers, or 1,023 facilities, provided one or more types of medical abortions. At least 17% of abortion providers offer only medication abortion services (AGI).
  • Medication abortion accounted for 31% of all nonhospital abortions in 2014 (AGI).

ABORTION AND CONTRACEPTION

  • Induced abortions usually result from unintended pregnancies, which often occur despite the use of contraception (CDC).
  • In 2008, 51% of women having abortions used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. (AGI).
  • 9 in 10 women at risk of unintended pregnancy are using a contraceptive method (AGI).
  • Oral contraceptives, the most widely used reversible method of contraception, carry failure rates of 6 to 8% in actual practice (NAF).

ABORTION AND MINORS

  • 40% of minors having an abortion report that neither of their parents knew about the abortion (AGI).
  • 39 states currently enforce parental consent or notification laws for minors seeking an abortion: ALAKARAZCODEFLGAIAIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNENHOHOKPARISCSDTNTXUTVAWIWV, and WY. The Supreme Court ruled that minors must have the alternative of seeking a court order authorizing the procedure (AGI).

ABORTION AND PUBLIC FUNDS

  • The U.S. Congress has barred the use of federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortions, except when the woman’s life would be endangered by a full-term pregnancy or in cases of rape or incest (AGI).
  • 17 states (AKAZCACTHIILMAMDMNMTNJNMNYORVTWA and WV) use public funds to pay for abortions for some poor women. About 14% of all abortions in the United States are paid for with public funds—virtually all from the state (AGI).
  • In 2014, 88,466 abortions in California were paid for with public funds. Public funds paid for 45,722 abortions in New York (AGI).

This page was last updated on January 22, 2019. To cite this page in a research paper, visit: “Citing Abort73 as a Source.”

FOOTNOTES

  1. This percentage was arrived at by comparing the number of 2014 births reported by the CDC (3,984,924) and the number of abortions reported by AGI.
  2. The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44.
  3. The abortion ratio is the number of abortions per 1,000 live births.

Abortion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Abortion
Synonyms Induced miscarriage, termination of pregnancy
Specialty Obstetrics and gynecology
ICD-10-PCS O04
ICD-9-CM 779.6
MeSH D000028
MedlinePlus 007382

Abortion is the ending of pregnancy due to removing an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus.[note 1] An abortion that occurs spontaneously is also known as a miscarriage. When deliberate steps are taken to end a pregnancy, it is called an induced abortion, or less frequently an “induced miscarriage”. The word abortion is often used to mean only induced abortions.[1] A similar procedure after the fetus could potentially survive outside the womb is known as a “late termination of pregnancy” or less accurately as a “late term abortion”.[2]

When allowed by law, abortion in the developed world is one of the safest procedures in medicine.[3][4] Modern methods use medication or surgery for abortions.[5] The drug mifepristone in combination with prostaglandinappears to be as safe and effective as surgery during the first and second trimester of pregnancy.[5][6] The most common surgical technique involves dilating the cervix and using a suction device.[7] Birth control, such as the pillor intrauterine devices, can be used immediately following abortion.[6] When performed legally and safely, induced abortions do not increase the risk of long-term mental or physical problems.[8] In contrast, unsafe abortions(those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities) cause 47,000 deaths and 5 million hospital admissions each year.[8][9] The World Health Organization recommends safe and legal abortions be available to all women.[10]

Around 56 million abortions are performed each year in the world,[11] with about 45% done unsafely.[12] Abortion rates changed little between 2003 and 2008,[13] before which they decreased for at least two decades as access to family planning and birth control increased.[14] As of 2008, 40% of the world’s women had access to legal abortions without limits as to reason.[15] Countries that permit abortions have different limits on how late in pregnancy abortion is allowed.[15]

Historically, abortions have been attempted using herbal medicines, sharp tools, forceful massage, or through other traditional methods.[16] Abortion laws and cultural or religious views of abortions are different around the world. In some areas abortion is legal only in specific cases such as rapeproblems with the fetuspoverty, risk to a woman’s health, or incest.[17] There is debate over the moral, ethical, and legal issues of abortion.[18][19] Those who oppose abortion often argue that an embryo or fetus is a human with a right to life, and so they may compare abortion to murder.[20][21] Those who favor the legality of abortion often hold that it is part of a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body.[22] Others favor legal and accessible abortion as a public health measure.[23]

Types

Induced

An induced abortion may be classified as therapeutic (done in response to a health condition of the women or fetus) or elective (chosen for other reasons).[24]

Approximately 205 million pregnancies occur each year worldwide. Over a third are unintended and about a fifth end in induced abortion.[13][25] Most abortions result from unintended pregnancies.[26][27] In the United Kingdom, 1 to 2% of abortions are done due to genetic problems in the fetus.[8] A pregnancy can be intentionally aborted in several ways. The manner selected often depends upon the gestational age of the embryo or fetus, which increases in size as the pregnancy progresses.[28][29] Specific procedures may also be selected due to legality, regional availability, and doctor or a woman’s personal preference.

Reasons for procuring induced abortions are typically characterized as either therapeutic or elective. An abortion is medically referred to as a therapeutic abortion when it is performed to save the life of the pregnant woman; to prevent harm to the woman’s physical or mental health; to terminate a pregnancy where indications are that the child will have a significantly increased chance of mortality or morbidity; or to selectively reduce the number of fetuses to lessen health risks associated with multiple pregnancy.[30][31] An abortion is referred to as an elective or voluntary abortion when it is performed at the request of the woman for non-medical reasons.[31] Confusion sometimes arises over the term “elective” because “elective surgery” generally refers to all scheduled surgery, whether medically necessary or not.[32]

Spontaneous

Miscarriage, also known as spontaneous abortion, is the unintentional expulsion of an embryo or fetus before the 24th week of gestation.[33] A pregnancy that ends before 37 weeks of gestation resulting in a live-born infant is a “premature birth” or a “preterm birth”.[34]When a fetus dies in utero after viability, or during delivery, it is usually termed “stillborn“.[35] Premature births and stillbirths are generally not considered to be miscarriages although usage of these terms can sometimes overlap.[36]

Only 30% to 50% of conceptions progress past the first trimester.[37] The vast majority of those that do not progress are lost before the woman is aware of the conception,[31] and many pregnancies are lost before medical practitioners can detect an embryo.[38] Between 15% and 30% of known pregnancies end in clinically apparent miscarriage, depending upon the age and health of the pregnant woman.[39] 80% of these spontaneous abortions happen in the first trimester.[40]

The most common cause of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester is chromosomal abnormalities of the embryo or fetus,[31][41] accounting for at least 50% of sampled early pregnancy losses.[42] Other causes include vascular disease (such as lupus), diabetes, other hormonal problems, infection, and abnormalities of the uterus.[41] Advancing maternal age and a woman’s history of previous spontaneous abortions are the two leading factors associated with a greater risk of spontaneous abortion.[42] A spontaneous abortion can also be caused by accidental trauma; intentional trauma or stress to cause miscarriage is considered induced abortion or feticide.[43]

Methods

Gestational age may determine which abortion methods are practiced.

Medical

Medical abortions are those induced by abortifacient pharmaceuticals. Medical abortion became an alternative method of abortion with the availability of prostaglandin analogs in the 1970s and the antiprogestogenmifepristone (also known as RU-486) in the 1980s.[5][6][44][45][46]

The most common early first-trimester medical abortion regimens use mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog (misoprostol or gemeprost) up to 9 weeks gestational age, methotrexate in combination with a prostaglandin analog up to 7 weeks gestation, or a prostaglandin analog alone.[44] Mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimens work faster and are more effective at later gestational ages than methotrexate–misoprostol combination regimens, and combination regimens are more effective than misoprostol alone.[45] This regime is effective in the second trimester.[47] Medical abortion regiments involving mifepristone followed by misoprostol in the cheek between 24 and 48 hours later are effective when performed before 63 days’ gestation.[48]

In very early abortions, up to 7 weeks gestation, medical abortion using a mifepristone–misoprostol combination regimen is considered to be more effective than surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration), especially when clinical practice does not include detailed inspection of aspirated tissue.[49] Early medical abortion regimens using mifepristone, followed 24–48 hours later by buccal or vaginal misoprostol are 98% effective up to 9 weeks gestational age.[50] If medical abortion fails, surgical abortion must be used to complete the procedure.[51]

Early medical abortions account for the majority of abortions before 9 weeks gestation in Britain,[52][53] France,[54] Switzerland,[55] and the Nordic countries.[56] In the United States, the percentage of early medical abortions is around 30% as of 2014.[57]

Medical abortion regimens using mifepristone in combination with a prostaglandin analog are the most common methods used for second-trimester abortions in Canada, most of Europe, China and India,[46] in contrast to the United States where 96% of second-trimester abortions are performed surgically by dilation and evacuation.[58]

Surgical

A vacuum aspiration abortion at eight weeks gestational age (six weeks after fertilization).
1: Amniotic sac
2: Embryo
3: Uterine lining
4: Speculum
5: Vacurette
6: Attached to a suction pump

Up to 15 weeks’ gestation, suction-aspiration or vacuum aspiration are the most common surgical methods of induced abortion.[59] Manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) consists of removing the fetus or embryoplacenta, and membranes by suction using a manual syringe, while electric vacuum aspiration (EVA) uses an electric pump. These techniques differ in the mechanism used to apply suction, in how early in pregnancy they can be used, and in whether cervical dilation is necessary.

MVA, also known as “mini-suction” and “menstrual extraction“, can be used in very early pregnancy, and does not require cervical dilation. Dilation and curettage (D&C), the second most common method of surgical abortion, is a standard gynecological procedure performed for a variety of reasons, including examination of the uterine lining for possible malignancy, investigation of abnormal bleeding, and abortion. Curettage refers to cleaning the walls of the uterus with a curette. The World Health Organization recommends this procedure, also called sharp curettage, only when MVA is unavailable.[60]

From the 15th week of gestation until approximately the 26th, other techniques must be used. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction. After the 16th week of gestation, abortions can also be induced by intact dilation and extraction (IDX) (also called intrauterine cranial decompression), which requires surgical decompression of the fetus’s head before evacuation. IDX is sometimes called “partial-birth abortion“, which has been federally banned in the United States.

In the third trimester of pregnancy, induced abortion may be performed surgically by intact dilation and extraction or by hysterotomy. Hysterotomy abortion is a procedure similar to a caesarean section and is performed under general anesthesia. It requires a smaller incision than a caesarean section and is used during later stages of pregnancy.[61]

First-trimester procedures can generally be performed using local anesthesia, while second-trimester methods may require deep sedation or general anesthesia.[62]

Labor induction abortion

In places lacking the necessary medical skill for dilation and extraction, or where preferred by practitioners, an abortion can be induced by first inducing labor and then inducing fetal demise if necessary.[63] This is sometimes called “induced miscarriage”. This procedure may be performed from 13 weeks gestation to the third trimester. Although it is very uncommon in the United States, more than 80% of induced abortions throughout the second trimester are labor-induced abortions in Sweden and other nearby countries.[64]

Only limited data are available comparing this method with dilation and extraction.[64] Unlike D&E, labor-induced abortions after 18 weeks may be complicated by the occurrence of brief fetal survival, which may be legally characterized as live birth. For this reason, labor-induced abortion is legally risky in the United States.[64][65]

Other methods

Historically, a number of herbs reputed to possess abortifacient properties have been used in folk medicine. Among these are: tansypennyroyalblack cohosh, and the now-extinct silphium.[66]:44–47, 62–63, 154–55, 230–31

In 1978 one woman in Colorado died and another was seriously injured when they attempted to procure an abortion by taking pennyroyal oil.[67] Because the indiscriminant use of herbs as abortifacients can cause serious—even lethal—side effects, such as multiple organ failure,[68] such use is not recommended by physicians.

Abortion is sometimes attempted by causing trauma to the abdomen. The degree of force, if severe, can cause serious internal injuries without necessarily succeeding in inducing miscarriage.[69] In Southeast Asia, there is an ancient tradition of attempting abortion through forceful abdominal massage.[70] One of the bas reliefs decorating the temple of Angkor Wat in Cambodia depicts a demon performing such an abortion upon a woman who has been sent to the underworld.[70]

Reported methods of unsafe, self-induced abortion include misuse of misoprostol and insertion of non-surgical implements such as knitting needles and clothes hangers into the uterus. These and other methods to terminate pregnancy may be called “induced miscarriage”. Such methods are rarely used in countries where surgical abortion is legal and available.[71]

Safety

An abortion flyer in South Africa

The health risks of abortion depend principally upon whether the procedure is performed safely or unsafely. The World Health Organization defines unsafe abortions as those performed by unskilled individuals, with hazardous equipment, or in unsanitary facilities.[72] Legal abortions performed in the developed world are among the safest procedures in medicine.[3][73] In the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.7 per 100,000 procedures,[4]making abortion about 13 times safer for women than childbirth (8.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births).[74][75] In the United States from 2000 to 2009, abortion had a lower mortality rate than plastic surgery.[76] The risk of abortion-related mortality increases with gestational age, but remains lower than that of childbirth through at least 21 weeks’ gestation.[77][78][79] Outpatient abortion is as safe and effective from 64 to 70 days’ gestation as it is from 57 to 63 days.[80] Medical abortion is safe and effective for pregnancies earlier than 6 weeks’ gestation.[81]

Vacuum aspiration in the first trimester is the safest method of surgical abortion, and can be performed in a primary care officeabortion clinic, or hospital. Complications, which are rare, can include uterine perforationpelvic infection, and retained products of conception requiring a second procedure to evacuate.[82] Infections account for one-third of abortion-related deaths in the United States.[83] The rate of complications of vacuum aspiration abortion in the first trimester is similar regardless of whether the procedure is performed in a hospital, surgical center, or office.[84] Preventive antibiotics (such as doxycycline or metronidazole) are typically given before elective abortion,[85]as they are believed to substantially reduce the risk of postoperative uterine infection.[62][86] The rate of failed procedures does not appear to vary significantly depending on whether the abortion is performed by a doctor or a mid-level practitioner.[87] Complications after second-trimester abortion are similar to those after first-trimester abortion, and depend somewhat on the method chosen. Second-trimester abortions are generally well-tolerated.[88]

There is little difference in terms of safety and efficacy between medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol and surgical abortion (vacuum aspiration) in early first trimester abortions up to 9 weeks gestation.[49] Medical abortion using the prostaglandin analog misoprostol alone is less effective and more painful than medical abortion using a combined regimen of mifepristone and misoprostol or surgical abortion.[89][90]

Some purported risks of abortion are promoted primarily by anti-abortion groups,[91][92] but lack scientific support.[91] For example, the question of a link between induced abortion and breast cancer has been investigated extensively. Major medical and scientific bodies (including the World Health OrganizationNational Cancer InstituteAmerican Cancer SocietyRoyal College of OBGYN and American Congress of OBGYN) have concluded that abortion does not cause breast cancer.[93]

In the past even illegality has not automatically meant that the abortions were unsafe. Referring to the U.S., historian Linda Gordon states: “In fact, illegal abortions in this country have an impressive safety record.”[94]:25 According to Rickie Solinger,

A related myth, promulgated by a broad spectrum of people concerned about abortion and public policy, is that before legalization abortionists were dirty and dangerous back-alley butchers…. [T]he historical evidence does not support such claims.[95]:4

Authors Jerome Bates and Edward Zawadzki describe the case of an illegal abortionist in the eastern U.S. in the early 20th century who was proud of having successfully completed 13,844 abortions without any fatality.[96]:59 In 1870s New York City the famous abortionist/midwife Madame Restell (Anna Trow Lohman) appears to have lost very few women among her more than 100,000 patients[97]—a lower mortality rate than the childbirth mortality rate at the time. In 1936 the prominent professor of obstetrics and gynecology Frederick J. Taussig wrote that a cause of increasing mortality during the years of illegality in the U.S. was that

With each decade of the past fifty years the actual and proportionate frequency of this accident [perforation of the uterus] has increased, due, first, to the increase in the number of instrumentally induced abortions; second, to the proportionate increase in abortions handled by doctors as against those handled by midwives; and, third, to the prevailing tendency to use instruments instead of the finger in emptying the uterus. [98]:223

Mental health

Current evidence finds no relationship between most induced abortions and mental-health problems[8][99] other than those expected for any unwanted pregnancy.[100] A report by the American Psychological Association concluded that a woman’s first abortion is not a threat to mental health when carried out in the first trimester, with such women no more likely to have mental-health problems than those carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term; the mental-health outcome of a woman’s second or greater abortion is less certain.[100][101]Some older reviews concluded that abortion was associated with an increased risk of psychological problems;[102] however, they did not use an appropriate control group.[99]

Although some studies show negative mental-health outcomes in women who choose abortions after the first trimester because of fetal abnormalities,[103] more rigorous research would be needed to show this conclusively.[104] Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by anti-abortion advocates as a separate condition called “post-abortion syndrome“, but this is not recognized by medical or psychological professionals in the United States.[105]

Unsafe abortion

Soviet poster circa 1925, warning against midwives performing abortions. Title translation: “Abortions performed by either trained or self-taught midwives not only maim the woman, they also often lead to death.”

Women seeking an abortion may use unsafe methods, especially when abortion is legally restricted. They may attempt self-induced abortion or seek the help of a person without proper medical training or facilities. This can lead to severe complications, such as incomplete abortion, sepsis, hemorrhage, and damage to internal organs.[106]

Unsafe abortions are a major cause of injury and death among women worldwide. Although data are imprecise, it is estimated that approximately 20 million unsafe abortions are performed annually, with 97% taking place in developing countries.[3] Unsafe abortions are believed to result in millions of injuries.[3][107] Estimates of deaths vary according to methodology, and have ranged from 37,000 to 70,000 in the past decade;[3][9][108] deaths from unsafe abortion account for around 13% of all maternal deaths.[109] The World Health Organization believes that mortality has fallen since the 1990s.[110] To reduce the number of unsafe abortions, public health organizations have generally advocated emphasizing the legalization of abortion, training of medical personnel, and ensuring access to reproductive-health services.[111] In response, opponents of abortion point out that abortion bans in no way affect prenatal care for women who choose to carry their fetus to term. The Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health, signed in 2012, notes, “the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”[112]

A major factor in whether abortions are performed safely or not is the legal standing of abortion. Countries with restrictive abortion laws have higher rates of unsafe abortion and similar overall abortion rates compared to those where abortion is legal and available.[9][13][111][113][114][115][116] For example, the 1996 legalization of abortion in South Africa had an immediate positive impact on the frequency of abortion-related complications,[117] with abortion-related deaths dropping by more than 90%.[118] Similar reductions in maternal mortality have been observed after other countries have liberalized their abortion laws, such as Romania and Nepal.[119] A 2011 study concluded that in the United States, some state-level anti-abortion laws are correlated with lower rates of abortion in that state.[120] The analysis, however, did not take into account travel to other states without such laws to obtain an abortion.[121] In addition, a lack of access to effective contraception contributes to unsafe abortion. It has been estimated that the incidence of unsafe abortion could be reduced by up to 75% (from 20 million to 5 million annually) if modern family planning and maternal health services were readily available globally.[122] Rates of such abortions may be difficult to measure because they can be reported variously as miscarriage, “induced miscarriage”, “menstrual regulation”, “mini-abortion”, and “regulation of a delayed/suspended menstruation”.[123][124]

Forty percent of the world’s women are able to access therapeutic and elective abortions within gestational limits,[15] while an additional 35 percent have access to legal abortion if they meet certain physical, mental, or socioeconomic criteria.[17] While maternal mortalityseldom results from safe abortions, unsafe abortions result in 70,000 deaths and 5 million disabilities per year.[9] Complications of unsafe abortion account for approximately an eighth of maternal mortalities worldwide,[125] though this varies by region.[126] Secondary infertility caused by an unsafe abortion affects an estimated 24 million women.[114] The rate of unsafe abortions has increased from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008.[13] Health education, access to family planning, and improvements in health care during and after abortion have been proposed to address this phenomenon.[127]

Live birth

Although it is very uncommon, women undergoing surgical abortion after 18 weeks gestation sometimes give birth to a fetus that may survive briefly.[128][129][130] Longer term survival is possible after 22 weeks.[131]

If medical staff observe signs of life, they may be required to provide care: emergency medical care if the child has a good chance of survival and palliative care if not.[132][133][134] Induced fetal demise before termination of pregnancy after 20–21 weeks gestation is recommended to avoid this.[135][136][137][138][139]

Death following live birth caused by abortion is given the ICD-10 underlying cause description code of P96.4; data are identified as either fetus or newborn. Between 1999 and 2013, in the U.S., the CDC recorded 531 such deaths for newborns,[140] approximately 4 per 100,000 abortions.[141]

Incidence

There are two commonly used methods of measuring the incidence of abortion:

  • Abortion rate – number of abortions per 1000 women between 15 and 44 years of age
  • Abortion percentage – number of abortions out of 100 known pregnancies (pregnancies include live births, abortions and miscarriages)

In many places, where abortion is illegal or carries a heavy social stigma, medical reporting of abortion is not reliable.[113] For this reason, estimates of the incidence of abortion must be made without determining certainty related to standard error.[13]

The number of abortions performed worldwide seems to have remained stable in recent years, with 41.6 million having been performed in 2003 and 43.8 million having been performed in 2008.[13] The abortion rate worldwide was 28 per 1000 women, though it was 24 per 1000 women for developed countries and 29 per 1000 women for developing countries.[13] The same 2012 study indicated that in 2008, the estimated abortion percentage of known pregnancies was at 21% worldwide, with 26% in developed countries and 20% in developing countries.[13]

On average, the incidence of abortion is similar in countries with restrictive abortion laws and those with more liberal access to abortion. However, restrictive abortion laws are associated with increases in the percentage of abortions performed unsafely.[15][142][143] The unsafe abortion rate in developing countries is partly attributable to lack of access to modern contraceptives; according to the Guttmacher Institute, providing access to contraceptives would result in about 14.5 million fewer unsafe abortions and 38,000 fewer deaths from unsafe abortion annually worldwide.[144]

The rate of legal, induced abortion varies extensively worldwide. According to the report of employees of Guttmacher Institute it ranged from 7 per 1000 women (Germany and Switzerland) to 30 per 1000 women (Estonia) in countries with complete statistics in 2008. The proportion of pregnancies that ended in induced abortion ranged from about 10% (Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland) to 30% (Estonia) in the same group, though it might be as high as 36% in Hungary and Romania, whose statistics were deemed incomplete.[145][146]

The abortion rate may also be expressed as the average number of abortions a woman has du