Weapons of Mass Destruction

The Pronk Pops Show 882, April 27, 2017, Story 1: Senators Briefed At White House — Trump Administration Seeks To Stop North Korea Nuclear and Missile Testing But Not Regime Change — Land War Would Result in Millions of Causalties On Both Sides — Strategic Patience 2.0 — “tightening economic sanctions and pursuing diplomatic measures with our allies and regional partners” — Videos — Story 2: Trump Accomplishments: One Supreme Court Justice and Canceling Obama Executive Orders — Issuing Executive Orders Are Not Results — Grade: Good Start But Incomplete — Videos

Posted on April 28, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Japan, Life, Media, MIssiles, National Interest, Nerve Gas, News, North Korea, Nuclear, Nuclear Weapons, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, President Trump, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Senate, South Korea, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 882: April 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 881: April 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 880: April 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 879: April 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 878: April 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 877: April 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 865: March 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 864: March 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 863: March 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 862: March 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 848: February 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 847: February 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Image result for 26 april senators briefed at executive office building on north korea

Image result for president trump cartoons north korea

Image result for president trump cartoons north korea

Story 1: Senators Briefed At White House — Trump Administration Seeks To Stop North Korea Nuclear and ICBM Testing But Not Regime Change — Land War Would Result in Millions of Casualties On Both Sides — Strategic Patience 2.0 — “tightening economic sanctions and pursuing diplomatic measures with our allies and regional partners” — Videos —

Image result for cartoons branco trump north korea

Senators gather at Entire U.S. Senate attends White House meeting on North Korea

White House for North Korea briefing

TRUMP WARNS OF ‘MAJOR, MAJOR CONFLICT’ WITH NORTH KOREA ⚠

4/27/17, Interview with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson | Trump show

Bret Baier Rare Must-See Interview with Rex Tillerson – Special Report April 27, 2017

President Trump’s North Korea strategy

US prepared to take action against North Korea

What are President Trump’s options to take on North Korea?

President Donald Trump: North Korea Has ‘Gotta Behave’ | NBC Nightly News

Why tension between the US and N. Korea will only get worse

Who Are North Korea’s Allies?

How Does North Korea Have Nuclear Weapons?

The past 48 hours in Trump’s bizarre, ever-changing North Korea policy, explained

White House’s 14-page ‘100 Days of Accomplishments’ memo is leaked after Trump calls 100-day standard for achievement ‘ridiculous’

  • The list goes into detail about everything Trump plans to take credit for by the end of next weekend
  • The administration publicly bristles at the idea of being judged on just 100 days of work
  • ‘I think it’s got to be kept in context,’ White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Monday, calling it a ‘sort of artificial number’

Donald Trump‘s administration is preparing for a 100th-day victory lap, even as the White House emphasizes the arbitrary nature of evaluating the president’s performance on the basis of the idea of such a short period of time.

‘I think it’s got to be kept in context,’ White House press secretary Sean Spicer told reporters on Monday. ‘There is this sort of artificial number that gets thrown out.’

‘The context is – it’s 100 days. You have four years in your first term and eight years for two terms.’

Yet a 14-page draft titled ‘100 Days Of Accomplishments’ lists in detail everything the administration plans to take credit for by the end of next weekend.

WHAT 'HUNDRED DAYS'? Donald Trump has tried to downplay the significance of the 'First 100 Days' performance metric usually applied to new presidents, but his administration already has a 14-page-long list of accomplishments

WHAT ‘HUNDRED DAYS’? Donald Trump has tried to downplay the significance of the ‘First 100 Days’ performance metric usually applied to new presidents, but his administration already has a 14-page-long list of accomplishments

NOT SO MUCH: The document includes examples of accomplishments like the Syria airstrikes, but also the travel ban that has been held up in federal courts

NOT SO MUCH: The document includes examples of accomplishments like the Syria airstrikes, but also the travel ban that has been held up in federal courts

The document, first published by CNN, reads like the opposition research memos produced by the Republican National Committee’s research department, with each item followed by a citation in parentheses – and a link to an online document backing it up.

But instead of being a hit-piece meant to tear an opponent down, the list is intended to give administration officials a list of talking points to emphasize in Trump’s defense.

It runs the gamut from trade and job creation to immigration and national security, and ends with a reference to the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch.

Also included is ‘Travel Restrictions On Select Countries,’ the president’s travel-ban order that was quickly put on hold in federal court.

Of the 37 items overall, 23 of them were the result of executive orders or memoranda, directing federal agencies to take the kinds of action that don’t require buy-in from Congress.

WHO WROTE IT? The White House memo is formatted like opposition research papers produced at the Republican Party's headquarters

WHO WROTE IT? The White House memo is formatted like opposition research papers produced at the Republican Party’s headquarters

'RIDICULOUS': On Friday Trump used that word to describe the idea of measuring his performance based on less than 15 weeks of work

‘RIDICULOUS’: On Friday Trump used that word to describe the idea of measuring his performance based on less than 15 weeks of work

White House press secretary Sean Spicer pooh-poohed the 'first 100 days' standard on Monday, but then rattled off a list of the president's 'unbelievable' accomplishments

White House press secretary Sean Spicer pooh-poohed the ‘first 100 days’ standard on Monday, but then rattled off a list of the president’s ‘unbelievable’ accomplishments

Trump signs executive orders on financial services

President Trump was openly critical of President Barack Obama during his campaign for relying on unilateral executive orders to accomplish his agenda, instead of going through the legislative process.

Despite downplaying the significance of an arbitrary 100-day evaluation benchmark, Spicer leapt to defend the administration’s record – saying of the president that ‘it is unbelievable what he has been able to do.’

‘When you look at the number of pieces of legislation, the executive orders, business confidence, the place – the U.S.’s role in the world, there’s a lot that we feel, accomplishments that have occurred,’ he said.

‘And we feel very good about what we’ve done as we head up to this first 100 days. But I think you’re going to continue to see a lot of action and a lot of results going into the second 100 days, the third 100 days, all the way through.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4441558/Trump-100-Days-Accomplishments-memo-leaked.html#ixzz4fbNUpI3i
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-882

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 833, February 7, 2017, Story 1: Appeaser Obama’s Legacy of A Bad Iranian Nuclear Deal: Islamic Republic of Iran Puts Trump On Notice — Nuclear Agreement Allows Iran To Build Ballistic Missiles With A 2,000 Mile Range To Enable Iran To Strike Israel — Time Trump Triggers Terrorist Terminations — First: Islamic State — Second: Islamic Republic of Iran — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Will Prevail In The Vigorous Vetting and Pause In Granting Visas From Travelers From Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen — Videos

Posted on February 7, 2017. Filed under: Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Coal, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cruise Missiles, Drones, Education, Egypt, Empires, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Freedom of Speech, Government Spending, House of Representatives, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Israel, Libya, MIssiles, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear, Oil, Pistols, Rifles, Russia, Senate, Solar, Somalia, Syria, Turkey, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom, Yemen | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10,  2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Story 1: Appeaser Obama’s Legacy of A Bad Iranian Nuclear Deal: Islamic Republic of Iran Puts Trump On Notice — Nuclear Agreement Allows Iran To Build Ballistic Missiles With A 2,000 Mile Range To Enable Iran To Strike Israel — Time Trump Triggers Terrorist Terminations — First: Islamic State — Second: Islamic Republic of Iran — Videos — 

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Iran and the Bomb

Russia rejects Trump’s claim that Iran is top terrorist state

Iran Defends Test of Ballistic Missile

Trump blasts Iran over ballistic missile test

Is War With Iran Inevitable?

Donald Trump warns of the Muslim Problem

Trump on Iran: ‘They will know I am not playing games’

Donald Trump about fighting ISIS | Islamic State Terrorism | Trump Presidential Announcement

Trump’s First Military Action Obliterated 30 Innocent Civilians

Iran Vows More Missile Tests Despite ‘Notice’ | MSNBC

Iran ‘On Notice’: Will Trump Pull The Trigger?

Eric Shawn reports: The Iran deal meets Mr. Trump

Is War with Iran in the Cards with the Trump Foreign Policy Team?

IRAN WARNS UNITED STATES DONT MAKE A PROBLEM OVER MISSILE! BREAKING NEWS 01 02 2017 BREAKING NEWS

Iran Test-Fire Of Medium-Range Missile Ends In Failure

Trump Slams Iran Nuclear Deal: ‘It’s an Embarrassment to Our Country’

Islamic Republic vs Islamic State: What’s The Difference?

USA vs SYRIA & IRAN & RUSSIA Military Power Comparison 2017 (Middle East War) HD

IRAN vs ISRAEL | Military Power Comparison 2016 HD

IRAN Army | IRAN Military Power 2016

Saudi Arabia VS Iran | Military Power Comparison | 2016

Saudi Arabia Military Power 2016-2017 | Saudi Arabian Army

Can Saudi Arabia fight two wars at once? BBC News

Saudi Air Force ON THE WAY to help their “Moderate” Friends

The differences and similarities between Sunni and Shia Isalm

A Short History of Islam: From Muhammad to ISIS

What ISIS Wants

Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?

Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology

Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

World War 3 Could Start This Month 350,000 Soldiers In Saudi Arabia Stand Ready To Invade Syria

 

Published on Feb 16, 2016

WW3 Syria, Middle East, Turkey, Russia, World War 3 northern thunder
350,000 soldiers, 20,000 tanks, 2,450 warplanes and 460 military helicopters are massing in northern Saudi Arabia for a military exercise that is being called “Northern Thunder”.

Army Chief of Staff General Ray Odierno: Future of the U.S. Army

General Raymond Odierno Retiring {U.S. Army} 8-14-15

General Raymond T. Odierno Millitary Confession About Obama

OBAMA IS PISSED! Top Army Chief Of Staff General Drops Bombshell About Him As He Resigns

OBAMA JUST MADE A DRASTIC MOVE THAT LEFT AMERICA COMPLETELY DEFENSELESS

10 Countries Most Likely To Start WW3

Top 10 Countries That Would Not Survive WW3

10 Safest Countries If WW3 Breaks Out

10 Safest Spots During World War 3

Obama Recalls All Aircraft Carriers back to US, None At Sea Anywhere

Published on Jan 2, 2017

Barack Obama has recalled all 10 U.S. Navy Aircraft Carriers from the Middle East, leaving the United States wide open to a potential attack.
Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/30/…
News Stories about Carriers: http://yournewswire.com/obama-recalls…
https://www.superstation95.com/index….
Nwo Report: http://www.nworeport.me

No US carrier at sea leaves gap in Middle East

NOW PLAYINGUS Navy warship returns to ISIS fight

For the next week, not only will there be no U.S. Navy aircraft carrier in the Middle East, but there will be no American aircraft carriers deployed at sea anywhere else in the world, despite a host of worldwide threats facing the United States.

VIDEO: WHAT THE AIR FORCE NEEDS TO KEEP UP WITH GLOBAL DEMAND

The carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower and her strike group returned to Norfolk, Va., Friday following a seven-month deployment. The Ike launched hundreds of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq and Syria from both the Mediterranean Sea and the Persian Gulf.

Two destroyers in the Ike’s strike group also saw combat. The USS Nitze and USS Mason were attacked in the Red Sea when Iranian backed Houthi forces in Yemen launched cruise misisles, which were intercepted by the Mason. A retaliatory strike by the Nitze destroyed the radar installations in Yemen in October.

IRAN CONDUCTS ‘WAR-GAME’ EXERCISES, THREATENS TO SHOOT DOWN TRESPASSING AIRCRAFT

The Eisenhower’s replacement carrier, the USS George H.W. Bush, was delayed by more than six months in the shipyards and will not be able to replace the Ike until early next year, according to Navy officials.

While there is no U.S. aircraft carrier in the Middle East right now, there is a large deck U.S. Navy amphibious assault ship with thousands of Marines on board as well as helicopters and some jets to respond to a crisis, according to officials.

In the meantime, the Navy tells Fox News the U.S. military has other jets available to make up for the aircraft carrier gap in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world. The Navy can also “surge” a carrier now in port to deploy if necessary. But the absence of a deployed U.S. Navy aircraft carrier, long seen as a symbol of American power projection, is noteworthy. It is believed to be the first time since World War II that at least one U.S. aircraft carrier has not been deployed.

“We are not going to discuss the timing of operational movements of carrier strike groups into and out of the U.S. Central Command area of responsibility,” said Capt. Terry Shannon, a U.S. Naval Forces Central Command spokesman, in a statement to Fox News. Centcom is tasked with control over all U.S. forces in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

It’s not the first time there was a carrier gap in the Middle East. Last fall, the U.S. Navy relied on a French aircraft carrier to fill the void when the USS Theodore Roosevelt returned home. At the time it was the first gap in carrier coverage in the Middle East since 2007.

Other factors contribute to the U.S. Navy not having an aircraft carrier deployed anywhere in the world right now. From 2011 to 2013, the Navy maintained two carriers in the Persian Gulf on the orders of Centcom’s then-commander, Gen. James Mattis, who is now President-elect Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary.

The congressionally mandated budget cuts known as sequestration have also been felt on the waterfront since 2011. After billions of dollars were cut from the Navy’s budget, ships such as the George H.W. Bush were forced to prolong their time in the shipyards, which had a ripple effect down the line. If the Bush had left the shipyard on time, she would have relieved the Ike in the Gulf or the Mediterranean, officials tell Fox News.

Fox News recently flew out to the USS George H.W. Bush 40 miles off the coast of North Carolina to see the crew’s final tuneup.

With jets landing every 60 seconds, the flight deck crew worked on getting the time between “traps” (landings) down to 40 seconds.

Aboard the ship, 18- to 22-year-old men and women work 14 hour days on the flight deck, with little rest — all this before deploying and potentially dropping live rounds on ISIS.

“This is the military equivalent of spring training, because once we complete this at the end of December, then we’ll be going forward and it’ll be real forces that we’ll be going flying with and against,” said Rear Adm. Kenneth Whitesell, commander, Carrier Strike 2, interviewed on his perch above the four-acre flight deck known as “Vulture’s Row.”

In addition to fighting ISIS, the ship’s commanding officer says his crew will be ready to deal with a resurgent Russia or China if necessary.

“While we don’t have any emergent or pending conflicts with them, certainly, it is fair to say that we have divergent interests in many cases. and so we need to be prepared to understand how we will react to that if necessary,” said Capt. Will Pennington.

There is recent history with this ship.

On Aug. 8, 2014, a pair of F-18s from the Bush launched the first airstrikes against ISIS in northern Iraq.

Now, two and a half years later, the ship is headed back to the fight against the Islamic State terror group.

“That doesn’t mean that three months or six months from now, that will be the priority for our country. So we have to be ready to execute anywhere, anytime, any mission,” said Capt. James McCall, commander of Air Wing 8, in charge of all of the aircraft on board.

Fox News’ Stephen Scarola contributed to this report.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/30/no-us-carrier-at-sea-leaves-gap-in-middle-east.html

Hey, Team Trump: Tell America what’s in the Iran deal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Jan. 30, 2017, Iran tested a new ballistic missile, seemingly the long-range Khorramshahr. In response, the White House announced sanctions against 25 Iranian individuals and companies. It’s a small reaction to an extraordinary provocation that rips away the curtain obscuring America’s foreign-policy decisions, past and present.

The past first. Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) congratulated the White House on the sanctions, which was a little hypocritical since he was one of the people who caused the problem in the first place.

In negotiating the secret Iran deal, President Barack Obama took the position that it wasn’t a treaty and therefore didn’t require Senate ratification under the Constitution. Had it been a treaty, Obama would’ve needed two-thirds of the upper chamber’s votes — which he wouldn’t have gotten.

Instead, Corker flipped the procedure around with a motion to condemn the treaty, which would’ve required a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. That wasn’t going to happen, so Obama got his treaty.

But what was in the treaty? Ah, that was the great thing. No one knew. And now the Iranians are telling us that Obama secretly promised them they could build ballistic missiles capable of a 2,000-mile flight.

Why that number? Because the Iranians insisted they wanted to be able to strike every part of Israel, and the European members of the six-party Iran talks — Germany, France and Britain — didn’t mind so long as Iran couldn’t build longer-range missiles that could reach them. No skin off their noses if Israel were destroyed.

Now here’s where it gets interesting. The administration thought the Iranian missile launched last month was a medium-range Shahab missile (postmarked Israel-only). It seems to have taken that from a speech by Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan last September.

The problem is, that’s not what Dehghan said, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute. The Iranians have been phasing out the Shahab missile, and what he was referring to were long-range missiles such as the Khorramshahr, which he said would be operational by March 2017, along with similar long-range surface-to-surface missiles.

The new missiles have a range of 2,500 to 5,000 miles and could easily reach all of Europe. Add a range of another 500 miles and that includes Boston. At the same time that we gave Iran the green light for its nuclear program, we gave it the means to attack us.

Lest any doubt remain, we watered down a UN Security Council resolution that might have gotten in the way.

Resolution 1929 banned Iran from conducting any activity concerning missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, but this was amended by Security Council Resolution 2231 which substituted: “Iran is called upon not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons.”

In other words, we gave the Iranians the wiggle room to say that, even if their missiles are capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, that doesn’t matter because they weren’t designed with that in mind.

So who would be the recipient of the Iranians missiles? Israel, obviously. And also the United Kingdom and America. MEMRI reports that Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps theoretician Hassan Abbasi has announced that Iran has “a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization and for the uprooting of the Americans and the English.”

We told the Iranians we don’t care all that much about the ­Israelis, just leave us out of it. Except that it didn’t quite work out that way for Obama and Corker, as it didn’t work out for Neville Chamberlain when he called Czechoslovakia a “far-away country.” The Iran deal was supposed to bring peace to the region, but instead it handed Trump the equivalent of the Cuban missile crisis.

US National Security Adviser Michael Flynn called the Iranian missile test a violation of the Security Council resolution. That’s an acknowledgment that the` new administration intends to be bound by Security Council resolutions, which is interesting in itself. But Flynn also needs to go public with the details of the Iran deal, including all the secret side agreements.

If we agreed to give Iran the means to attack Israel with a medium-range missile, we need to fess up. And if Iran has violated the agreement by testing longer-range missiles, our announced sanctions are a sadly inadequate response.

The Iran mess underscores the need for a revolution in American strategic thinking, one that recognizes the importance of an effort to recast our relationship with Russia and to rethink the purpose of the NATO alliance.

F.H. Buckley teaches at Scalia Law School. His most recent book is “The Way Back: Restoring the Promise of America.”

http://nypost.com/2017/02/06/hey-team-trump-tell-america-whats-in-the-iran-deal/

 

Story 2: President Trump Will Prevail In The Vigorous Vetting and Pause In Granting Visas From Travelers From Iran, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Libya, and Yemen — Videos

 

Judge Napolitano’s take on the travel ban legal battle

Is the president within his bounds with the travel ban?

How both sides see the legal challenge on Trump’s travel ban

Why I Left the Left

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 802, November 28, 2016, Story 1: Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack At Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, By Abdul Razak Ali Artan OSU Student– 9 Injured By Car and Butcher Knife, 8 Hospitalized — Attacker Killed By Police — Videos — Story 2: Trump Team Trashes Rollover Republican Romney — Videos — Story 3: Mass Mania — Democratic Derangement Disorder — Lying Lunatic Left — News Nuts — Recount Meaningless — Money Matters — Story 4: Communist Tryrant Castro Gone To Hell — Burn Baby Burn- Videos

Posted on November 28, 2016. Filed under: American History, Assault, Banking System, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Cuba, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, European History, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government Spending, Health, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Mike Huckabee, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Rifles, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Story 1: Radical Islamic Terrorist Attack At Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio,  By Abdul Razak Ali Artan OSU Student– 9 Injured By Car and Butcher Knife, 8 Hospitalized — Attacker Killed By Police — Videos 

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terroristsImage result for november 28, 2016 Ohio state university terrorist attack map car and knife victimsImage result for november 28, 2016 Ohio state university terrorist attack map car and knife victimsImage result for campus map on ohio state university shooting november 28, 2016Image result for campus map on ohio state university shooting november 28, 2016Image result for november 28, 2016 Ohio state university terrorist attack map car and knife victimsImage result for november 28, 2016 Ohio state university terrorist attack map car and knife victimsImage result for Abdul Razak Ali ArtanImage result for Abdul Razak Ali Artan

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for cartoons gun free zones terrorists

Image result for Ohio state university Map terrorist attack map

Could the attack at OSU be terror related?

Attack on Ohio State University leaves multiple injured, suspect dead

Suspect dead, 9 hurt in attack on campus of Ohio State

Ohio State University attack. Suspect killed, 9 hospitalized after campus attack. John Kasich

Terrorism Suspected In Car-And-Knife Attack At Ohio State

Terrorism Suspected At Ohio State

Jihad Terror Attack at OSU – Ohio State University

Mass Stabbing at Ohio State University: Active Attacker on Campus – RUN, HIDE, FIGHT [BREAKING NEWS]

BREAKING Update Conflicting reports TERRORIST ATTACK Ohio State Terrorist shot dead November 28 2016

Ohio State attack: Police identify suspect as business student

The Columbus Dispatch  •  Monday November 28, 2016

Monday morning dawned on the Ohio State University campus in positive fashion. Students had just returned after visits home for Thanksgiving weekend. And they were still in a celebratory mood from the Buckeyes’ football win over rival Michigan on Saturday.

Nothing would have prepared anyone for what had happened by late morning.

A student, Ohio State police say, drove a car into a group of people standing outside a campus building, throwing some into the air and running over others. The driver then jumped from the car with a butcher knife, slashing more people. Less than a minute after the attack, an OSU police officer had shot and killed the man. In the end, 11 people were injured.

The suspect has been identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan, who was a Logistics Management major in the College of Business at Ohio State. Police said they believe he was 18 years old, though other reports have said he was 20. Records show he lived in western Franklin County, in Franklin Township. Records also show that he graduated with honors, with an associate’s degree, from Columbus State Community College in May before transferring this semester to Ohio State.

Police said the officer who shot and killed Artan is Ohio State University Police Officer Alan Horujko, 28, who has been with the police department since January 2015. He wasn’t injured.

>>More coverage from the Ohio State attack

>>VIDEO | Officer, assailant named

>>VIDEO | former Marine felt helpless

>>VIDEO | Multiple witnesses describe chaos

Neighbors in the Havenwood Townhome complex just off Georgesville Road, where Artan lived, said police and the sheriff’s office bomb squad have been there since shortly before 11 am., not long after the situation on campus unfolded. Police crime-scene tape surrounds the complex and officers reportedly are working with federal officials from the FBI and Homeland Security to search his apartment.

For a time, officials believed a second suspect might be in the Lane Avenue garage, but they searched it and found no one. They have since said there was only one suspect. Surveillance footage from cameras on campus showed the suspect’s car entering campus at Kenny Road and Woody Hayes Drive, OSU Police Chief Craig Stone said. Other cameras recorded it on Woodruff Drive and on 19th Avenue. “We could tell that the suspect was in the car by himself,” Stone said.

Andrew Thomas, chief medical officer of Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, said that 11 people were hurt in the incident, two of whom were not transported by ambulance but sought medical care on their own later. All are expected to survive.

Of five at Wexner, two have stab wounds, two were hit by the car and one has cuts, Thomas said. One who came later had injuries from the car.

Two more went to OhioHealth Riverside Methodist Hospital, both hit by the car. One has orthopedic injuries and one a skull fracture, Thomas said. At OhioHealth Grant Medical Center, two people were treated for lacerations and one went later with injuries from the car.

One woman was transported to a hospital by a Columbus fire medic with a gunshot wound to her foot, Fire Chief Kevin O’Connor said. Officials haven’t yet said how that happened, but the woman told medics she was running from the incident and called for help after reaching a safe place.

Thomas didn’t release the names of those injured, but said those at Wexner Medical Center included one faculty member, two graduate students and one undergraduate student. He said those at the OhioHealth hospitals included two undergraduates and two graduate students.

The attack happened outside of Watts Hall, at West 19th Street west of College Road, shortly before 10 a.m. Earlier in the morning, the building had been evacuated because of a report of a gas leak. Authorities say the report of a leak had nothing to do with the attack, but was the reason that a police officer was right there when the car hit those outside.

At a news conference, officials said that Horujko had just cleared the scene from the gas-leak alarm when, at 9:52 a.m., he saw a car strike several pedestrians who had been evacuated into the courtyard outside. He issued a radio alert that seven to eight pedestrians had been struck.

He said the driver got out of the car with a large knife and began attacking people, and he ordered the man to drop the knife.

The man refused and, by 9:53 a.m., he had been shot and killed.

Those who knew Artan say they’re shocked. Neighbors said his family had immigrated to the Columbus area from Somalia.

Jack Ouham owns the Hometown Market, which is just around the corner from where Artan lived with his family. He said that Artan came in there once or twice a day and had lived in an apartment with his mother and six or seven siblings.

“I don’t know what made him act like that,” Ouham said. “He don’t drink. He don’t smoke. He don’t use narcotics. They’re very nice people.”

VIDEO | Multiple witnesses describe attack

Ohio State’s student newspaper interviewed Artan in August, shortly after he started at Ohio State. Artan talked about moving from Columbus State to such a large school, and being Muslim and the importance of prayer.

“This is my first day. This place is huge and I don’t even know where to pray,” he said. “I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media…I was kind of scared right now. But I just did it. I relied on God. I went to the corner and just prayed.”

After the suspect was identified, Ohio State President Dr. Michael Drake said, “What we really want to do is unify together, support each other.

“Let’s not jump to conclusions and perhaps create a bad situation where one doesn’t exist.”

Hakim Ouham said he often visited his uncle at his store and also knew Artan.

“He’s the last guy I’d expect,” Hakim Ouham said.

Artan also was a frequent customer of the nearby Khyber Restaurant, where he often picked up lamb gyros, said Niaz Siddiqui.

Siddiqui called Artan a “cool guy” who often talked to him about going to college.

Monday night, members of the central Ohio Muslim community gathered at the headquarters for the Center for American-Islamic Relations-Ohio in Dublin to talk about the attack.

Nichol Ghazi said that when she first heard, her reaction was “don’t let it be someone from our community.”

Ghazi, of Galena, offered sympathy for victims of the attack, and wanted the Ohio State community to know they stand with them. Her Muslim faith, she said, is not one that encourages violence, and said that Islam preaches, “‘If you take one life, it’s as if you’ve taken all of humanity. It’s that grievous of a sin.”

“OSU is our home,” added Abdi Dini, a member of the local Somali community. “Any twisted minds that would claim such a sickening act of violence is not a part of us.”

Campus officials have said that classes will continue normally Tuesday.

Around campus Monday night, students held several candlelight vigils and attended religious services.

St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church welcomed about 40 people for a 7 p.m. candlelight vigil led by religious leaders representing several faiths. The Woodruff Avenue church is just down the street from where the attack occurred.

Speakers read Scripture passages and said prayers. Some attendees shared smiles. Others grieved.

The Rev. Karl Stephens, the church’s director of campus ministry, said he hopes all who attended the hourlong event found hope in unity.

“When a burden is borne, it’s better to be borne together than alone,” Stephens said. “During this time of such fear and shock, we need to support and unite our community.”

Students first learned of a problem when an “active shooter” alert was sent at 9:55 a.m. to the campus community, urging people to hide in place.

One 911 caller was outside with classmates after the building was cleared. He saw much of what happened.

“There was a guy who crashed his car into a bunch of people and ran out with a knife chasing down people,” the caller told 911 dispatchers.

The caller moments later, told the dispatcher that the crisis was over. “I think he is dead. I’m looking at him now. Never mind.”

At 11:30 a.m., the university said the scene was secure and that all classes were canceled for the day. The shelter-in-place order was lifted at 11:14 a.m., but more than a dozen buildings remained closed.

U.S. Rep. Joyce Beatty, a Democrat from Jefferson Township, called the campus emergency-alert system “life-saving” and praised OSU officials for instituting it. “Those things don’t just happen,” she said.

Mayor Andrew J. Ginther said it was “one of those days when you’re grateful for good training and great people.” He said police deserve particular credit for handling the incident well in a climate of contentious relations. “There has never been a more complicated and challenging time to be a police officer,” he said.

Ginther made no reference to Artan’s ethnicity or background but said he is proud that Columbus is “warm and welcoming” to immigrants and refugees. “We welcome people from all over the world,” he said.

Columbus police, Ohio State police and deputies with the Franklin County Sheriff’s Office rushed to the scene. Students took to social media to find information, and posted video and pictures to Twitter of the scene.

>>Live updates from the scene

Mike O’Connell, a senior from Dublin, said he did not hear shots, but got the alerts.

“I just had a class over here an hour ago,” he said. “This is insane. I’ve never seen anything like this.”

Another student said she was in a business class when she received the emergency alert. She said she could see people running outside.

“We’re just staying safe, making sure everyone else is safe,” the sophomore said.

Peter Anderson, chairman of the Department of Materials Science and Engineering, said he arrived at Watts Hall after the attack was over.

He said students told him that someone called in a fluorine leak in the building, which has lab facilities. As required during emergencies, the students congregated in the courtyard outside the building.

He said the attacker drove a car into the courtyard. “It’s where we hold our ice cream socials and when something like this happens,”Anderson said.

One victim was struck so hard that the person flew into the air and landed on a hard surface.

“It sounds very fortunate that bsed on what I heard, if this is not a life-threatening injury,” Anderson said.

Anderson said one of his colleagues, professor emeritus William Clark, was slashed in his lower leg by the attacker.

Upper Arlington and Grandview schools were locked down for a short time while police investigated the incident.

On Tuesday, Ohio State will mark one year since another fatal incident happened on campus. It was a year ago Nov. 29 that Dean Sturgis, a former security guard for the Wexner Center for the Arts, went into that building and started shooting at artwork in the gallery.

The center was evacuated and closed. SWAT officers found Sturgis, 62, dead after he shot himself. No one else was hurt.

Dispatch Reporters Beth Burger, Bill Bush, Theodore Decker, Mary Mogan Edwards, Ken Gordon, Danae King, Kimball Perry, Earl Rinehart, Lucas Sullivan, Jim Weiker, Alissa Widman Neese, Jim Woods and Holly Zachariah contributed to this story.

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2016/11/28/active-shooter.html

OHIO STATE ATTACKER IDENTIFIED: Everything We Know About Abdul Razak Ali Artan

CHRISTIAN DATOC

Reporter

The man behind Monday’s horrific attack at Ohio State University has been identified as Abdul Razak Ali Artan.

Ohio law enforcement officials confirmed to NBC News Monday afternoon that Artan — an 18-year-old freshman at OSU — was the man who plowed a car into a crowd of people on campus and subsequently attacked passers-by with a butcher’s knife.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/28/ohio-state-attacker-identified-everything-we-know-about-abdul-razak-ali-artan/#ixzz4RLCd88Nm

Authorities had previously confirmed that the suspect was a Somali refugee, legally residing in Ohio.

Artan fled Somalia with his family in 2007 before landing in Pakistan.

He moved to the United States in 2014, where he was granted legal, permanent status.

It should be noted that Ohio State’s online directory only lists one student with the name, Abdul Artan.

Furthermore, “The Lantern” — OSU’s campus newspaper — ran an interview with Artan just a few months ago, in which he criticized the school for not having Muslim prayer rooms on campus.

“I wanted to pray in the open, but I was kind of scared with everything going on in the media,” he stated. “I’m a Muslim, it’s not what the media portrays me to be.”

“I don’t blame them,” he cotinued. “It’s the media that put that picture in their heads so they’re just going to have it, and it’s going to make them feel uncomfortable.”

Artan’s motive is not yet known, yet authorities maintain that the attack was “done on purpose” and are treating the incident as a possible terrorist act.

This is a developing situation. Check back for updates.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/28/ohio-state-attacker-identified-everything-we-know-about-abdul-razak-ali-artan/#ixzz4RLD8OaUm

Story 2:  Trump Team Trashes Rollover Republican Romney — Videos

Image result for conway trumpImage result for conway trumpImage result for on trump romney secretary of state position and kelyanne conwayImage result for cartoons on trump romney secretary of state position and conwayImage result for cartoons on trump romney secretary of state position and conwayImage result for cartoon on trump trashed romneyImage result for cartoon on trump trashed romneyImage result for cartoons on trump romney secretary of state position and conwayImage result for on trump romney secretary of state position and kelyanne conway

Image result for on trump romney secretary of state position and kelyanne conway

Image result for gingrich huckabee conwayImage result for conway trumpImage result for conway trump

Kellyanne Conway Attacks Romney – Election Recount | Lou Dobbs

Rove Conway making Trump look weak Fox News Video

ATL | Roger Stone: Trump Probably “Play Acting” Anger Vs. Kellyanne Conway for Romney Criticism

News 11/28/16 | Trump meets with Petraeus, Kellyanne Conway, Romney

Conway shoots down report that Trump is ‘furious’ with her

Ana Navarro Kellyanne Conway ‘ Public Thrashing ’ of Romney ‘ Coordinated Trump Strategy ’

Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway: Full interview

Chuck Todd to Kellyanne Conway: Blaming the media is a ‘crutch’

Kellyanne Conway SLAMS Mitt Romney, “He Shouldn’t be Part of OUR Party Now”

Newt Gingrich Sour on Romney Being Trump’s Potential Secretary of State – 11/27/16

WOW! Mike Huckabee: Choosing Mitt Romney as Secretary of State would be a big insult to all those…

SR 1364 – To Romney or Not to Romney

KellyAnne Conway, Geraldo, Huckabee & Gengrich Opinions On Mitt Romney As Secretary of State

Huckabee on Romney for Secretary of State: Why would he do it?

Donald Trump: Mitt Romney was a disaster as a candidate

Watch Mitt Romney’s full speech: ‘Trump is a phony, a fraud’

Conway shoots down report that Trump is ‘furious’ with her

Donald Trump’s senior adviser Kellyanne Conway panned as “sexist” a report by MSNBC Monday morning that the president-elect is “furious” with her over her attacks against Mitt Romney, a possible pick to be secretary of state.

Conway savaged Romney in multiple appearances on Sunday morning political talk shows, announcing that the opposition to the 2012 Republican presidential nominee among the president-elect’s supporters is “breathtaking in scope and intensity.” She attacked him for losing Michigan, a state Trump won, and suggested that he has weak credentials for the position of secretary of state.

Citing anonymous sources at the top of Trump’s transition team, MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” reported that Trump was “furious” with Conway for attacking Romney in her Sunday interviews. One source told the network that “Kellyanne went rogue at Donald Trump’s expense” while another said there is a growing sentiment within the transition team that Conway has been promoting her own agenda instead of the president-elect’s.

Conway responded to MSNBC with a statement which the “Morning Joe” anchors paraphrased on air. In it, the Trump senior adviser said of MSNBC’s reporting: “It is all false. And it is sexist.”

While Conway is the most high-profile member of Trump’s team to attack Romney, she is not alone in her sentiments. The former Massachusetts governor was one of the GOP’s loudest Trump critics during both the primary and general election campaigns, but the president-elect met with him nonetheless earlier this month and has allowed Romney’s name to circulate as a potential pick for secretary of state.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) have both been critical of Romney and have expressed skepticism at the notion of him landing a key cabinet post.

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a staunch Trump loyalist, has campaigned hard and publicly for the secretary of state job as well.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/kellyanne-conway-trump-not-furious-with-me-231867

Story 3: Mass Money Mania — Democratic Derangement Disorder — Lying Lunatic Left — News Nuts — Recount Meaningless — Money Matters — Move On Hillary — Videos

Judge Jeanine Pirro Opening Statement EXPLODES at Hillary Clinton Jill Stein Wanting Vote Recount

Hillary Wants a Vote Recount

Fox Panel SLAMS Jill Stein for Recount Fundraising

Morgenstern: Stein’s fight against election fraud is a scam

Kellyanne Conway: Clinton, Stein ‘Cry Babies’ Over Recount (Full) | Meet The Press | NBC News

Computer Scientists Urge Hillary Clinton To Ask For Recount | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC

Donald Trump Refuses to Accept Election Result at the Last Debate with Hillary Clinton

Story 4: Communist Tyrant Castro Gone To Hell — Burn Baby Burn– Videos

Fidel Castro dead at 90

Fidel Castro Biography

The Truth About Fidel Castro | The Cuban Revolution

This is why Cubans hate fidel castro

Image result for FIDEL castro dead

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATORImage result for castro deadImage result for castro deadImage result for castro dead

Image result for castro dead

Image result for deaths in cuba by communist regime castro

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATORImage result for castro dead

Image result for deaths in cuba by communist regimeImage result for castro deadImage result for castro deadImage result for FIDEL castro deadImage result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATORImage result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for CARTOONS ABOUT FIDEL CASTRO DICTATOR

Image result for satistics by country democide and genocide

 Fidel Castro dead at age 90

Fidel Castro Dead at 90 | Former Cuban President Remembered

BREAKING: Fidel Castro Dies, Cuba Fidel Castro is Dead at age 90

Nigel Farage reacts to the death of Fidel Castro

Celebrations in Miami’s Little Havana in the wake of Fidel Castro’s death

Secrets Of Fidel Castro’s Death and Life Revealed

Fidel Castro, Cuba’s leader of revolution, dies at 90 – BBC News

A brief history of America and Cuba

CUBA BEFORE FIDEL CASTRO

Cuba: Before And After

Cuban Revolution & Fidel Castro’s Communist Regime in Cuba | Documentary | 1963

Fidel Castro Dies – Miami Celebrates Fidel Castro Death – Cuba President Dead

USA: Miami’s Cubans celebrate Fidel Castro’s death

Global reactions to Fidel Castro’s death

Havana, Miami wake up to Fidel Castro death news (Streamed live)

Fidel Castro The Untold Story 2001 Documentary

The Fidel Castro Tapes – Los Archivos de Fidel Castro

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ad6JP3mUGs]

Fidel Castro On Che Guevara

The Truth About Che Guevara

The True Story of Che Guevara (Full Documentary)

The Truth About Che Guevara

Exposing Fidel Castro and Che Guevara

Burn Baby Burn, Disco Inferno

“Burn Baby Burn”

And do we know exactly who we are
We hold the light but we still listen to the dark
And it tells us that we don’t measure up
And it tells us that we’ll never be enough, tell me
Do we know exactly who we are

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

And do we know exactly what we have
Why don’t we let it shine while we have the chance
It’s not so we can earn our place
We shine ‘cause we’ve been saved by grace, tell me
Do we know exactly what we have

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

Oh we’re a city on a hillside
So bright keep on shining
Oh take that fire from the inside
Outside keep on burning

We are the light
Light of the world
Light up the night
When will we learn
Now is our time
Now is our turn
To burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby
Oh oh oh
Burn baby burn baby

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-802

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 787, October 31, 2016, Story 1: What Bombshell Evidence Does The FBI Have and When Will They Reveal It? Evidence Will Never See The Light of Day — Obama Will Pardon Clinton After The Election — Case Closed — Trump Elected President — States Will Charge Clinton For Their Criminal Activity! — Video

Posted on October 31, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Blogroll, Bombs, Books, Breaking News, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Drones, France, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Libya, Mike Pence, MIssiles, Qatar, Rifles, Second Amendment, Senate, Spying, Success, Syria, Taxation, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Turkey, U.S. Negotiations with Islamic Republic of Iran, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Story 1: What Bombshell Evidence Does The FBI Have and When Will They Reveal It? Evidence Will Never See The Light of Day — Obama Will Pardon Clinton  After The Election — Case Closed — Trump Elected President — Videos

Will Obama pardon Hillary Clinton?

Blame Game Mainstream Media Points Finger At Comey Clinton Scandal Fox friends

BREAKING NEWS! FBI Mutiny Reopens Hillary’s Case

Rep. Gowdy on the impact of the FBI’s new Clinton inquiry

WoW! Bombshell***** FBI Reopens Clinton Email Case!!!!!

Why Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Is Collapsing | True News

3 Scandals: Hillary Clinton, Anthony Weiner and Loretta Lynch | True News

FBI Reopens Hillary Email Investigation, So Obama Can Pardon Her When She Loses

Lou Dobbs Tonight – FBI bribed by Obama / Clinton admin | Fox Business | October 17, 2016

Trump Demands That Obama Not Pardon Hillary! This Video is Explosive! Best 15 min Of Trump To Date!

Donald Trump Warns President Obama Not to ‘Pardon Hillary Clinton and Her Co-Conspirators’

Will Barack Obama PARDON Hillary Clinton?

Why The FBI Are Taking So Long on Clinton

CHECKMATE: Hillary Clinton Needs President Obama’s Pardon After FBI Indictment. Bernie Wins.

Why Obama Won’t Dare Indict Hillary: She Will Unleash DC Secrets

[yotuube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92rRJVkQVsY]

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

Laptop may contain thousands of messages sent to or from Mrs. Clinton’s private server

The surprise disclosure that agents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation are taking a new look at Hillary Clinton’s email use lays bare, just days before the election, tensions inside the bureau and the Justice Department over how to investigate the Democratic presidential nominee.

Investigators found 650,000 emails on a laptop that they believe was used by former Rep. Anthony Weiner and his estranged wife Huma Abedin, a close Clinton aide, and underlying metadata suggests thousands of those messages could have been sent to or from the private server that Mrs. Clinton used while she was secretary of state, according to people familiar with the matter.

It will take weeks, at a minimum, to determine whether those messages are work-related from the time Ms. Abedin served with Mrs. Clinton at the State Department; how many are duplicates of emails already reviewed by the FBI; and whether they include either classified information or important new evidence in the Clinton email probe.

Officials had to await a court order to begin reviewing the emails—which they received over the weekend, according to a person familiar with the matter—because they were uncovered in an unrelated probe of Mr. Weiner.

The new investigative effort, disclosed by FBI Director James Comey on Friday, shows a bureau at times in sharp internal disagreement over matters related to the Clintons, and how to handle those matters fairly and carefully in the middle of a national election campaign. Even as the probe of Mrs. Clinton’s email use wound down in July, internal disagreements within the bureau and the Justice Department surrounding the Clintons’ family philanthropy heated up, according to people familiar with the matter.

The latest development began in early October when New York-based FBI officials notified Andrew McCabe, the bureau’s second-in-command, that while investigating Mr. Weiner for possibly sending sexually charged messages to a teenage minor, they had recovered a laptop. Many of the 650,000 emails on the computer, they said, were from the accounts of Ms. Abedin, according to people familiar with the matter.

Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that hadn’t previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn’t give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement at the State Department. Mr. Weiner has denied sending explicit or indecent messages to the minor.

In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed many messages, apparently in the thousands, that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton’s home that had been the focus of so much investigative effort for the FBI. Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer, and report back to them.

At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department’s senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop, the people familiar with the matter said. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant, these people said.

Those emails stretched back years, these people said, and were on a laptop that hadn’t previously come up in the Clinton email probe. Ms. Abedin said in late August that the couple were separating.

The FBI had searched the computer while looking for child pornography, people familiar with the matter said, but the warrant they used didn’t give them authority to search for matters related to Mrs. Clinton’s email arrangement at the State Department. Mr. Weiner has denied sending explicit or indecent messages to the minor.

In their initial review of the laptop, the metadata showed many messages, apparently in the thousands, that were either sent to or from the private email server at Mrs. Clinton’s home that had been the focus of so much investigative effort for the FBI. Senior FBI officials decided to let the Weiner investigators proceed with a closer examination of the metadata on the computer, and report back to them.

At a meeting early last week of senior Justice Department and FBI officials, a member of the department’s senior national-security staff asked for an update on the Weiner laptop, the people familiar with the matter said. At that point, officials realized that no one had acted to obtain a warrant, these people said.

Presidential nominees Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump addressed the FBI’s new email inquiry on Monday.

Mr. McCabe then instructed the email investigators to talk to the Weiner investigators and see whether the laptop’s contents could be relevant to the Clinton email probe, these people said. After the investigators spoke, the agents agreed it was potentially relevant.

Mr. Comey was given an update, decided to go forward with the case and notified Congress on Friday, with explosive results. Senior Justice Department officials had warned the FBI that telling Congress would violate policies against overt actions that could affect an election, and some within the FBI have been unhappy at Mr. Comey’s repeated public statements on the probe, going back to his press conference on the subject in July.

The back-and-forth reflects how the bureau is probing several matters related, directly or indirectly, to Mrs. Clinton and her inner circle.

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case. The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.

New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, attended a news conference in New York in 2013. Mr. Weiner had attempted to revive his career with a bid for New York City mayor, but that effort was doomed after a website published lewd photos that he had evidently sent to another woman. ENLARGE
New York mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner and his wife, Huma Abedin, attended a news conference in New York in 2013. Mr. Weiner had attempted to revive his career with a bid for New York City mayor, but that effort was doomed after a website published lewd photos that he had evidently sent to another woman. PHOTO: ERIC THAYER/REUTERS

Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case.

It isn’t unusual for field agents to favor a more aggressive approach than supervisors and prosecutors think is merited. But the internal debates about the Clinton Foundationshow the high stakes when such disagreements occur surrounding someone who is running for president.

The Wall Street Journal reported last weekthat Mr. McCabe’s wife, Jill McCabe, received $467,500 in campaign funds in late 2015 from the political-action committee of Virginia Gov.Terry McAuliffe, a longtime ally of the Clintons and, until he was elected governor in November 2013, a Clinton Foundation board member.

Mr. McAuliffe had supported Dr. McCabe in the hopes she and a handful of other Democrats might help win a majority in the state Senate. Dr. McCabe lost her race last November, and Democrats failed to win their majority.

A spokesman for the governor has said that “any insinuation that his support was tied to anything other than his desire to elect candidates who would help pass his agenda is ridiculous.”

Dr. McCabe told the Journal, “Once I decided to run, my husband had no formal role in my campaign other than to be” supportive.

In February of this year, Mr. McCabe ascended from the No. 3 position at the FBI to the deputy director post. When he assumed that role, officials say, he started overseeing the probe into Mrs. Clinton’s use of a private email server for government work when she was secretary of state.

FBI officials have said Mr. McCabe had no role in the Clinton email probe until he became deputy director, and by then his wife’s campaign was over.

But other Clinton-related investigations were under way within the FBI, and they have been the subject of internal debate for months, according to people familiar with the matter.

Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter.

Los Angeles agents had picked up information about the Clinton Foundation from an unrelated public-corruption case and had issued some subpoenas for bank records related to the foundation, these people said.

The Washington field office was probing financial relationships involving Mr. McAuliffe before he became a Clinton Foundation board member, these people said. Mr. McAuliffe has denied any wrongdoing, and his lawyer has said the probe is focused on whether he failed to register as an agent of a foreign entity.

Clinton Foundation officials have long denied any wrongdoing, saying it is a well-run charity that has done immense good.

The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said.

In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well.

Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

“That was one of the weirdest meetings I’ve ever been to,” one participant told others afterward, according to people familiar with the matter.

Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said.

About a week after Mr. Comey’s July announcement that he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead, with assistance from Little Rock.

Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee in September on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's email server. ENLARGE
Director James Comey testified before the House Judiciary Committee in September on a variety of subjects including the investigation into former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s email server. PHOTO: WIN MCNAMEE/GETTY IMAGES

The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe. Mr. McCabe had decided earlier in the spring that he would continue to recuse himself from that probe, given the governor’s contributions to his wife’s former political campaign.

Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly Justice Department anticorruption prosecutors, felt that both probes were weak, based largely on publicly available information, and had found little that would merit expanded investigative authority.

According to a person familiar with the probes, on Aug. 12, a senior Justice Department official called Mr. McCabe to voice his displeasure at finding that New York FBI agents were still openly pursuing the Clinton Foundation probe during the election season. Mr. McCabe said agents still had the authority to pursue the issue as long as they didn’t use overt methods requiring Justice Department approvals.

The Justice Department official was “very pissed off,” according to one person close to Mr. McCabe, and pressed him to explain why the FBI was still chasing a matter the department considered dormant. Others said the Justice Department was simply trying to make sure FBI agents were following longstanding policy not to make overt investigative moves that could be seen as trying to influence an election. Those rules discourage investigators from making any such moves before a primary or general election, and, at a minimum, checking with anticorruption prosecutors before doing so.

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said.

For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn’t think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had.

Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.

Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction.

For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership’s handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said. For those who felt the probe hadn’t yet found significant evidence of criminal conduct, the leadership’s approach was the right response.

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information.

Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

Not long after that discussion, FBI agents informed the bureau’s leaders about the Weiner laptop, prompting Mr. Comey’s disclosure to Congress and setting off the furor that promises to consume the final days of a tumultuous campaign.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957

Resign, Mr. Comey

The FBI director lends credence to Trump’s accusation that the system is rigged.

FBI Director James Comey before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22.
FBI Director James Comey before the House Judiciary Committee in Washington, D.C., Oct. 22. PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES

There was once an honorable tradition of resignations from government service. Cy Vance stepped down as Jimmy Carter’s Secretary of State after each man lost confidence in the other’s judgment. George Tenet resigned as George W. Bush’s CIA director in the wake of the Iraq WMD intelligence debacle.

Now it behooves James Comey to do the same. The FBI director lost the confidence of millions of Americans last summer by using semantic sophistry and bureaucratic legerdemain to exonerate Hillary Clinton from charges of mishandling classified information. He lost the confidence of millions more last Friday with his blundering letter to Congress announcing that the Clinton email investigation might not be closed after all—details to come, maybe.

In the most divisive political season in memory, Mr. Comey has become the rare object of political consensus, his motives distrusted by Trump and Clinton voters alike, his judgment doubted by congressional Republicans, Democratic Justice Department officials and probably a great many agents in his own bureau. He needs to go.

This isn’t because Mr. Comey is a secret partisan—an “arm of the [Clinton] campaign,” as journalist Mark Halperin suggested in September. In July Mr. Comey, an Obama appointee who also served as deputy attorney general in the George W. Bush administration, testified that he had been a registered Republican “for most of my adult life,” but that he was “not registered any longer.”

Whatever that means. Mr. Comey’s gnomic, ex cathedra distinction between Mrs. Clinton’s “extremely careless” handling of classified information and the “grossly negligent” standard that would have put her in legal jeopardy probably saved her candidacy. Friday’s letter to Congress, raising “there’s-gotta-be-something-there” suspicions, may yet save Mr. Trump’s.

These aren’t partisan acts. They are self-regarding ones. Mr. Comey is a familiar Washington type—the putative saint—whose career is a study in reputation management. He went after investment banker Frank Quattrone. He threatened to resign from the Bush administration over its warrantless wiretap program. He vouchsafed the case against Steven J. Hatfill, the virologist accused of the 2001 anthrax mail attacks, in internal White House deliberations. He appointed his close friend Patrick Fitzgerald to investigate the leak of CIA analyst Valerie Plame’s name.

One common thread in these cases is that Mr. Comey was always on the right side of Beltway conventional wisdom. The second is that he was consistently on the wrong side of justice.

Mr. Quattrone was exonerated. Warrantless wiretaps were ruled constitutional by the FISA court. Mr. Hatfill was an innocent man who eventually won a $5.8 million settlement from the Justice Department. Mr. Fitzgerald oversaw a three-year witch hunt that conveniently overlooked Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage’s role in leaking Ms. Plame’s identity. Instead, New York Times reporter Judith Miller went to jail for protecting her sources and Scooter Libby had his career wrecked.

The Journal brought this record to light in a blistering 2013 editorial. “Any potential FBI director deserves scrutiny, since the position has so much power and is susceptible to ruinous misjudgments and abuse,” the editorial warned. “That goes double for Mr. Comey, a nominee who seems to think the job of the federal bureaucracy is to oversee elected officials, not the other way around.”

The Senate ignored our advice. Mr. Comey was confirmed 93-1.

It’s amusing to read liberal pundits suddenly denounce Mr. Comey as a self-serving operator, not the man of honor he was supposed to be when his behavior was more congenial to Democrats.

It’s also amusing to conjecture that Mr. Comey’s hand in sending Friday’s letter to Congress was forced by fear that disgruntled FBI agents would leak the news of the emails. Mr. Comey used just that kind of tactic when he threatened to resign from the Bush administration.

What’s not amusing is that Mr. Comey has lent credence to Donald Trump’s toxic accusation that the system is rigged. In July, the FBI director arrogated to himself the right to decide whether a “reasonable prosecutor” would bring Mrs. Clinton’s case to trial, a decision that belonged to the Justice Department. Now he has flouted Justice Department protocols against using “official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the result of an election.” All to protect his position and reputation.

FBI directors are supposed to be above politics, not in them. President Obama has the authority to fire Mr. Comey but will be hard-pressed to do so politically. That goes double if Mrs. Clinton is elected. Who knows what a President Trump would do.

All the more reason for Mr. Comey to do the right thing. He has lost the trust of his political masters, his congressional overseers and the American people. Wanting to spend more time with family is the usual excuse.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/resign-mr-comey-1477955914

WSJ: FBI Agents Allege DOJ Ordered ‘Stand Down’ on Clinton Foundation Investigation

By Guy Benson

Lost in all the shouting and hypocrisy over James Comey and the FBI’s renewed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s national security-compromising email scandal is a true jaw-dropper of a Wall Street Journal scoop regarding deep internal divisions within the Bureau and DOJ. The story begins by focusing on the email probe side of the controversy, then delves into great detail about a raging, under-the-radar battle over multiple FBI field offices examining possible criminal wrongdoing at the Clinton Foundation. The specifics of the report are remarkable, with warring factions offering differing accounts of what has really transpired. One thing that becomes clear from the Journal’s reporting is that some within the FBI believe top brass at their agency and at the Justice Department have repeatedly exerted their influence to hamstring or shut down a serious criminal investigation:

New details show that senior law-enforcement officials repeatedly voiced skepticism of the strength of the evidence in a bureau investigation of the Clinton Foundation, sought to condense what was at times a sprawling cross-country effort, and, according to some people familiar with the matter, told agents to limit their pursuit of the case.The probe of the foundation began more than a year ago to determine whether financial crimes or influence peddling occurred related to the charity.Some investigators grew frustrated, viewing FBI leadership as uninterested in probing the charity, these people said. Others involved disagreed sharply, defending FBI bosses and saying Mr. McCabe in particular was caught between an increasingly acrimonious fight for control between the Justice Department and FBI agents pursuing the Clinton Foundation case…

Early this year, four FBI field offices—New York, Los Angeles, Washington and Little Rock, Ark.—were collecting information about the Clinton Foundation to see if there was evidence of financial crimes or influence-peddling, according to people familiar with the matter…The FBI field office in New York had done the most work on the Clinton Foundation case and received help from the FBI field office in Little Rock, the people familiar with the matter said. In February, FBI officials made a presentation to the Justice Department, according to these people. By all accounts, the meeting didn’t go well. Some said that is because the FBI didn’t present compelling evidence to justify more aggressive pursuit of the Clinton Foundation, and that the career anticorruption prosecutors in the room simply believed it wasn’t a very strong case. Others said that from the start, the Justice Department officials were stern, icy and dismissive of the case.

Let’s pause right there.  Remember this August report about an active FBI probe into the Clinton Foundation, which was pooh-poohed as unsubstantiated at the time?  Apparently, it had quite a lot of validity to it.  Also recall that those rumors began to swirl shortly after an element of the Obama Justice Department was alleged to have rebuffed an FBI request to look into the Clintons’ controversial family charity.  Those headlines came and went rather quickly, but it turns out that there was a heavy duty tug-of-war underway beneath the surface.  One contingent of agents views their bosses at DOJ as actively trying to deep-six their investigative efforts, which could have further damaged the Clintons.  Another contingent believes the evidence wasn’t strong enough to justify a full-scale investigation.  Back to the Journal’s piece:

Anticorruption prosecutors at the Justice Department told the FBI at the meeting they wouldn’t authorize more aggressive investigative techniques, such as subpoenas, formal witness interviews, or grand-jury activity. But the FBI officials believed they were well within their authority to pursue the leads and methods already under way, these people said. About a week after Mr. Comey’s July announcement that he was recommending against any prosecution in the Clinton email case, the FBI sought to refocus the Clinton Foundation probe, with Mr. McCabe deciding the FBI’s New York office would take the lead, with assistance from Little Rock…The Washington field office, FBI officials decided, would focus on a separate matter involving Mr. McAuliffe…Within the FBI, the decision was viewed with skepticism by some, who felt the probe would be stronger if the foundation and McAuliffe matters were combined. Others, particularly Justice Department anticorruption prosecutors, felt that both probes were weak.

The decision to keep pursuing the Clinton Foundation did not sit well with at least one high-ranking DOJ boss, who placed an angry phone call to McCabe — whose name may sound vaguely familiar.  More on that connection in a moment, but first, this smacks of improper political pressure:

View image on Twitter

WSJ: DOJ official was “very pissed off” that the FBI was pursuing its Clinton Foundation investigation & applied pressure to kill.

McCabe reportedly pushed back:

“Are you telling me that I need to shut down a validly predicated investigation?” Mr. McCabe asked, according to people familiar with the conversation. After a pause, the official replied, “Of course not,” these people said. For Mr. McCabe’s defenders, the exchange showed how he was stuck between an FBI office eager to pour more resources into a case and Justice Department prosecutors who didn’t think much of the case, one person said. Those people said that following the call, Mr. McCabe reiterated past instructions to FBI agents that they were to keep pursuing the work within the authority they had. Others further down the FBI chain of command, however, said agents were given a much starker instruction on the case: “Stand down.” When agents questioned why they weren’t allowed to take more aggressive steps, they said they were told the order had come from the deputy director—Mr. McCabe.Others familiar with the matter deny Mr. McCabe or any other senior FBI official gave such a stand-down instruction. For agents who already felt uneasy about FBI leadership’s handling of the Clinton Foundation case, the moment only deepened their concerns, these people said.

It sounds as if McCabe was caught between DOJ higher-ups who wanted the Clinton Foundation probe jettisoned or significantly defanged, and line agents who were angry and suspicious that their work was being undermined by a political agenda. Did agents on the case hallucinate the effective “stand down” order they received?  Was the decision to back off wrongly attributed to Mr. McCabe? He is an interesting figure, as it was recently revealed that Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe — a very close Clinton ally, and the subject of yet another FBI probe — funneled $675,000 to the the State Senate campaign of McCabe’s wife, a liberal Democrat.  Even if Mr. McCabe did his best to abide by ethical guidelines, his central involvement in all of these politically-charged matters at least looks questionable, given his family’s very recent partisan alliance with Clintonworld.  And then there’s this:

In September, agents on the foundation case asked to see the emails contained on nongovernment laptops that had been searched as part of the Clinton email case, but that request was rejected by prosecutors at the Eastern District of New York, in Brooklyn. Those emails were given to the FBI based on grants of partial immunity and limited-use agreements, meaning agents could only use them for the purpose of investigating possible mishandling of classified information. Some FBI agents were dissatisfied with that answer, and asked for permission to make a similar request to federal prosecutors in Manhattan, according to people familiar with the matter. Mr. McCabe, these people said, told them no and added that they couldn’t “go prosecutor-shopping.”

McCabe apparently denied agents’ September request to seek non-government laptops seized from Clinton aides during the (then dormant) email scandal investigation. Relevant FBI/DOJ-granted immunity deals, described by ex-federal officials as highly irregular, stipulated that the evidence in question could only be used by officials looking into the mishandling of classified data — not other potential crimes related to the Clinton Foundation.  Hmmm.  Layer all of this new information atop the facts that Attorney General Loretta Lynch improperly huddled with Bill Clinton while the email probe was still active and then broke her word by inserting herself into the case, pressuring Comey not to update Congress on new developments that impact his previous testimony.  Asking tough pointed about whether some top officials at DOJ are abusing their roles to protect their partisan allies is justified.  I’ll leave you with this bottom-line assessment, amid all the finger-pointing and acrimony:

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe

As federal agents prepare to scour roughly 650,000 emails discovered on a laptop for possible links to Hillary Clinton’s private server, the case lays bare tensions within the FBI and Justice…

wsj.com

Correct, on all three counts. But Continetti neglects to add Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin to his list, now that the FBI has reopened the email matter, too.

UPDATE – Here’s Clinton categorically denying that there was any FBI investigation into her family’s ‘slush fund‘ foundation earlier this year. Those reports had “no basis” and were “irresponsible,” she claimed. Wrong again:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/10/31/wsj-clinton-foundation-investigation-killed-by-doj-n2238884

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-787

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 Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 765, September 28, 2016, Story 1: Desperate Democrat Distractions: Racist Birther Lies and Former Miss Universe Winner and Weight Challenged Alicia Machado Campaigns For Clinton — Source of Hillary’s Miss Porky Trump Attack — Crooked Liar Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) Hillary Plays Race Card on Trump — Who Really Is The Racist? Democrat Party’s Progressive Eugenics Racist Agenda of Black Genocide — Videos — Part 2 of 3 Story 2: The Winner of The Debate — Tie Goes To Trump — We The People Vs. Politicians, Big Lie Media and Donor Class — The Winner on Election Day — We The People — President of The United States — Donald J. Trump — Videos —

Posted on September 28, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, Benghazi, Blogroll, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Fast and Furious, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Illegal Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

 Story 1: Desperate Democrat Distractions: Racist Birther Lies and Former Miss Universe Winner and Weight Challenged Alicia Machado Campaigns For Clinton — Source of Hillary’s Miss Porky Trump Attack — Crooked Liar Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) Hillary Plays Race Card on Trump — Who Really Is The Racist? Democrat Party’s Progressive Eugenics Racist Agenda of Black Genocide — Videos — 

Hillary Clinton CALLS Trump RACIST and SEXIST During 2016 PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE!!

Hillary Clinton calls Trump supporters ‘deplorable’

Presidential Debate | Was Hillary Clinton’s Strategy Effective?

This Video SHOULD Cost Hillary Clinton The Black Vote

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for margret sanger and hillary clinton

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Image result for black babies killed by abortion

Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger

Hillary Clinton Planned Parenthood FULL Speech

Black Genocide – Maafa 21 – Full Length

“Maafa 21” Exposes Black Genocide The documentary Maafa 21: Black Genocide in 21st Century America is an explosive exposé of the racist eugenics agenda of the abortion industry in the United States. It makes the case that, though abortionists claim to advocate privacy, women’s rights, and reproductive choice, their true motive is racial genocide and ethnic cleansing. …

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons miss universer and hillary clinton

Image result for cartoons presidential debate 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons hillary clinton and trump presidential debate

Image result for cartoons presidential debate 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Image result for cartoons 2016 hillary and trump

Porn Star Campaigns For Hillary Clinton

ALEX PFEIFFER
Reporter

14288024_1178019405590949_1573831976_n

 

Former Miss Universe winner Alicia Machado, who has been campaigning against Republican nominee Donald Trump for the Hillary Clinton campaign, has appeared in pornographic videos.

Snippets of an adult film starring Machado are available on multiple free porn websites. Machado also appeared topless in Mexican Playboy in 2006 and 2012. Hillary Clinton invoked the 1996 Miss Universe winner in an attack on Trump during Monday’s debate.

Machado said Trump called her “Miss Piggy” after she gained weight, and that he referred to the Venezuelan as “Miss Housekeeping.” Trump said Tuesday, “She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem. We had a real problem. Not only that, her attitude.”

Machado attacked Trump later Tuesday during a call with the press in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish. She spoke about her career as an actress in soap operas and film, but did not mention her appearance in porn.

In addition to her background in pornography, the Daily Mail reported that Machado was accused in 1998 of threatening to kill a Venezuelan judge.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/27/porn-star-campaigns-for-hillary-clinton/#ixzz4La8VkkWA

Miss Universe ‘fat-shamed’ by Donald Trump was accused of threatening to kill a judge and being an accomplice to a MURDER bid in her native Venezuela

  • Alicia Machado, from Venezuela, was Miss Universe in 1996 when Donald Trump bought the franchise for the contest
  • She was spoken about at Monday night debate by Hillary Clinton who told how Donald Trump had called her ‘Miss Piggy’ because of weight gain
  • But reports from the time have surfaced which reveal questions over her background in Venezuela
  • Court documents in 1998 revealed she was accused of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a murder attempt – at a woman’s funeral
  • A judge also claimed on national television that she threatened his life 
  • Unknown if Clinton campaign vetted Machado, 39, before debate and conference call with press on Tuesday which was almost all in Spanish

The former Miss Universe at the center of a bitter exchange in Monday’s presidential debate was accused of aiding a would-be murderer and threatening to kill a judge, it has emerged.

Alicia Machado was named by Hillary Clinton as having been shamed for her weight in 1996 by Donald Trump, when she was Miss Universe and he bought the beauty contest, by being called ‘Miss Piggy’ when she gained weight.

The then-Miss Venezuela was photographed with Trump at a gym as he spoke about how she ‘loves to eat,’ and she also claimed he mocked her Latino accent, calling her ‘Miss Housekeeping.’

On Tuesday Machado launched her own attack on the Republican candidate, accusing him of abuse and ‘stupid things.’

SCROLL DOWN FOR VIDEO 

Prestigious title: Alicia Machado was named Miss Universe in 1996 but quickly gained weight and when Donald Trump took over the beauty contest, she was a 'problem', he said Tuesday

Prestigious title: Alicia Machado was named Miss Universe in 1996 but quickly gained weight and when Donald Trump took over the beauty contest, she was a ‘problem’, he said Tuesday

'Fat-shamed': Machado claimed that she felt humiliated when she was photographed exercising at a gym with Trump watching. He said Tuesday that 'she gained a massive amount of weight'

‘Fat-shamed’: Machado claimed that she felt humiliated when she was photographed exercising at a gym with Trump watching. He said Tuesday that ‘she gained a massive amount of weight’

Campaign tool: The Clinton campaign energetically set up a conference call on Tuesday with Machado to try to capitalize on her mention in the debate. DailyMail.com is asking about the vetting of her past

Campaign tool: The Clinton campaign energetically set up a conference call on Tuesday with Machado to try to capitalize on her mention in the debate. DailyMail.com is asking about the vetting of her past

Small world: Bill Clinton was welcomed to Caracas by Rafael Caldera in November 1997. Three months later Caldera was allegedly being named by Machado as a friend who would ruin a judge's career if he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder

Small world: Bill Clinton was welcomed to Caracas by Rafael Caldera in November 1997. Three months later Caldera was allegedly being named by Machado as a friend who would ruin a judge’s career if he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder

But now two Associated Press reports from 1998 have revealed the Machado was accused of aiding attempted murder and threats to kill in Venezuela.

DailyMail.com has asked the Clinton campaign whether they knew about the accusations, which do not appear to have ended in conviction, before the candidate spoke about her at the debate.

The campaign also organized a conference call for reporters on Tuesday with the now 39-year-old actress, in which she spoke almost exclusively in Spanish to continue the attacks on Trump.

The troubling details of what Machado was accused of emerged after she had reigned as Miss Universe in 1996.

In January 1998, the Associated Press revealed that Machado had been accused in court documents in Cadacras of driving her boyfriend from the scene of a shooting.

She was ordered to testify in court, with her lawyer telling a local newspaper that she was in fact filming a soap opera at the time.

The murder, it was alleged, was the culmination of a bitter feud.

Machado’s boyfriend, Juan Rodriguez Reggeti, was accused of shooting his brother-in-law, Francisco Sbert Moukso – at the funeral of the dead man’s wife, Maria Rodriguez, who was the alleged murderer’s sister.

Sbert’s attorney alleged that Reggeti believed the dead man had driven his sister to suicide and took revenge, the Associated Press said.

Rodriguez was eight months pregnant when she jumped to her death off a fifth-floor balcony.

The attorney also alleged that witnesses saw Machado drive her boyfriend away from the scene of the crime, and that her boyfriend had snatched the dead woman’s 11-month-old son as well.

But her lawyer, Ricardo Koesling, was quoted in a local newspaper calling the claims ‘a huge stupidity’ and saying: ‘She wasn’t even present at the site of the incident.’

Machado was not indicted when the judge in the case said there was insufficient evidence that she was at the scene of the alleged crime.

Right to vote: Alicia Machado celebrated becoming a U.S. citizen earlier this year, saying she would use her vote against Donald Trump 

Right to vote: Alicia Machado celebrated becoming a U.S. citizen earlier this year, saying she would use her vote against Donald Trump

'I'm with you!' Alicia Machado posted this tweet shortly after the end of Monday's debate - but it is unknown if the Clinton campaign knew about the questions over her past

‘I’m with you!’ Alicia Machado posted this tweet shortly after the end of Monday’s debate – but it is unknown if the Clinton campaign knew about the questions over her past

Latino star: Since her apparent brush with the law in 1998, Machado has become a star of telenovas and how is a US citizen

Latino star: Since her apparent brush with the law in 1998, Machado has become a star of telenovas and how is a US citizen

Former Miss Universe talks about being treated badly by Trump

There was clearly confusion as in contrast to her lawyer’s initial claim she was filming, Machado later claimed that she was at home sick. The judge said there was also insufficient evidence to prove that claim.

A judge indicted her boyfriend, described by Reuters as ‘a 26-year-old graphic designer with movie star good looks’ – and police mounted a series of raids to find him, to no avail.

It was not the end of the affair.

A month later the judge went on national television to allege that Machado had threatened to kill him if he indicted Sbert.

Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television that she threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me’, the Associated Press reported.

Reuters reported that he ‘said she would make sure, using her friendship with the president [Rafael Caldera], that my career as judge is ruined and then she would kill me.’

He alleged that when he issued an arrest warrant she made a threatening phone call. He had traced her identity because her number showed up on his mobile phone – a relatively new technology in 1998.

The judge said he planned to open a new case against Machado. Judges in Venezuela are more akin to prosecutors, having investigatory powers.

The indictment, if it had led to criminal trial, would have carried a jail term of up to 18 months if she had been found guilty.

Gym trip: In January 1996, during her reign as Miss World, she was photographed working out in a gym with Trump watching

Gym trip: In January 1996, during her reign as Miss World, she was photographed working out in a gym with Trump watching

Admission: Trump made no secret as he appeared on Fox and Friends that Machado's weight had been an issue.

Admission: Trump made no secret as he appeared on Fox and Friends that Machado’s weight had been an issue.

I wasn’t there, my love. I was at Venevision filming. At 2pm I left my house and called the station to tell them I couldn’t go. I was ill with a stomach ache because of my diet. As you can see I am yet again, as God and the Virgin would have it, 15 kilos lighter and focusing on my work.
How Achado explained what she had told a judge about allegations she drove her boyfriend from the scene of an attempted murder.

The Economist reported that she admitted making the call but that that she said it was to thank him for what it described as ‘his unbiased pursuit of justice.’

Local newspaper El Tiempo said she was questioned behind closed doors by the judge for two hours, then emerged and spoke to local journalists.

‘I don’t have anything to do with this,’ she said, crying, it reported.

‘I wasn’t there, my love. I was at Venevision filming. At 2pm I left my house and called the station to tell them I couldn’t go.

‘I was ill with a stomach ache because of my diet. As you can see I am yet again, as God and the Virgin would have it, 15 kilos [33lb] lighter and focusing on my work.’

DailyMail.com is reaching out to Machado for comment.

Machado went on to have a career in telenovelas and earlier this year became an American citizen, in time to vote in the November election.

Clinton named her in the debate on Monday night without making any reference to her past scandals.

As she was: Machado was appearing in the telenova Samantha, in which she was the eponymous central character, when the judge moved to indict her

As she was: Machado was appearing in the telenova Samantha, in which she was the eponymous central character, when the judge moved to indict her

Accusation: Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor claimed the ex-Miss Universe had threatened his career and his life

Accusation: Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor claimed the ex-Miss Universe had threatened his career and his life

Instead she said of her: ‘One of the worst things he said was about a woman in a beauty contest.

‘He loves beauty contests, supporting them and hanging around them, and he called this woman “Miss Piggy,” then he called her “Miss Housekeeping” because she was Latina.’

On Tuesday morning Trump agreed that he had told her to lose weight, and doubled down on his description.

‘She was the worst we ever had,’ he said on Fox and Friends.

‘She gained a massive amount of weight, and it was a real problem.’

Hours later Machado was made available by the Clinton campaign for a conference call with reporters.

Only a tiny fraction of it was in English and the campaign translated some of it for reporters, who had not been told it would be in Spanish.

In the course of it she accused Trump of ‘violence’ and said she wanted to share her story with the Latino community.

It does not appear she mentioned anything about the court case and although she claimed to have been ‘sharing her story’ for ’20 years’ DailyMail.com has yet to find evidence she as spoken of it since it happened.

‘I have been sharing this story, my story, with all of my fans and all of the communities from the beginning,’ she saud.

Basically by sharing my experience and focusing on abuse against women, the disrespect to women, violence against women, must end
 Macahdo on Donald Trump

‘And I have been talking about this for 20 years, this really bad experience working with Mr. Donald Trump.

‘I know very well what’s he’s capable of, this man.

I think I speak more English than her. I don’t see anything about this girl. She’s a doll. She’s a decoration
Machado on Melania Trump

‘And that’s why I am fighting to make the community understand, now more than ever, that Latinos need to support the US, that we need to return all the beautiful and grand things the US has provided for us.

‘Basically by sharing my experience and focusing on abuse against women, the disrespect to women, violence against women, must end.’

Despite her attack on ‘abuse against women’, she had earlier this month spoke to Cosmopolitan.com about her views on Trump’s wife, Melania.

‘I think I speak more English than her,’ Machado said. ‘I don’t see anything about this girl. She’s a doll. She’s a decoration. That is how I see her.’

The Trump campaign did not respond to a request for comment.

THE FULL ASSOCIATED PRESS REPORT ABOUT ‘THREATS TO KILL A JUDGE’ IN 1998

STEVEN GUTKIN , Associated Press Feb. 5, 1998 4:36 PM ET

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) – A Venezuela judge said Thursday a former Miss Universe threatened to kill him after he indicted her boyfriend for attempted murder.

Venezuelan beauty queen Alicia Machado threatened ‘to ruin my career as a judge and … kill me,’ Judge Maximiliano Fuenmayor said on national television.

The 21-year-old Machado, who created an international stir in 1996 when she gained 35 pounds after being crowned Miss Universe, allegedly called the judge after he issued an arrest warrant Wednesday for Juan Rafael Rodriguez Regetti.

Rodriguez, 26, is accused of shooting and wounding his brother-in-law, Francisco Antonio Sbert Mousko, outside a church in Caracas last November where Sbert’s wife – Rodriguez’s sister – was being eulogizing.

Rodriguez apparently blamed Sbert for driving her to commit suicide.

The victim’s family accused Machado of driving the getaway car, but Fuenmayor has not indicted her, citing insufficient evidence. The judge said there were no witnesses to place Machado at the scene – or to back up her claim she was home sick at the time.

Machado could not be reached for comment Thursday. She was in the city of Maracay filming a soap opera Thursday, according to Mariela Castro of Venevision TV network. Machado’s lawyer was also unavailable for comment.

Fuenmayor said he planned to open a new case against Machado for Wednesday’s threatening phone call.

In the past two decades, Venezuela has had four Miss Universes, four Miss Worlds and two Miss Internationals – the world’s top beauty title record.

 Source: AP news archive

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3810484/Miss-Universe-fat-shamed-Donald-Trump-accused-threatening-kill-judge-accomplice-MURDER-native-Venezuela.html#ixzz4LaA9aDFg

 

 Part 2 of 3 Story 2: The Winner of The Debate — Tie Goes To Trump — We The People Vs. Politicians, Big Lie Media and Donor Class — The Winner on Election Day — We The People — President of The United States — Donald J.  Trump — Videos

Trump: I’m Not Running to be President of the World

Reaction To Clinton vs Trump Presidential Debate – Bret Baier & Megyn Kelly

FULL: Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton – First Presidential Debate 2016 – Hofstra University NY

Presidential Debate Analysis

Local reaction to presidential debate

SR #1216 – One Deplorable’s Response -Editorial Director Bill Still Goes-Off on Crooked Obama

Still Report #1214 – Hillary Clinton Campaign Gives Up on Ohio – Donald Trump Dominates Polls

Still Report#1213 –How Donald Trump Can Knock Out Hillary Clinton Tonight at the Presidential Debate

Why Trump’s outsider appeal can win him the working class

RUSH: TRUMP IS A ‘GENUINE OUTSIDER’

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton | Presidential Debate Analysis

Media waging a war against Trump?

Image result for Lester holt and hillary clinton

Whoomp There It Is – Tag Team

Cognition: How Your Mind Can Amaze and Betray You – Crash Course Psychology #15

Trump pulled off presidential

James Robbins

Like Reagan in 1980, viewers saw a Trump who was better than the liberal talking points.

You can’t fact check leadership, and tonight Donald Trump showed himself a leader.

In the run-up to the Hofstra presidential debate, the Clinton campaign mounted a concerted effort to make fact-checking the centerpiece of the event. Campaign manager Robby Mook argued that “it’s unfair to ask that Hillary Clinton both play traffic copwith Trump, make sure that his lies are corrected, and also to present her vision for what she wants to do for the American people.” Mook said that if Trump “lied,” it was moderator Lester Holt’s responsibility to point that out.

Fact-checking has never been an accepted role for debate moderators. Janet Brown, head of the Commission on Presidential Debates, said that a moderator should not “serve as the Encyclopedia Britannica.” And moderator Candy Crowley’s ill-advised intervention against Mitt Romney in 2012 showed why fact checking on the fly is a bad idea.

It was strange that the truth-challenged Clinton would want to make an issue of facts. But there was certainly no shortage of checking. Veteran debate moderator Bob Schieffer said that “the chief fact-checkers are the candidates,” and Clinton and Trump agreed, vigorously challenging each other over facts, policies and opinions. In addition, the social media hive-mind was scrutinizing every word in real time. Anyone who needed to track down a fact had the entire connected world at their disposal.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/26/trump-clinton-debate-hofstra-1980-reagan-carter-james-robbins-column/91141618/

 

Eight examples where ‘fact-checking’ became opinion journalism

– The Washington Times

NALYSIS/OPINION:

The media coverage on the presidential contest seems to have come down to “fact-checking,” with The New York Times, The Washington Post and Politico each doing articles depicting Donald Trump’s lies on the campaign trail.

This is dangerous territory for the profession, for as Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto opined on Twitter: ” ‘Fact checking’ is opinion journalism pretending to be some sort of heightened objectivity.”

Why you ask? Because most “fact-checkers” are merely liberal journalists looking to prove their preconceived narrative. They cherry-pick the statements to “fact-check” and then decide which data to back it up with. Statistics can be manipulated — for every study coming out of the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation can have a counter argument, depending on the methodology and surveys used. Moreover, much of what they decide to “fact-check” is subjective at best. Nothing that can be pinned down with undisputed data.

In addition, many times politicians use hyperbole to extenuate a larger point — and many times these “fact-checkers” ignore the larger point to focus on the validity of the minutia. Here are the eight most outrageous “fact-checks” used against Mr. Trump in the last few weeks, that explain why the American public’s trust in the media is at an all-time low.

The New York Times:

(1) Trumpquote: “Do people notice Hillary is copying my airplane rallies — she puts the plane behind her like I have been doing from the beginning.” (Twitter, Sept. 20)

Fact-check: “He did not invent the tarmac rally or the campaign-plane backdrop.”

(2) Trump quote/assertions: “Mrs. Clinton destroyed 13 smartphones with a hammer while she was secretary of state.” (Speeches in Florida, Sept. 15 and Sept. 19)

Fact-check: “An aide told the FBI of only two occasions in which phones were destroyed by a hammer.”

(3) Trump quote: “We have cities that are far more dangerous than Afghanistan.”

Fact-check: “No American city resembles a war zone, though crime has risen lately in some, like Chicago. Urban violence has fallen precipitously over the past 25 years.”

Of note, The New York Times wrote on Sept. 9 that “murder rates rose in a quarter of the nation’s 100 largest cities, and that “the number of cities where rates rose significantly was the largest since the height of violent crime in the early 1990s.”

Politico:

(4) Trumpquote: “We’re presiding over something the world has not seen. The level of evil is unbelievable.” (Sept. 19, Fort Myers, Florida, rally)

Fact-check: “Judging one ‘level of evil’ against another is subjective, but other groups in recent history have without any question engaged in as widespread killing of civilians as ISIS.”

(5) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton is raising your taxes, it’s a very substantial tax increase.” (Sept. 20 High Point, North Carolina, rally, and a similar statement at least one other time)

Fact-check: “Clinton has not released the full details of her tax plan, but she has sworn off tax hikes for households earning less than $250,000 a year. The vast majority of tax increases she proposes levying affect the highest earners.”

Of note, this fact-check says Mrs. Clinton will, indeed raise taxes. Additionally, in December, when ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos asked her “Is that a rock-solid promise?” (on not raising taxes on households earning less than $250,000) she hedged. “Well,” she said, “it certainly is my goal.”

(6) Trump quote: “Hillary Clinton wants to approve the Trans-Pacific Partnership; that deal will be a disaster for North Carolina, for every state. Your state.” (Sept. 20, High Point, North Carolina, rally)

Fact-check: “CNN tracked 45 instances in which Clinton supported the TPP, including in 2012 when she called it the “gold standard” of trade deals. But facing a challenge to her left from Bernie Sanders, Clinton this year said she opposed it and would continue to as president. The trade pact’s economic impacts are hotly debated, with some arguing it will hurt domestic workers while others arguing it will spur further exports and economic growth.”

Just to be clear, Politico is calling Mr. Trump a liar for calling out Mrs. Clinton’s flip-flop on TPP. Not to mention, her vice presidential candidate Tim Kaine was a vocal advocate of the trade-agreement for the Obama administration in Virginia (before he denounced it, once jumping on her ticket).

The Washington Post

(7) Trump quote: “The policies he [Rudolph Giuliani] put into place ultimately brought down crime by 76 percent and murder in New York by 84 percent.” (Speech in Pittsburgh, Sept. 22, 2016)

Fact-check: “It’s debatable whether the stop-and-frisk policies had such a direct impact on crime, as Trump suggests. Crime is affected by many factors, and New York’s decline in crime mirrored the decline in many other major cities at the time.”

The Post, after admitting the statistics were “debatable” still gave the assertion three Pinocchios. They used their preferable statistics to justify, saying Mr. Trump‘ “cherry-picked” his.

(8) “Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it, you know what I mean. President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.” (Donald Trump, news conference, Sept. 16, 2016)

Fact-check: “Let’s review this again: No, Clinton and her campaign did not start the “birther” controversy.”

Although Mrs. Clinton herself can’t be tied to starting or spreading the birther conspiracy, her 2008 presidential campaign can. Mrs. Clinton’s former campaign manager said they had to fire a staffer (she couldn’t remember if he or she was paid or not) for sending an email relating to Mr. Obama’s birthplace.

Moreover, the former Washington, D.C., bureau chief of McClatchy alleged Clinton ally Sidney Blumenthal asked him to investigate Mr. Obama’s birthplace, essentially starting a whisper campaign. McClatchy even sent a reporter to Kenya.

The Washington Post’s own fact-checker Michelle Ye Hee Lee admitted she heard about Mr. Blumenthal’s whisper campaign, so she called him and he said it wasn’t true (Remember: Mr. Blumenthal was responsible for spreading whisper campaigns about Monica Lewinsky in the 1990s — it’s been documented). But, The Washington Post fact-checker decided to believe Mr. Blumenthal, and gave Mr. Trump four Pinocchios instead.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/26/eight-examples-where-fact-checking-became-opinion-/

 

In debate, Clinton gets no follow-up questions, Trump gets 6

Lester Holt: The Third Debater?

By Heat Street Staff|11:01 pm, September 26, 2016At tonight’s debate, Donald Trump faced off not just against Hillary Clinton, but against moderator Lester Holt.

The game of two-on-one saw Holt ask no questions about:

  • Hillary’s emails
  • Benghazi
  • The Clinton Foundation

While ignoring these issues, Holt grilled Trump on stop-and-frisk, the birther story, his comments about women, his many bankruptcies, why he hasn’t released his tax returns — and a host of other issues the media sees as unfriendly to the Republican candidate.

Holt also repeatedly attempted to “fact check” on some of Trump’s positions, such as his claim to have opposed the Iraq War from the beginning. Holt interrupted Trump several times to interject, but rarely succeeded (and may have come across as weak and impotent).

Lester Holt: The Third Debater?

CLINTON, TRUMP BATTLE FIERCELY OVER TAXES, RACE, TERROR

In a combative opening debate, Hillary Clinton emphatically denounced Donald Trump Monday night for keeping his personal tax returns and business dealings secret from voters and peddling a “racist lie” about President Barack Obama. Businessman Trump repeatedly cast Clinton as a “typical politician” as he sought to capitalize on Americans’ frustration with Washington.

Locked in an exceedingly close White House race, the presidential rivals tangled for 90-minutes over their vastly different visions for the nation’s future. Clinton called for lowering taxes for the middle class, while Trump focused more on renegotiating trade deals that he said have caused companies to move jobs out of the U.S. The Republican backed the controversial “stop-and-frisk policing” tactic as a way to bring down crime, while the Democrat said the policy was unconstitutional and ineffective.

The debate was confrontational from the start, with Trump frequently trying to interrupt Clinton and speaking over her answers. Clinton was more measured and restrained, but also needled the sometimes-thin-skinned Trump over his business record and wealth.

“There’s something he’s hiding,” she declared, scoffing at his repeated contentions that he won’t release his tax returns because he is being audited. Tax experts have said an audit is no barrier to making his records public.

Clinton said one reason Trump has refused is that he may well have paid nothing in federal taxes. He interrupted to say, “That makes me smart.”

Trump aggressively tried to turn the transparency questions around on Clinton, saying he would release his tax information when she produces more than 30,000 emails that were deleted from the personal internet server she used as secretary of state.

Trump’s criticism of Clinton turned personal in the debate’s closing moments. He said, “She doesn’t have the look, she doesn’t have the stamina” to be president. He’s made similar comments in previous events, sparking outrage from Clinton backers who accused him of leveling a sexist attack on the first woman nominated for president by a major U.S. political party.

Clinton leapt at the opportunity to remind voters of Trump’s numerous controversial comments about women, who will be crucial to the outcome of the November election.

“This is a man who has called women pigs, slobs and dogs,” she said.

The televised face-off was the most anticipated moment in an election campaign that has been both historic and unpredictable. Both sides expected a record-setting audience for the showdown at Hofstra University in suburban New York, reflecting the intense national interest in the race to become America’s 45th president.

The centerpiece of Trump’s case against Clinton was that the former senator and secretary of state is little more than a career politician who has squandered opportunities to address the domestic and international she’s now pledging to tackle as president.

“She’s got experience,” he said, “but it’s bad experience.”

Both candidates portrayed themselves as best-prepared to lead a nation where many are still struggling to benefit from a slow economic recovery and are increasingly fearful of terror threats at home and abroad. When Trump jabbed Clinton for taking time off the campaign trail to study for the debate, she said, “I prepared to be president, and that’s a good thing.”

The candidates sparred over trade, taxes and how to bring good-paying jobs back to the United States.

Clinton said her Republican rival was promoting a “Trumped-up” version of trickle-down economics – a philosophy focused on tax cuts for the wealthy. She called for increasing the federal minimum wage, spending more on infrastructure projects and guaranteeing equal pay for women.

Trump panned policies that he said have led to American jobs being moved overseas, in part because of international trade agreements that Clinton has supported. He pushed her aggressively on her past support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact while she was serving in the Obama administration. She’s since said she opposes the sweeping deal in its final form.

“You called it the gold standard of trade deals,” Trump said. “If you did win, you would approve that.”

Disputing his version of events, Clinton said, “I know you live in your own reality.”

Trump struggled to answer repeated questions about why he only recently acknowledged that Obama was born in the United States. For years, Trump has been the chief promoter of questions falsely suggesting the president was born outside of America.

“He has really started his political activity on this racist lie,” Clinton charged.

Trump also repeatedly insisted that he opposed the Iraq War before the 2003 U.S. invasion, despite evidence to the contrary. Trump was asked in September 2002 whether he supported a potential Iraq invasion in an interview with Howard Stern. He responded: “Yeah, I guess so.”

Presented with the comment during the debate, Trump responded: “I said very lightly, I don’t know, maybe, who knows.”

The Republican also appeared to contradict himself on how he might use nuclear weapons if he’s elected president. He first said he “would not do first strike” but then said he couldn’t “take anything off the table.”

Clinton said Trump was too easily provoked to serve as commander in chief and could be quickly drawn into a war involving nuclear weapons.

“A man who can be provoked by a tweet should not have his fingers anywhere near the nuclear codes,” she said.

Trump replied: “That line’s getting a little bit old.”

Some frequently hot-button issues were barely mentioned during the intense debate. Illegal immigration and Trump’s promises of a border wall were not part of the conversation. And while Clinton took some questions on her private email server, she was not grilled about her family’s foundation, Bill Clinton’s past infidelities or her struggle with trustworthiness.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CAMPAIGN_2016_DEBATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-09-26-22-37-04

Confirmation bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Confirmation bias, also called confirmatory bias or myside bias, is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternative possibilities.[Note 1][1] It is a type of cognitive bias and a systematic error of inductive reasoning. People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance(when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people’s conclusions. Explanations for the observed biases include wishful thinking and the limited human capacity to process information. Another explanation is that people show confirmation bias because they are weighing up the costs of being wrong, rather than investigating in a neutral, scientific way.

Confirmation biases contribute to overconfidence in personal beliefs and can maintain or strengthen beliefs in the face of contrary evidence. Poor decisions due to these biases have been found in political and organizational contexts.[2][3][Note 2]

Types

Confirmation biases are effects in information processing. They differ from what is sometimes called the behavioral confirmation effect, commonly known as self-fulfilling prophecy, in which a person’s expectations influence their own behavior, bringing about the expected result.[4]

Some psychologists restrict the term confirmation bias to selective collection of evidence that supports what one already believes while ignoring or rejecting evidence that supports a different conclusion. Other psychologists apply the term more broadly to the tendency to preserve one’s existing beliefs when searching for evidence, interpreting it, or recalling it from memory.[5][Note 3]

Biased search for information

A drawing of a man sitting on a stool at a writing desk

Confirmation bias has been described as an internal “yes man“, echoing back a person’s beliefs like Charles Dickens‘ character Uriah Heep.[6]

Experiments have found repeatedly that people tend to test hypotheses in a one-sided way, by searching for evidence consistent with their current hypothesis.[7][8] Rather than [9]searching through all the relevant evidence, they phrase questions to receive an affirmative answer that supports their hypothesis.[10] They look for the consequences that they would expect if their hypothesis were true, rather than what would happen if it were false.[10] For example, someone using yes/no questions to find a number he or she suspects to be the number 3 might ask, “Is it an odd number?” People prefer this type of question, called a “positive test”, even when a negative test such as “Is it an even number?” would yield exactly the same information.[11] However, this does not mean that people seek tests that guarantee a positive answer. In studies where subjects could select either such pseudo-tests or genuinely diagnostic ones, they favored the genuinely diagnostic.[12][13]

The preference for positive tests in itself is not a bias, since positive tests can be highly informative.[14] However, in combination with other effects, this strategy can confirm existing beliefs or assumptions, independently of whether they are true.[15] In real-world situations, evidence is often complex and mixed. For example, various contradictory ideas about someone could each be supported by concentrating on one aspect of his or her behavior.[8] Thus any search for evidence in favor of a hypothesis is likely to succeed.[15] One illustration of this is the way the phrasing of a question can significantly change the answer.[8] For example, people who are asked, “Are you happy with your social life?” report greater satisfaction than those asked, “Are you unhappy with your social life?”[16]

Even a small change in a question’s wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case.[17] Participants read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods of time. When asked, “Which parent should have custody of the child?” the majority of participants chose Parent B, looking mainly for positive attributes. However, when asked, “Which parent should be denied custody of the child?” they looked for negative attributes and the majority answered that Parent B should be denied custody, implying that Parent A should have custody.[17]

Similar studies have demonstrated how people engage in a biased search for information, but also that this phenomenon may be limited by a preference for genuine diagnostic tests. In an initial experiment, participants rated another person on the introversion–extroversion personality dimension on the basis of an interview. They chose the interview questions from a given list. When the interviewee was introduced as an introvert, the participants chose questions that presumed introversion, such as, “What do you find unpleasant about noisy parties?” When the interviewee was described as extroverted, almost all the questions presumed extroversion, such as, “What would you do to liven up a dull party?” These loaded questions gave the interviewees little or no opportunity to falsify the hypothesis about them.[18] A later version of the experiment gave the participants less presumptive questions to choose from, such as, “Do you shy away from social interactions?”[19] Participants preferred to ask these more diagnostic questions, showing only a weak bias towards positive tests. This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies.[19]

Personality traits influence and interact with biased search processes.[20] Individuals vary in their abilities to defend their attitudes from external attacks in relation to selective exposure. Selective exposure occurs when individuals search for information that is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with their personal beliefs.[21] An experiment examined the extent to which individuals could refute arguments that contradicted their personal beliefs.[20] People with high confidence levels more readily seek out contradictory information to their personal position to form an argument. Individuals with low confidence levels do not seek out contradictory information and prefer information that supports their personal position. People generate and evaluate evidence in arguments that are biased towards their own beliefs and opinions.[22] Heightened confidence levels decrease preference for information that supports individuals’ personal beliefs.

Another experiment gave participants a complex rule-discovery task that involved moving objects simulated by a computer.[23] Objects on the computer screen followed specific laws, which the participants had to figure out. So, participants could “fire” objects across the screen to test their hypotheses. Despite making many attempts over a ten-hour session, none of the participants figured out the rules of the system. They typically attempted to confirm rather than falsify their hypotheses, and were reluctant to consider alternatives. Even after seeing objective evidence that refuted their working hypotheses, they frequently continued doing the same tests. Some of the participants were taught proper hypothesis-testing, but these instructions had almost no effect.[23]

Biased interpretation

Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons.

Michael Shermer[24]

Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased.

A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it.[25][26]Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study’s procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing.[25] In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped.[25][26]

The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways.[25][27] Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, “The research didn’t cover a long enough period of time”, while an opponent’s comment on the same study said, “No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented”.[25] The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as “disconfirmation bias”, has been supported by other experiments.[28]

A large round machine with a hole in the middle, with a platter for a person to lie on so that their head can fit into the hole

An MRI scanner allowed researchers to examine how the human brain deals with unwelcome information.

Another study of biased interpretation occurred during the 2004 U.S. presidential election and involved participants who reported having strong feelings about the candidates. They were shown apparently contradictory pairs of statements, either from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry or a politically neutral public figure. They were also given further statements that made the apparent contradiction seem reasonable. From these three pieces of information, they had to decide whether or not each individual’s statements were inconsistent.[29]:1948 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[29]:1951

In this experiment, the participants made their judgments while in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner which monitored their brain activity. As participants evaluated contradictory statements by their favored candidate, emotional centers of their brains were aroused. This did not happen with the statements by the other figures. The experimenters inferred that the different responses to the statements were not due to passive reasoning errors. Instead, the participants were actively reducing the cognitive dissonance induced by reading about their favored candidate’s irrational or hypocritical behavior.[29]:1956 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[29]:1951

Biases in belief interpretation are persistent, regardless of intelligence level. Participants in an experiment took the SAT test (a college admissions test used in the United States) to assess their intelligence levels. They then read information regarding safety concerns for vehicles, and the experimenters manipulated the national origin of the car. American participants provided their opinion if the car should be banned on a six-point scale, where one indicated “definitely yes” and six indicated “definitely no.” Participants firstly evaluated if they would allow a dangerous German car on American streets and a dangerous American car on German streets. Participants believed that the dangerous German car on American streets should be banned more quickly than the dangerous American car on German streets. There was no difference among intelligence levels at the rate participants would ban a car.[22]

Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, participants were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character’s guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.[30]

Biased memory

Even if people gather and interpret evidence in a neutral manner, they may still remember it selectively to reinforce their expectations. This effect is called “selective recall”, “confirmatory memory” or “access-biased memory”.[31]Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled than information that does not match.[32] Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out and so is memorable.[32] Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright.[33]

In one study, participants read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors.[34] They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group were told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the “librarian” group recalling more examples of introversion and the “sales” groups recalling more extroverted behavior.[34] A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types.[32][35] In one of these, a group of participants were shown evidence that extroverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group were told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated, study, they were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extroverted. Each group of participants provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly.[36]

Changes in emotional states can also influence memory recall.[37][38] Participants rated how they felt when they had first learned that O.J. Simpson had been acquitted of murder charges.[37] They described their emotional reactions and confidence regarding the verdict one week, two months, and one year after the trial. Results indicated that participants’ assessments for Simpson’s guilt changed over time. The more that participants’ opinion of the verdict had changed, the less stable were the participant’s memories regarding their initial emotional reactions. When participants recalled their initial emotional reactions two months and a year later, past appraisals closely resembled current appraisals of emotion. People demonstrate sizable myside bias when discussing their opinions on controversial topics.[22] Memory recall and construction of experiences undergo revision in relation to corresponding emotional states.

Myside bias has been shown to influence the accuracy of memory recall.[38] In an experiment, widows and widowers rated the intensity of their experienced grief six months and five years after the deaths of their spouses. Participants noted a higher experience of grief at six months rather than at five years. Yet, when the participants were asked after five years how they had felt six months after the death of their significant other, the intensity of grief participants recalled was highly correlated with their current level of grief. Individuals appear to utilize their current emotional states to analyze how they must have felt when experiencing past events.[37] Emotional memories are reconstructed by current emotional states.

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[39] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, participants recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.[39]

Related effects

Polarization of opinion

Main article: Attitude polarization

When people with opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart. This is called “attitude polarization”.[40] The effect was demonstrated by an experiment that involved drawing a series of red and black balls from one of two concealed “bingo baskets”. Participants knew that one basket contained 60% black and 40% red balls; the other, 40% black and 60% red. The experimenters looked at what happened when balls of alternating color were drawn in turn, a sequence that does not favor either basket. After each ball was drawn, participants in one group were asked to state out loud their judgments of the probability that the balls were being drawn from one or the other basket. These participants tended to grow more confident with each successive draw—whether they initially thought the basket with 60% black balls or the one with 60% red balls was the more likely source, their estimate of the probability increased. Another group of participants were asked to state probability estimates only at the end of a sequence of drawn balls, rather than after each ball. They did not show the polarization effect, suggesting that it does not necessarily occur when people simply hold opposing positions, but rather when they openly commit to them.[41]

A less abstract study was the Stanford biased interpretation experiment in which participants with strong opinions about the death penalty read about mixed experimental evidence. Twenty-three percent of the participants reported that their views had become more extreme, and this self-reported shift correlated strongly with their initial attitudes.[25] In later experiments, participants also reported their opinions becoming more extreme in response to ambiguous information. However, comparisons of their attitudes before and after the new evidence showed no significant change, suggesting that the self-reported changes might not be real.[28][40][42] Based on these experiments, Deanna Kuhn and Joseph Lao concluded that polarization is a real phenomenon but far from inevitable, only happening in a small minority of cases. They found that it was prompted not only by considering mixed evidence, but by merely thinking about the topic.[40]

Charles Taber and Milton Lodge argued that the Stanford team’s result had been hard to replicate because the arguments used in later experiments were too abstract or confusing to evoke an emotional response. The Taber and Lodge study used the emotionally charged topics of gun control and affirmative action.[28] They measured the attitudes of their participants towards these issues before and after reading arguments on each side of the debate. Two groups of participants showed attitude polarization: those with strong prior opinions and those who were politically knowledgeable. In part of this study, participants chose which information sources to read, from a list prepared by the experimenters. For example, they could read the National Rifle Association‘s and the Brady Anti-Handgun Coalition‘s arguments on gun control. Even when instructed to be even-handed, participants were more likely to read arguments that supported their existing attitudes than arguments that did not. This biased search for information correlated well with the polarization effect.[28]

The backfire effect is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.[43][44] The phrase was first coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler.[45]

Persistence of discredited beliefs

Main article: Belief perseverance

[B]eliefs can survive potent logical or empirical challenges. They can survive and even be bolstered by evidence that most uncommitted observers would agree logically demands some weakening of such beliefs. They can even survive the total destruction of their original evidential bases.

—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson[46]

Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs persist when the initial evidence for them is removed.[47] This belief perseverance effect has been shown by a series of experiments using what is called the “debriefing paradigm”: participants read fake evidence for a hypothesis, their attitude change is measured, then the fakery is exposed in detail. Their attitudes are then measured once more to see if their belief returns to its previous level.[46]

A common finding is that at least some of the initial belief remains even after a full debriefing.[48] In one experiment, participants had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. The feedback was random: some were told they had done well while others were told they had performed badly. Even after being fully debriefed, participants were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told.[49]

In another study, participants read job performance ratings of two firefighters, along with their responses to a risk aversion test.[46] This fictional data was arranged to show either a negative or positive association: some participants were told that a risk-taking firefighter did better, while others were told they did less well than a risk-averse colleague.[50] Even if these two case studies were true, they would have been scientifically poor evidence for a conclusion about firefighters in general. However, the participants found them subjectively persuasive.[50] When the case studies were shown to be fictional, participants’ belief in a link diminished, but around half of the original effect remained.[46] Follow-up interviews established that the participants had understood the debriefing and taken it seriously. Participants seemed to trust the debriefing, but regarded the discredited information as irrelevant to their personal belief.[50]

The continued influence effect is the tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[51]

Preference for early information

Experiments have shown that information is weighted more strongly when it appears early in a series, even when the order is unimportant. For example, people form a more positive impression of someone described as “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious” than when they are given the same words in reverse order.[52] This irrational primacy effect is independent of the primacy effect in memory in which the earlier items in a series leave a stronger memory trace.[52] Biased interpretation offers an explanation for this effect: seeing the initial evidence, people form a working hypothesis that affects how they interpret the rest of the information.[47]

One demonstration of irrational primacy used colored chips supposedly drawn from two urns. Participants were told the color distributions of the urns, and had to estimate the probability of a chip being drawn from one of them.[52] In fact, the colors appeared in a pre-arranged order. The first thirty draws favored one urn and the next thirty favored the other.[47] The series as a whole was neutral, so rationally, the two urns were equally likely. However, after sixty draws, participants favored the urn suggested by the initial thirty.[52]

Another experiment involved a slide show of a single object, seen as just a blur at first and in slightly better focus with each succeeding slide.[52] After each slide, participants had to state their best guess of what the object was. Participants whose early guesses were wrong persisted with those guesses, even when the picture was sufficiently in focus that the object was readily recognizable to other people.[47]

Illusory association between events

Main article: Illusory correlation

Illusory correlation is the tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.[53] This tendency was first demonstrated in a series of experiments in the late 1960s.[54] In one experiment, participants read a set of psychiatric case studies, including responses to the Rorschach inkblot test. The participants reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact the fictional case studies had been constructed so that the homosexual men were no more likely to report this imagery or, in one version of the experiment, were less likely to report it than heterosexual men.[53] In a survey, a group of experienced psychoanalysts reported the same set of illusory associations with homosexuality.[53][54]

Another study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.[55]

This effect is a kind of biased interpretation, in that objectively neutral or unfavorable evidence is interpreted to support existing beliefs. It is also related to biases in hypothesis-testing behavior.[56] In judging whether two events, such as illness and bad weather, are correlated, people rely heavily on the number of positive-positive cases: in this example, instances of both pain and bad weather. They pay relatively little attention to the other kinds of observation (of no pain and/or good weather).[57] This parallels the reliance on positive tests in hypothesis testing.[56] It may also reflect selective recall, in that people may have a sense that two events are correlated because it is easier to recall times when they happened together.[56]

Individual differences

Myside bias was once believed to be associated with greater intelligence; however, studies have shown that myside bias can be more influenced by ability to rationally think as opposed to amount of intelligence.[58] Myside bias can cause an inability to effectively and logically evaluate the opposite side of an argument. Studies have stated that myside bias is an absence of “active open-mindedness,” meaning the active search for why an initial idea may be wrong.[59] Typically, myside bias is operationalized in empirical studies as the quantity of evidence used in support of their side in comparison to the opposite side.[60]

A study has found individual differences in myside bias. This study investigates individual differences that are acquired through learning in a cultural context and are mutable. The researcher found important individual difference in argumentation. Studies have suggested that individual differences such as deductive reasoning ability, ability to overcome belief bias, epistemological understanding, and thinking disposition are significant predictors of the reasoning and generating arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals.[61][62][63]

A study by Christopher Wolfe and Anne Britt also investigated how participants’ views of “what makes a good argument?” can be a source of myside bias that influence the way a person formulates his own arguments.[60] The study investigated individual differences of argumentation schema and asked participants to write essays. The participants were randomly assigned to write essays either for or against their preferred side of an argument and were given research instructions that took either a balanced or an unrestricted approach. The balanced-research instructions directed participants to create a “balanced” argument, i.e., that included both pros and cons; the unrestricted-research instructions included nothing on how to create the argument.[60]

Overall, the results revealed that the balanced-research instructions significantly increased the incidence of opposing information in arguments. These data also reveal that personal belief is not a source of myside bias; however, that those participants, who believe that a good argument is one that is based on facts, are more likely to exhibit myside bias than other participants. This evidence is consistent with the claims proposed in Baron’s article—that people’s opinions about what makes good thinking can influence how arguments are generated.[60]

History

Informal observation

Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the phenomenon had been observed anecdotally throughout history. Beginning with the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC), who wrote of misguided treason in The Peloponnesian War; “… for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.”[64] Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), noted it in his famous work, the Divine Comedy, in which St. Thomas Aquinas cautions Dante upon meeting in Paradise, “opinion—hasty—often can incline to the wrong side, and then affection for one’s own opinion binds, confines the mind.”[65] English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (1561–1626),[66] in the Novum Organumnoted that biased assessment of evidence drove “all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments or the like”.[67] He wrote:

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.][67]

In his essay (1897) “What Is Art?“, Russian novelist Leo Tolstoy wrote,

I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.[68]

Wason’s research on hypothesis-testing

The term “confirmation bias” was coined by English psychologist Peter Wason.[69] For an experiment published in 1960, he challenged participants to identify a rule applying to triples of numbers. At the outset, they were told that (2,4,6) fits the rule. Participants could generate their own triples and the experimenter told them whether or not each triple conformed to the rule.[70][71]

While the actual rule was simply “any ascending sequence”, the participants had a great deal of difficulty in finding it, often announcing rules that were far more specific, such as “the middle number is the average of the first and last”.[70] The participants seemed to test only positive examples—triples that obeyed their hypothesized rule. For example, if they thought the rule was, “Each number is two greater than its predecessor”, they would offer a triple that fit this rule, such as (11,13,15) rather than a triple that violates it, such as (11,12,19).[72]

Wason accepted falsificationism, according to which a scientific test of a hypothesis is a serious attempt to falsify it. He interpreted his results as showing a preference for confirmation over falsification, hence the term “confirmation bias”.[Note 4][73] Wason also used confirmation bias to explain the results of his selection task experiment.[74] In this task, participants are given partial information about a set of objects, and have to specify what further information they would need to tell whether or not a conditional rule (“If A, then B”) applies. It has been found repeatedly that people perform badly on various forms of this test, in most cases ignoring information that could potentially refute the rule.[75][76]

Klayman and Ha’s critique

A 1987 paper by Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha argued that the Wason experiments had not actually demonstrated a bias towards confirmation. Instead, Klayman and Ha interpreted the results in terms of a tendency to make tests that are consistent with the working hypothesis.[77] They called this the “positive test strategy”.[8] This strategy is an example of a heuristic: a reasoning shortcut that is imperfect but easy to compute.[78] Klayman and Ha used Bayesian probability and information theory as their standard of hypothesis-testing, rather than the falsificationism used by Wason. According to these ideas, each answer to a question yields a different amount of information, which depends on the person’s prior beliefs. Thus a scientific test of a hypothesis is one that is expected to produce the most information. Since the information content depends on initial probabilities, a positive test can either be highly informative or uninformative. Klayman and Ha argued that when people think about realistic problems, they are looking for a specific answer with a small initial probability. In this case, positive tests are usually more informative than negative tests.[14] However, in Wason’s rule discovery task the answer—three numbers in ascending order—is very broad, so positive tests are unlikely to yield informative answers. Klayman and Ha supported their analysis by citing an experiment that used the labels “DAX” and “MED” in place of “fits the rule” and “doesn’t fit the rule”. This avoided implying that the aim was to find a low-probability rule. Participants had much more success with this version of the experiment.[79][80]

Within the universe of all possible triples, those that fit the true rule are shown schematically as a circle. The hypothesized rule is a smaller circle enclosed within it.

If the true rule (T) encompasses the current hypothesis (H), then positive tests (examining an H to see if it is T) will not show that the hypothesis is false.

Two overlapping circles represent the true rule and the hypothesized rule. Any observation falling in the non-overlapping parts of the circles shows that the two rules are not exactly the same. In other words, those observations falsify the hypothesis.

If the true rule (T) overlaps the current hypothesis (H), then either a negative test or a positive test can potentially falsify H.

The triples fitting the hypothesis are represented as a circle within the universe of all triples. The true rule is a smaller circle within this.

When the working hypothesis (H) includes the true rule (T) then positive tests are the only way to falsify H.

In light of this and other critiques, the focus of research moved away from confirmation versus falsification to examine whether people test hypotheses in an informative way, or an uninformative but positive way. The search for “true” confirmation bias led psychologists to look at a wider range of effects in how people process information.[81]

Explanations

Confirmation bias is often described as a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[15][82] According to Robert Maccoun, most biased evidence processing occurs through a combination of both “cold” (cognitive) and “hot” (motivated) mechanisms.[83]

Cognitive explanations for confirmation bias are based on limitations in people’s ability to handle complex tasks, and the shortcuts, called heuristics, that they use.[84] For example, people may judge the reliability of evidence by using the availability heuristic—i.e., how readily a particular idea comes to mind.[85] It is also possible that people can only focus on one thought at a time, so find it difficult to test alternative hypotheses in parallel.[86] Another heuristic is the positive test strategy identified by Klayman and Ha, in which people test a hypothesis by examining cases where they expect a property or event to occur. This heuristic avoids the difficult or impossible task of working out how diagnostic each possible question will be. However, it is not universally reliable, so people can overlook challenges to their existing beliefs.[14][87]

Motivational explanations involve an effect of desire on belief, sometimes called “wishful thinking“.[88][89] It is known that people prefer pleasant thoughts over unpleasant ones in a number of ways: this is called the “Pollyanna principle“.[90] Applied to arguments or sources of evidence, this could explain why desired conclusions are more likely to be believed true.[88] According to experiments that manipulate the desirability of the conclusion, people demand a high standard of evidence for unpalatable ideas and a low standard for preferred ideas. In other words, they ask, “Can I believe this?” for some suggestions and, “Must I believe this?” for others.[91][92] Althoughconsistency is a desirable feature of attitudes, an excessive drive for consistency is another potential source of bias because it may prevent people from neutrally evaluating new, surprising information.[88] Social psychologist Ziva Kunda combines the cognitive and motivational theories, arguing that motivation creates the bias, but cognitive factors determine the size of the effect.[93]

Explanations in terms of cost-benefit analysis assume that people do not just test hypotheses in a disinterested way, but assess the costs of different errors.[94] Using ideas from evolutionary psychology, James Friedrich suggests that people do not primarily aim at truth in testing hypotheses, but try to avoid the most costly errors. For example, employers might ask one-sided questions in job interviews because they are focused on weeding out unsuitable candidates.[95] Yaacov Trope and Akiva Liberman’s refinement of this theory assumes that people compare the two different kinds of error: accepting a false hypothesis or rejecting a true hypothesis. For instance, someone who underestimates a friend’s honesty might treat him or her suspiciously and so undermine the friendship. Overestimating the friend’s honesty may also be costly, but less so. In this case, it would be rational to seek, evaluate or remember evidence of their honesty in a biased way.[96] When someone gives an initial impression of being introverted or extroverted, questions that match that impression come across as more empathic.[97] This suggests that when talking to someone who seems to be an introvert, it is a sign of better social skills to ask, “Do you feel awkward in social situations?” rather than, “Do you like noisy parties?” The connection between confirmation bias and social skills was corroborated by a study of how college students get to know other people. Highly self-monitoring students, who are more sensitive to their environment and to social norms, asked more matching questions when interviewing a high-status staff member than when getting to know fellow students.[97]

Psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Philip Tetlock distinguish two different kinds of thinking process. Exploratory thought neutrally considers multiple points of view and tries to anticipate all possible objections to a particular position, while confirmatory thought seeks to justify a specific point of view. Lerner and Tetlock say that when people expect to justify their position to others whose views they already know, they will tend to adopt a similar position to those people, and then use confirmatory thought to bolster their own credibility. However, if the external parties are overly aggressive or critical, people will disengage from thought altogether, and simply assert their personal opinions without justification.[98] Lerner and Tetlock say that people only push themselves to think critically and logically when they know in advance they will need to explain themselves to others who are well-informed, genuinely interested in the truth, and whose views they don’t already know.[99] Because those conditions rarely exist, they argue, most people are using confirmatory thought most of the time.[100]

Consequences

In finance

Confirmation bias can lead investors to be overconfident, ignoring evidence that their strategies will lose money.[6][101] In studies of political stock markets, investors made more profit when they resisted bias. For example, participants who interpreted a candidate’s debate performance in a neutral rather than partisan way were more likely to profit.[102] To combat the effect of confirmation bias, investors can try to adopt a contrary viewpoint “for the sake of argument”.[103] In one technique, they imagine that their investments have collapsed and ask themselves why this might happen.[6]

In physical and mental health

Raymond Nickerson, a psychologist, blames confirmation bias for the ineffective medical procedures that were used for centuries before the arrival of scientific medicine.[104] If a patient recovered, medical authorities counted the treatment as successful, rather than looking for alternative explanations such as that the disease had run its natural course.[104] Biased assimilation is a factor in the modern appeal of alternative medicine, whose proponents are swayed by positive anecdotal evidence but treat scientific evidence hyper-critically.[105][106][107]

Cognitive therapy was developed by Aaron T. Beck in the early 1960s and has become a popular approach.[108] According to Beck, biased information processing is a factor in depression.[109] His approach teaches people to treat evidence impartially, rather than selectively reinforcing negative outlooks.[66] Phobias and hypochondria have also been shown to involve confirmation bias for threatening information.[110]

In politics and law

A woman and a man reading a document in a courtroom

Mock trials allow researchers to examine confirmation biases in a realistic setting.

Nickerson argues that reasoning in judicial and political contexts is sometimes subconsciously biased, favoring conclusions that judges, juries or governments have already committed to.[111] Since the evidence in a jury trial can be complex, and jurors often reach decisions about the verdict early on, it is reasonable to expect an attitude polarization effect. The prediction that jurors will become more extreme in their views as they see more evidence has been borne out in experiments with mock trials.[112][113] Both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal justice systems are affected by confirmation bias.[114]

Confirmation bias can be a factor in creating or extending conflicts, from emotionally charged debates to wars: by interpreting the evidence in their favor, each opposing party can become overconfident that it is in the stronger position.[115] On the other hand, confirmation bias can result in people ignoring or misinterpreting the signs of an imminent or incipient conflict. For example, psychologists Stuart Sutherland and Thomas Kida have each argued that US Admiral Husband E. Kimmel showed confirmation bias when playing down the first signs of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.[75][116]

A two-decade study of political pundits by Philip E. Tetlock found that, on the whole, their predictions were not much better than chance. Tetlock divided experts into “foxes” who maintained multiple hypotheses, and “hedgehogs” who were more dogmatic. In general, the hedgehogs were much less accurate. Tetlock blamed their failure on confirmation bias—specifically, their inability to make use of new information that contradicted their existing theories.[117]

In the 2013 murder trial of David Camm, the defense argued that Camm was charged for the murders of his wife and two children solely because of confirmation bias within the investigation.[118] Camm was arrested three days after the murders on the basis of faulty evidence. Despite the discovery that almost every piece of evidence on the probable cause affidavit was inaccurate or unreliable, thecharges were not dropped against him.[119][120] A sweatshirt found at the crime was subsequently discovered to contain the DNA of a convicted felon, his prison nickname, and his department of corrections number.[121]Investigators looked for Camm’s DNA on the sweatshirt, but failed to investigate any other pieces of evidence found on it and the foreign DNA was not run through CODIS until 5 years after the crime.[122][123] When the secondsuspect was discovered, prosecutors charged them as co-conspirators in the crime despite finding no evidence linking the two men.[124][125] Camm was acquitted of the murders.[126]

In the paranormal

One factor in the appeal of alleged psychic readings is that listeners apply a confirmation bias which fits the psychic’s statements to their own lives.[127] By making a large number of ambiguous statements in each sitting, the psychic gives the client more opportunities to find a match. This is one of the techniques of cold reading, with which a psychic can deliver a subjectively impressive reading without any prior information about the client.[127]Investigator James Randi compared the transcript of a reading to the client’s report of what the psychic had said, and found that the client showed a strong selective recall of the “hits”.[128]

As a striking illustration of confirmation bias in the real world, Nickerson mentions numerological pyramidology: the practice of finding meaning in the proportions of the Egyptian pyramids.[129] There are many different length measurements that can be made of, for example, the Great Pyramid of Giza and many ways to combine or manipulate them. Hence it is almost inevitable that people who look at these numbers selectively will find superficially impressive correspondences, for example with the dimensions of the Earth.[129]

In science

A distinguishing feature of scientific thinking is the search for falsifying as well as confirming evidence.[130] However, many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data.[130] Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs.[82][131][132] However, assuming that the research question is relevant, the experimental design adequate and the data are clearly and comprehensively described, the found results should be of importance to the scientific community and should not be viewed prejudicially, regardless of whether they conform to current theoretical predictions.[132]

In the context of scientific research, confirmation biases can sustain theories or research programs in the face of inadequate or even contradictory evidence;[75][133] the field of parapsychology has been particularly affected.[134]

An experimenter’s confirmation bias can potentially affect which data are reported. Data that conflict with the experimenter’s expectations may be more readily discarded as unreliable, producing the so-called file drawer effect. To combat this tendency, scientific training teaches ways to prevent bias.[135] For example, experimental design of randomized controlled trials (coupled with their systematic review) aims to minimize sources of bias.[135][136] The social process of peer review is thought to mitigate the effect of individual scientists’ biases,[137] even though the peer review process itself may be susceptible to such biases.[132][138] Confirmation bias may thus be especially harmful to objective evaluations regarding nonconforming results since biased individuals may regard opposing evidence to be weak in principle and give little serious thought to revising their beliefs.[131] Scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community, and research presenting controversial results frequently receives harsh peer review.[139]

In self-image

Social psychologists have identified two tendencies in the way people seek or interpret information about themselves. Self-verification is the drive to reinforce the existing self-image and self-enhancement is the drive to seek positive feedback. Both are served by confirmation biases.[140] In experiments where people are given feedback that conflicts with their self-image, they are less likely to attend to it or remember it than when given self-verifying feedback.[141][142][143] They reduce the impact of such information by interpreting it as unreliable.[141][144][145] Similar experiments have found a preference for positive feedback, and the people who give it, over negative feedback.[140]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ David Perkins, a geneticist, coined the term “myside bias” referring to a preference for “my” side of an issue. (Baron 2000, p. 195)
  2. Jump up^ Tuchman (1984) described a form of confirmation bias at work in the process of justifying policies to which a government has committed itself: “Once a policy has been adopted and implemented, all subsequent activity becomes an effort to justify it” (p. 245). In the context of a discussion of the policy that drew the United States into war in Vietnam and kept the U.S. military engaged for 16 years despite countless evidences that it was a lost cause from the beginning, Tuchman argued:

    Wooden-headedness, the source of self-deception is a factor that plays a remarkably large role in government. It consists in assessing a situation in terms of preconceived fixed notions while ignoring or rejecting any contrary signs. It is acting according to wish while not allowing oneself to be deflected by the facts. It is epitomized in a historian’s statement about Philip II of Spain, the surpassing wooden head of all sovereigns: “no experience of the failure of his policy could shake his belief in essential excellence.” (p.7)

    Folly, she argued, is a form of self-deception characterized by “insistence on a rooted notion regardless of contrary evidence” (p.209)

  3. Jump up^ “Assimilation bias” is another term used for biased interpretation of evidence. (Risen & Gilovich 2007, p. 113)
  4. Jump up^ Wason also used the term “verification bias”. (Poletiek 2001, p. 73)

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-765

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 751, September 8, 2016, Story 1: Who Do You Trust To Be Commander In Chief? Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Mike Pence? — Videos — Story 2: Peace Through Strength Trump Speech On National Defense — Videos

Posted on September 8, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Empires, Employment, European History, Fiscal Policy, Government Spending, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Labor Economics, Law, Life, Middle East, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Terror, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Story 1: Who Do You Trust To Be Commander In Chief? Hillary Clinton, Donald J. Trump, Mike Pence? — Videos — 

Image result for nondisclosure agreement secretary clinton signed as Secretary of State

Hillary Tried To Lie To a Veteran’s Face, She Get’s FACT-CHECKED on Live TV!

NBC Commander-In-Chief Forum Donald Trump VS Hillary Clinton FULL PART 1

NBC Commander-In-Chief Forum Donald Trump VS Hillary Clinton FULL PART 2

[Full HD] Donald Trump Hillary Clinton Commander in Chief Forum 9/7/16 NBC September 7 2016

Donald Trump Takes Vladimir Putin’s Compliment | MSNBC

Putin Tells Everyone Exactly Who Created ISIS

Donald Trump: Generals Under Obama Haven’t Been Successful | NBC News

FBI: Emails Marked As Classified When They Were Sent Were Found On Clinton’s Server – America’s EHQ

Judge Andrew Napolitano Rules On The New Hillary Scandal

Why Hillary Clinton May Still Face Prosecution Bill Whittle and Stefan Molyneux

Judge orders records on Clinton security training

MORE Clinton Emails Unearthed! FBI Finds 15,000 More! – August 22, 2016

FBI discovers more than 15,000 new Clinton emails

The Truth About The Hillary Clinton FBI Investigation

The Truth About Hillary Clinton’s Email Controversy

Hannity 9/7/16 – Sean Hannity analysis of Donald Trump vs Hillary Clinton Commander-in-chief Forum

The Kelly File 9/7/16 | New Analysis Of Commander In Chief Forum

What Laws Did Hillary Clinton Break with Her State Dept. Private Email Server?

Why Did Hillary Clinton Use a Private Email Server? (2016)

Anonymous – Hillary Clinton: The Hillary Files Full Documentary

BOOM: Navy vet CONFRONTS Hillary with question we ALL want to ask about her email…

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each took the stage tonight — separately — at the so-called Commander-in-Chief Forum hosted by NBC News and the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America. Both candidates took questions on national security, military affairs and veterans issues from NBC News and an audience comprised mainly of military veterans and active service members.

GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump won the coin toss tonight and opted to go second (so maybe not everything about this election is rigged), which meant Hillary Clinton was up first.

After host Matt Lauer stunned many viewers by actually kicking off the conversation with questions about Hillary’s email scandal, the first audience question came in with a bang.

Watch this Navy vet ask Hillary how anyone who’s entrusted with America’s most sensitive information can have any confidence in her when she clearly corrupted our national security — and others would’ve been prosecuted and imprisoned for doing the same.

It’s the question we’ve posed many times — and would all relish the chance to confront her with to her face, as this Naval officer did.

 

Story 2: Peace Through Strength Trump Speech On National Defense — Videos

Donald Trump Speech to Union League of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania FULL HD

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Speaks on Military, Veterans in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (9/7/2016)

Trump Gets Big Endorsement From Nearly 90 Top Military Figures

Donald Trump Is Endorsed by Nearly 90 Military Figures

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary


For Immediate Release — April 17, 1995

EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958

CLASSIFIED NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION

This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation’s progress depends on the free flow of information. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national interest has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, and our participation within the community of nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation’s security remains a priority. In recent years, however, dramatic changes have altered, although not eliminated, the national security threats that we confront. These changes provide a greater opportunity to emphasize our commitment to open Government.

NOW, THEREFORE, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

PART 1 ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATIONSection 1.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order:

(a) “National security” means the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.

(b) “Information” means any knowledge that can be communicated or documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, that is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government. “Control” means the authority of the agency that originates information, or its successor in function, to regulate access to the information.

(c) “Classified national security information” (hereafter “classified information”) means information that has been determined pursuant to this order or any predecessor order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure and is marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form.

(d) “Foreign Government Information” means:

      (1) information provided to the United States Government by a foreign government or governments, an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, with the expectation that the information, the source of the information, or both, are to be held in confidence;

(2) information produced by the United States pursuant to or as a result of a joint arrangement with a foreign government or governments, or an international organization of governments, or any element thereof, requiring that the information, the arrangement, or both, are to be held in confidence; or

(3) information received and treated as “Foreign Government Information” under the terms of a predecessor order.

(e) “Classification” means the act or process by which information is determined to be classified information.(f) “Original classification” means an initial determination that information requires, in the interest of national security, protection against unauthorized disclosure.

(g) “Original classification authority” means an individual authorized in writing, either by the President, or by agency heads or other officials designated by the President, to classify information in the first instance.

(h) “Unauthorized disclosure” means a communication or physical transfer of classified information to an unauthorized recipient.

(i) “Agency” means any “Executive agency,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 105, and any other entity within the executive branch that comes into the possession of classified information.

(j) “Senior agency official” means the official designated by the agency head under section 5.6(c) of this order to direct and administer the agency’s program under which information is classified, safeguarded, and declassified.

(k) “Confidential source” means any individual or organization that has provided, or that may reasonably be expected to provide, information to the United States on matters pertaining to the national security with the expectation that the information or relationship, or both, are to be held in confidence.

(l) “Damage to the national security” means harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States from the unauthorized disclosure of information, to include the sensitivity, value, and utility of that information.

Sec. 1.2. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met:

      (1) an original classification authority is classifying the information;

(2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government;

(3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.5 of this order; and

(4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage.

(b) If there is significant doubt about the need to classify information, it shall not be classified. This provision does not:

      (1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.Sec. 1.3. Classification Levels. (a) Information may be classified at one of the following three levels:

      (1) “Top Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(2) “Secret” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause serious damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(3) “Confidential” shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe.

(b) Except as otherwise provided by statute, no other terms shall be used to identify United States classified information.(c) If there is significant doubt about the appropriate level of classification, it shall be classified at the lower level.

Sec. 1.4. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by:

      (1) the President;

(2) agency heads and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register; or

(3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c), below.

(b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level.(c) Delegation of original classification authority.

      (1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority.

(2) “Top Secret” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President or by an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), above.

(3) “Secret” or “Confidential” original classification authority may be delegated only by the President; an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2), above; or the senior agency official, provided that official has been delegated “Top Secret” original classification authority by the agency head.

(4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position title.

(d) Original classification authorities must receive training in original classification as provided in this order and its implementing directives.(e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency that does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. If it is not clear which agency has classification responsibility for this information, it shall be sent to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. The Director shall determine the agency having primary subject matter interest and forward the information, with appropriate recommendations, to that agency for a classification determination.

Sec. 1.5. Classification Categories.

Information may not be considered for classification unless it concerns:

      (a) military plans, weapons systems, or operations;

(b) foreign government information;

(c) intelligence activities (including special activities), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology;

(d) foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources;

(e) scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security;

(f) United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities; or

(g) vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, projects or plans relating to the national security.

Sec. 1.6. Duration of Classification. (a) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority shall attempt to establish a specific date or event for declassification based upon the duration of the national security sensitivity of the information. The date or event shall not exceed the time frame in paragraph (b), below.(b) If the original classification authority cannot determine an earlier specific date or event for declassification, information shall be marked for declassification 10 years from the date of the original decision, except as provided in paragraph (d), below.

(c) An original classification authority may extend the duration of classification or reclassify specific information for successive periods not to exceed 10 years at a time if such action is consistent with the standards and procedures established under this order. This provision does not apply to information contained in records that are more than 25 years old and have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code.

(d) At the time of original classification, the original classification authority may exempt from declassification within 10 years specific information, the unauthorized disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security for a period greater than that provided in paragraph (b), above, and the release of which could reasonably be expected to:

      (1) reveal an intelligence source, method, or activity, or a cryptologic system or activity;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair the development or use of technology within a United States weapons system;

(4) reveal United States military plans, or national security emergency preparedness plans;

(5) reveal foreign government information;

(6) damage relations between the United States and a foreign government, reveal a confidential source, or seriously undermine diplomatic activities that are reasonably expected to be ongoing for a period greater than that provided in paragraph (b), above;

(7) impair the ability of responsible United States Government officials to protect the President, the Vice President, and other individuals for whom protection services, in the interest of national security, are authorized; or

(8) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

(e) Information marked for an indefinite duration of classification under predecessor orders, for example, “Originating Agency’s Determination Required,” or information classified under predecessor orders that contains no declassification instructions shall be declassified in accordance with part 3 of this order.Sec. 1.7. Identification and Markings. (a) At the time of original classification, the following shall appear on the face of each classified document, or shall be applied to other classified media in an appropriate manner:

      (1) one of the three classification levels defined in section 1.3 of this order;

(2) the identity, by name or personal identifier and position, of the original classification authority;

(3) the agency and office of origin, if not otherwise evident;

(4) declassification instructions, which shall indicate one of the following:

        (A) the date or event for declassification, as prescribed in section 1.6(a) or section 1.6(c); or

(B) the date that is 10 years from the date of original classification, as prescribed in section 1.6(b); or

(C) the exemption category from declassification, as prescribed in section 1.6(d); and

    (5) a concise reason for classification which, at a minimum, cites the applicable classification categories in section 1.5 of this order.

(b) Specific information contained in paragraph (a), above, may be excluded if it would reveal additional classified information.(c) Each classified document shall, by marking or other means, indicate which portions are classified, with the applicable classification level, which portions are exempt from declassification under section 1.6(d) of this order, and which portions are unclassified. In accordance with standards prescribed in directives issued under this order, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office may grant waivers of this requirement for specified classes of documents or information. The Director shall revoke any waiver upon a finding of abuse.

(d) Markings implementing the provisions of this order, including abbreviations and requirements to safeguard classified working papers, shall conform to the standards prescribed in implementing directives issued pursuant to this order.

(e) Foreign government information shall retain its original classification markings or shall be assigned a U.S. classification that provides a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the entity that furnished the information.

(f) Information assigned a level of classification under this or predecessor orders shall be considered as classified at that level of classification despite the omission of other required markings. Whenever such information is used in the derivative classification process or is reviewed for possible declassification, holders of such information shall coordinate with an appropriate classification authority for the application of omitted markings.

(g) The classification authority shall, whenever practicable, use a classified addendum whenever classified information constitutes a small portion of an otherwise unclassified document.

Sec. 1.8. Classification Prohibitions and Limitations.

(a) In no case shall information be classified in order to:

      (1) conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error;

(2) prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency;

(3) restrain competition; or

(4) prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security.

(b) Basic scientific research information not clearly related to the national security may not be classified.(c) Information may not be reclassified after it has been declassified and released to the public under proper authority.

(d) Information that has not previously been disclosed to the public under proper authority may be classified or reclassified after an agency has received a request for it under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) or the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), or the mandatory review provisions of section 3.6 of this order only if such classification meets the requirements of this order and is accomplished on a document-by-document basis with the personal participation or under the direction of the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.6 of this order. This provision does not apply to classified information contained in records that are more than 25 years old and have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code.

(e) Compilations of items of information which are individually unclassified may be classified if the compiled information reveals an additional association or relationship that:

      (1) meets the standards for classification under this order; and

(2) is not otherwise revealed in the individual items of information.

As used in this order, “compilation” means an aggregation of pre-existing unclassified items of information.Sec. 1.9. Classification Challenges. (a) Authorized holders of information who, in good faith, believe that its classification status is improper are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification status of the information in accordance with agency procedures established under paragraph (b), below.

(b) In accordance with implementing directives issued pursuant to this order, an agency head or senior agency official shall establish procedures under which authorized holders of information are encouraged and expected to challenge the classification of information that they believe is improperly classified or unclassified. These procedures shall assure that:

      (1) individuals are not subject to retribution for bringing such actions;

(2) an opportunity is provided for review by an impartial official or panel; and

(3) individuals are advised of their right to appeal agency decisions to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel established by section 5.4 of this order.

PART 2 DERIVATIVE CLASSIFICATIONSec. 2.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) “Derivative classification” means the incorporating, paraphrasing, restating or generating in new form information that is already classified, and marking the newly developed material consistent with the classification markings that apply to the source information. Derivative classification includes the classification of information based on classification guidance. The duplication or reproduction of existing classified information is not derivative classification.(b) “Classification guidance” means any instruction or source that prescribes the classification of specific information.

(c) “Classification guide” means a documentary form of classification guidance issued by an original classification authority that identifies the elements of information regarding a specific subject that must be classified and establishes the level and duration of classification for each such element.

(d) “Source document” means an existing document that contains classified information that is incorporated, paraphrased, restated, or generated in new form into a new document.

(e) “Multiple sources” means two or more source documents, classification guides, or a combination of both.

Sec. 2.2. Use of Derivative Classification. (a) Persons who only reproduce, extract, or summarize classified information, or who only apply classification markings derived from source material or as directed by a classification guide, need not possess original classification authority.

(b) Persons who apply derivative classification markings shall:

      (1) observe and respect original classification decisions; and

(2) carry forward to any newly created documents the pertinent classification markings. For information derivatively classified based on multiple sources, the derivative classifier shall carry forward:

        (A) the date or event for declassification that corresponds to the longest period of classification among the sources; and

(B) a listing of these sources on or attached to the official file or record copy.

Sec. 2.3. Classification Guides. (a) Agencies with original classification authority shall prepare classification guides to facilitate the proper and uniform derivative classification of information. These guides shall conform to standards contained in directives issued under this order.(b) Each guide shall be approved personally and in writing by an official who:

      (1) has program or supervisory responsibility over the information or is the senior agency official; and

(2) is authorized to classify information originally at the highest level of classification prescribed in the guide.

(c) Agencies shall establish procedures to assure that classification guides are reviewed and updated as provided in directives issued under this order.PART 3 DECLASSIFICATION AND DOWNGRADINGSec. 3.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) “Declassification” means the authorized change in the status of information from classified information to unclassified information.(b) “Automatic declassification” means the declassification of information based solely upon:

      (1) the occurrence of a specific date or event as determined by the original classification authority; or

(2) the expiration of a maximum time frame for duration of classification established under this order.

(c) “Declassification authority” means:

      (1) the official who authorized the original classification, if that official is still serving in the same position;

(2) the originator’s current successor in function;

(3) a supervisory official of either; or

(4) officials delegated declassification authority in writing by the agency head or the senior agency official.

(d) “Mandatory declassification review” means the review for declassification of classified information in response to a request for declassification that meets the requirements under section 3.6 of this order.(e) “Systematic declassification review” means the review for declassification of classified information contained in records that have been determined by the Archivist of the United States (“Archivist”) to have permanent historical value in accordance with chapter 33 of title 44, United States Code.

(f) “Declassification guide” means written instructions issued by a declassification authority that describes the elements of information regarding a specific subject that may be declassified and the elements that must remain classified.

(g) “Downgrading” means a determination by a declassification authority that information classified and safeguarded at a specified level shall be classified and safeguarded at a lower level.

(h) “File series” means documentary material, regardless of its physical form or characteristics, that is arranged in accordance with a filing system or maintained as a unit because it pertains to the same function or activity.

Sec. 3.2. Authority for Declassification. (a) Information shall be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under this order.

(b) It is presumed that information that continues to meet the classification requirements under this order requires continued protection. In some exceptional cases, however, the need to protect such information may be outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information, and in these cases the information should be declassified. When such questions arise, they shall be referred to the agency head or the senior agency official. That official will determine, as an exercise of discretion, whether the public interest in disclosure outweighs the damage to national security that might reasonably be expected from disclosure. This provision does not:

      (1) amplify or modify the substantive criteria or procedures for classification; or

(2) create any substantive or procedural rights subject to judicial review.

(c) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office determines that information is classified in violation of this order, the Director may require the information to be declassified by the agency that originated the classification. Any such decision by the Director may be appealed to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.(d) The provisions of this section shall also apply to agencies that, under the terms of this order, do not have original classification authority, but had such authority under predecessor orders. Sec. 3.3. Transferred Information. (a) In the case of classified information transferred in conjunction with a transfer of functions, and not merely for storage purposes, the receiving agency shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order.

(b) In the case of classified information that is not officially transferred as described in paragraph (a), above, but that originated in an agency that has ceased to exist and for which there is no successor agency, each agency in possession of such information shall be deemed to be the originating agency for purposes of this order. Such information may be declassified or downgraded by the agency in possession after consultation with any other agency that has an interest in the subject matter of the information.

(c) Classified information accessioned into the National Archives and Records Administration (“National Archives”) as of the effective date of this order shall be declassified or downgraded by the Archivist in accordance with this order, the directives issued pursuant to this order, agency declassification guides, and any existing procedural agreement between the Archivist and the relevant agency head.

(d) The originating agency shall take all reasonable steps to declassify classified information contained in records determined to have permanent historical value before they are accessioned into the National Archives. However, the Archivist may require that records containing classified information be accessioned into the National Archives when necessary to comply with the provisions of the Federal Records Act. This provision does not apply to information being transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code, or information for which the National Archives and Records Administration serves as the custodian of the records of an agency or organization that goes out of existence.

(e) To the extent practicable, agencies shall adopt a system of records management that will facilitate the public release of documents at the time such documents are declassified pursuant to the provisions for automatic declassification in sections 1.6 and 3.4 of this order.

Sec. 3.4. Automatic Declassification. (a) Subject to paragraph (b), below, within 5 years from the date of this order, all classified information contained in records that (1) are more than 25 years old, and (2) have been determined to have permanent historical value under title 44, United States Code, shall be automatically declassified whether or not the records have been reviewed. Subsequently, all classified information in such records shall be automatically declassified no longer than 25 years from the date of its original classification, except as provided in paragraph (b), below.

(b) An agency head may exempt from automatic declassification under paragraph (a), above, specific information, the release of which should be expected to:

      (1) reveal the identity of a confidential human source, or reveal information about the application of an intelligence source or method, or reveal the identity of a human intelligence source when the unauthorized disclosure of that source would clearly and demonstrably damage the national security interests of the United States;

(2) reveal information that would assist in the development or use of weapons of mass destruction;

(3) reveal information that would impair U.S. cryptologic systems or activities;

(4) reveal information that would impair the application of state of the art technology within a U.S. weapon system;

(5) reveal actual U.S. military war plans that remain in effect;

(6) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair relations between the United States and a foreign government, or seriously and demonstrably undermine ongoing diplomatic activities of the United States;

(7) reveal information that would clearly and demonstrably impair the current ability of United States Government officials to protect the President, Vice President, and other officials for whom protection services, in the interest of national security, are authorized;

(8) reveal information that would seriously and demonstrably impair current national security emergency preparedness plans; or

(9) violate a statute, treaty, or international agreement.

(c) No later than the effective date of this order, an agency head shall notify the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs of any specific file series of records for which a review or assessment has determined that the information within those file series almost invariably falls within one or more of the exemption categories listed in paragraph (b), above, and which the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:

      (1) a description of the file series;

(2) an explanation of why the information within the file series is almost invariably exempt from automatic declassification and why the information must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b), above, a specific date or event for declassification of the information.

The President may direct the agency head not to exempt the file series or to declassify the information within that series at an earlier date than recommended.(d) At least 180 days before information is automatically declassified under this section, an agency head or senior agency official shall notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, serving as Executive Secretary of the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, of any specific information beyond that included in a notification to the President under paragraph (c), above, that the agency proposes to exempt from automatic declassification. The notification shall include:

      (1) a description of the information;

(2) an explanation of why the information is exempt from automatic declassification and must remain classified for a longer period of time; and

(3) except for the identity of a confidential human source or a human intelligence source, as provided in paragraph (b), above, a specific date or event for declassification of the information. The Panel may direct the agency not to exempt the information or to declassify it at an earlier date than recommended. The agency head may appeal such a decision to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The information will remain classified while such an appeal is pending.

(e) No later than the effective date of this order, the agency head or senior agency official shall provide the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office with a plan for compliance with the requirements of this section, including the establishment of interim target dates. Each such plan shall include the requirement that the agency declassify at least 15 percent of the records affected by this section no later than 1 year from the effective date of this order, and similar commitments for subsequent years until the effective date for automatic declassification.(f) Information exempted from automatic declassification under this section shall remain subject to the mandatory and systematic declassification review provisions of this order.

(g) The Secretary of State shall determine when the United States should commence negotiations with the appropriate officials of a foreign government or international organization of governments to modify any treaty or international agreement that requires the classification of information contained in records affected by this section for a period longer than 25 years from the date of its creation, unless the treaty or international agreement pertains to information that may otherwise remain classified beyond 25 years under this section.

Sec. 3.5. Systematic Declassification Review. (a) Each agency that has originated classified information under this order or its predecessors shall establish and conduct a program for systematic declassification review. This program shall apply to historically valuable records exempted from automatic declassification under section 3.4 of this order. Agencies shall prioritize the systematic review of records based upon:

      (1) recommendations of the Information Security Policy Advisory Council, established in section 5.5 of this order, on specific subject areas for systematic review concentration; or

(2) the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review.

(b) The Archivist of the shall conduct a systematic declassification review program for classified information: (1) accessioned into the National Archives as of the effective date of this order; (2) information transferred to the Archivist pursuant to section 2203 of title 44, United States Code; and (3) information for which the National Archives and Records Administration serves as the custodian of the records of an agency or organization that has gone out of existence. This program shall apply to pertinent records no later than 25 years from the date of their creation. The Archivist shall establish priorities for the systematic review of these records based upon the recommendations of the Information Security Policy Advisory Council; or the degree of researcher interest and the likelihood of declassification upon review. These records shall be reviewed in accordance with the standards of this order, its implementing directives, and declassification guides provided to the Archivist by each agency that originated the records. The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall assure that agencies provide the Archivist with adequate and current declassification guides.(c) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified cryptologic information, and the Director of Central Intelligence may establish special procedures for systematic review for declassification of classified information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods.

Sec. 3.6. Mandatory Declassification Review. (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), below, all information classified under this order or predecessor orders shall be subject to a review for declassification by the originating agency if:

      (1) the request for a review describes the document or material containing the information with sufficient specificity to enable the agency to locate it with a reasonable amount of effort;

(2) the information is not exempted from search and review under the Central Intelligence Agency Information Act; and

(3) the information has not been reviewed for declassification within the past 2 years. If the agency has reviewed the information within the past 2 years, or the information is the subject of pending litigation, the agency shall inform the requester of this fact and of the requester’s appeal rights.

(b) Information originated by:

      (1) the incumbent President;

(2) the incumbent President’s White House Staff;

(3) committees, commissions, or boards appointed by the incumbent President; or

(4) other entities within the Executive Office of the President that solely advise and assist the incumbent President is exempted from the provisions of paragraph (a), above. However, the Archivist shall have the authority to review, downgrade, and declassify information of former Presidents under the control of the Archivist pursuant to sections 2107, 2111, 2111 note, or 2203 of title 44, United States Code. Review procedures developed by the Archivist shall provide for consultation with agencies having primary subject matter interest and shall be consistent with the provisions of applicable laws or lawful agreements that pertain to the respective Presidential papers or records. Agencies with primary subject matter interest shall be notified promptly of the Archivist’s decision. Any final decision by the Archivist may be appealed by the requester or an agency to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. The information shall remain classified pending a prompt decision on the appeal.

(c) Agencies conducting a mandatory review for declassification shall declassify information that no longer meets the standards for classification under this order. They shall release this information unless withholding is otherwise authorized and warranted under applicable law.(d) In accordance with directives issued pursuant to this order, agency heads shall develop procedures to process requests for the mandatory review of classified information. These procedures shall apply to information classified under this or predecessor orders. They also shall provide a means for administratively appealing a denial of a mandatory review request, and for notifying the requester of the right to appeal a final agency decision to the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel.

(e) After consultation with affected agencies, the Secretary of Defense shall develop special procedures for the review of cryptologic information, the Director of Central Intelligence shall develop special procedures for the review of information pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities), or intelligence sources or methods, and the Archivist shall develop special procedures for the review of information accessioned into the National Archives.

Sec. 3.7. Processing Requests and Reviews. In response to a request for information under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act of 1974, or the mandatory review provisions of this order, or pursuant to the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order:

      (a) An agency may refuse to confirm or deny the existence or nonexistence of requested information whenever the fact of its existence or nonexistence is itself classified under this order.

(b) When an agency receives any request for documents in its custody that contain information that was originally classified by another agency, or comes across such documents in the process of the automatic declassification or systematic review provisions of this order, it shall refer copies of any request and the pertinent documents to the originating agency for processing, and may, after consultation with the originating agency, inform any requester of the referral unless such association is itself classified under this order. In cases in which the originating agency determines in writing that a response under paragraph (a), above, is required, the referring agency shall respond to the requester in accordance with that paragraph.

Sec. 3.8. Declassification Database. (a) The Archivist in conjunction with the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office and those agencies that originate classified information, shall establish a Governmentwide database of information that has been declassified. The Archivist shall also explore other possible uses of technology to facilitate the declassification process.(b) Agency heads shall fully cooperate with the Archivist in these efforts.

(c) Except as otherwise authorized and warranted by law, all declassified information contained within the database established under paragraph (a), above, shall be available to the public.

PART 4 SAFEGUARDINGSec. 4.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) “Safeguarding” means measures and controls that are prescribed to protect classified information.(b) “Access” means the ability or opportunity to gain knowledge of classified information.

(c) “Need-to-know” means a determination made by an authorized holder of classified information that a prospective recipient requires access to specific classified information in order to perform or assist in a lawful and authorized governmental function.

(d) “Automated information system” means an assembly of computer hardware, software, or firmware configured to collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, store, or control data or information.

(e) “Integrity” means the state that exists when information is unchanged from its source and has not been accidentally or intentionally modified, altered, or destroyed.

(f) “Network” means a system of two or more computers that can exchange data or information.

(g) “Telecommunications” means the preparation, transmission, or communication of information by electronic means.

(h) “Special access program” means a program established for a specific class of classified information that imposes safeguarding and access requirements that exceed those normally required for information at the same classification level.

Sec. 4.2. General Restrictions on Access. (a) A person may have access to classified information provided that:

      (1) a favorable determination of eligibility for access has been made by an agency head or the agency head’s designee;

(2) the person has signed an approved nondisclosure agreement; and

(3) the person has a need-to-know the information.

(b) Classified information shall remain under the control of the originating agency or its successor in function. An agency shall not disclose information originally classified by another agency without its authorization. An official or employee leaving agency service may not remove classified information from the agency’s control.(c) Classified information may not be removed from official premises without proper authorization.

(d) Persons authorized to disseminate classified information outside the executive branch shall assure the protection of the information in a manner equivalent to that provided within the executive branch.

(e) Consistent with law, directives, and regulation, an agency head or senior agency official shall establish uniform procedures to ensure that automated information systems, including networks and telecommunications systems, that collect, create, communicate, compute, disseminate, process, or store classified information have controls that:

      (1) prevent access by unauthorized persons; and

(2) ensure the integrity of the information.

(f) Consistent with law, directives, and regulation, each agency head or senior agency official shall establish controls to ensure that classified information is used, processed, stored, reproduced, transmitted, and destroyed under conditions that provide adequate protection and prevent access by unauthorized persons.(g) Consistent with directives issued pursuant to this order, an agency shall safeguard foreign government information under standards that provide a degree of protection at least equivalent to that required by the government or international organization of governments that furnished the information. When adequate to achieve equivalency, these standards may be less restrictive than the safeguarding standards that ordinarily apply to United States “Confidential” information, including allowing access to individuals with a need-to-know who have not otherwise been cleared for access to classified information or executed an approved nondisclosure agreement.

(h) Except as provided by statute or directives issued pursuant to this order, classified information originating in one agency may not be disseminated outside any other agency to which it has been made available without the consent of the originating agency. An agency head or senior agency official may waive this requirement for specific information originated within that agency. For purposes of this section, the Department of Defense shall be considered one agency.

Sec. 4.3. Distribution Controls. (a) Each agency shall establish controls over the distribution of classified information to assure that it is distributed only to organizations or individuals eligible for access who also have a need-to-know the information.

(b) Each agency shall update, at least annually, the automatic, routine, or recurring distribution of classified information that they distribute. Recipients shall cooperate fully with distributors who are updating distribution lists and shall notify distributors whenever a relevant change in status occurs.

Sec. 4.4. Special Access Programs. (a) Establishment of special access programs. Unless otherwise authorized by the President, only the Secretaries of State, Defense and Energy, and the Director of Central Intelligence, or the principal deputy of each, may create a special access program. For special access programs pertaining to intelligence activities (including special activities, but not including military operational, strategic and tactical programs), or intelligence sources or methods, this function will be exercised by the Director of Central Intelligence. These officials shall keep the number of these programs at an absolute minimum, and shall establish them only upon a specific finding that:

      (1) the vulnerability of, or threat to, specific information is exceptional; and

(2) the normal criteria for determining eligibility for access applicable to information classified at the same level are not deemed sufficient to protect the information from unauthorized disclosure; or

(3) the program is required by statute.

(b) Requirements and Limitations.

      (1) Special access programs shall be limited to programs in which the number of persons who will have access ordinarily will be reasonably small and commensurate with the objective of providing enhanced protection for the information involved.

(2) Each agency head shall establish and maintain a system of accounting for special access programs consistent with directives issued pursuant to this order.

(3) Special access programs shall be subject to the oversight program established under section 5.6(c) of this order. In addition, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall be afforded access to these programs, in accordance with the security requirements of each program, in order to perform the functions assigned to the Information Security Oversight Office under this order. An agency head may limit access to a special access program to the Director and no more than one other employee of the Information Security Oversight Office; or, for special access programs that are extraordinarily sensitive and vulnerable, to the Director only.

(4) The agency head or principal deputy shall review annually each special access program to determine whether it continues to meet the requirements of this order.

(5) Upon request, an agency shall brief the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, or his or her designee, on any or all of the agency’s special access programs.

(c) Within 180 days after the effective date of this order, each agency head or principal deputy shall review all existing special access programs under the agency’s jurisdiction. These officials shall terminate any special access programs that do not clearly meet the provisions of this order. Each existing special access program that an agency head or principal deputy validates shall be treated as if it were established on the effective date of this order.(d) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under 10 U.S.C. 119.

Sec. 4.5. Access by Historical Researchers and Former Presidential Appointees. (a) The requirement in section 4.2(a)(3) of this order that access to classified information may be granted only to individuals who have a need-to-know the information may be waived for persons who:

      (1) are engaged in historical research projects; or

(2) previously have occupied policy-making positions to which they were appointed by the President.

(b) Waivers under this section may be granted only if the agency head or senior agency official of the originating agency:

      (1) determines in writing that access is consistent with the interest of national security;

(2) takes appropriate steps to protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure or compromise, and ensures that the information is safeguarded in a manner consistent with this order; and

(3) limits the access granted to former Presidential appointees to items that the person originated, reviewed, signed, or received while serving as a Presidential appointee.

PART 5 IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEWSec. 5.1. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) “Self-inspection” means the internal review and evaluation of individual agency activities and the agency as a whole with respect to the implementation of the program established under this order and its implementing directives.(b) “Violation” means:

      (1) any knowing, willful, or negligent action that could reasonably be expected to result in an unauthorized disclosure of classified information;

(2) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to classify or continue the classification of information contrary to the requirements of this order or its implementing directives; or

(3) any knowing, willful, or negligent action to create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order.

(c) “Infraction” means any knowing, willful, or negligent action contrary to the requirements of this order or its implementing directives that does not comprise a “violation,” as defined above.Sec. 5.2. Program Direction. (a) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the co-chairs of the Security Policy Board, shall issue such directives as are necessary to implement this order. These directives shall be binding upon the agencies. Directives issued by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall establish standards for:

      (1) classification and marking principles;

(2) agency security education and training programs;

(3) agency self-inspection programs; and

(4) classification and declassification guides.

(b) The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall delegate the implementation and monitorship functions of this program to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office.(c) The Security Policy Board, established by a Presidential Decision Directive, shall make a recommendation to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs with respect to the issuance of a Presidential directive on safeguarding classified information. The Presidential directive shall pertain to the handling, storage, distribution, transmittal, and destruction of and accounting for classified information.

Sec. 5.3. Information Security Oversight Office. (a) There is established within the Office of Management and Budget an Information Security Oversight Office. The Director of the Office of Management and Budget shall appoint the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, subject to the approval of the President.

(b) Under the direction of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget acting in consultation with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall:

      (1) develop directives for the implementation of this order;

(2) oversee agency actions to ensure compliance with this order and its implementing directives;

(3) review and approve agency implementing regulations and agency guides for systematic declassification review prior to their issuance by the agency;

(4) have the authority to conduct on-site reviews of each agency’s program established under this order, and to require of each agency those reports, information, and other cooperation that may be necessary to fulfill its responsibilities. If granting access to specific categories of classified information would pose an exceptional national security risk, the affected agency head or the senior agency official shall submit a written justification recommending the denial of access to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget within 60 days of the request for access. Access shall be denied pending a prompt decision by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who shall consult on this decision with the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs;

(5) review requests for original classification authority from agencies or officials not granted original classification authority and, if deemed appropriate, recommend Presidential approval through the Director of the Office of Management and Budget;

(6) consider and take action on complaints and suggestions from persons within or outside the Government with respect to the administration of the program established under this order;

(7) have the authority to prescribe, after consultation with affected agencies, standardization of forms or procedures that will promote the implementation of the program established under this order;

(8) report at least annually to the President on the implementation of this order; and

(9) convene and chair interagency meetings to discuss matters pertaining to the program established by this order.

Sec. 5.4. Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel. (a) Establishment and Administration.

      (1) There is established an Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (“Panel”). The Secretaries of State and Defense, the Attorney General, the Director of Central Intelligence, the Archivist of the United States, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs shall each appoint a senior level representative to serve as a member of the Panel. The President shall select the Chair of the Panel from among the Panel members.

(2) A vacancy on the Panel shall be filled as quickly as possible as provided in paragraph (1), above.

(3) The Director of the Information Security Oversight Office shall serve as the Executive Secretary. The staff of the Information Security Oversight Office shall provide program and administrative support for the Panel.

(4) The members and staff of the Panel shall be required to meet eligibility for access standards in order to fulfill the Panel’s functions.

(5) The Panel shall meet at the call of the Chair. The Chair shall schedule meetings as may be necessary for the Panel to fulfill its functions in a timely manner.

(6) The Information Security Oversight Office shall include in its reports to the President a summary of the Panel’s activities.

(b) Functions. The Panel shall:

      (1) decide on appeals by persons who have filed classification challenges under section 1.9 of this order;

(2) approve, deny, or amend agency exemptions from automatic declassification as provided in section 3.4 of this order; and

(3) decide on appeals by persons or entities who have filed requests for mandatory declassification review under section 3.6 of this order.

(c) Rules and Procedures. The Panel shall issue bylaws, which shall be published in the Federal Register no later than 120 days from the effective date of this order. The bylaws shall establish the rules and procedures that the Panel will follow in accepting, considering, and issuing decisions on appeals. The rules and procedures of the Panel shall provide that the Panel will consider appeals only on actions in which: (1) the appellant has exhausted his or her administrative remedies within the responsible agency; (2) there is no current action pending on the issue within the federal courts; and (3) the information has not been the subject of review by the federal courts or the Panel within the past 2 years.(d) Agency heads will cooperate fully with the Panel so that it can fulfill its functions in a timely and fully informed manner. An agency head may appeal a decision of the Panel to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs. The Panel will report to the President through the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs any instance in which it believes that an agency head is not cooperating fully with the Panel.

(e) The Appeals Panel is established for the sole purpose of advising and assisting the President in the discharge of his constitutional and discretionary authority to protect the national security of the United States. Panel decisions are committed to the discretion of the Panel, unless reversed by the President.

Sec. 5.5. Information Security Policy Advisory Council. (a) Establishment. There is established an Information Security Policy Advisory Council (“Council”). The Council shall be composed of seven members appointed by the President for staggered terms not to exceed 4 years, from among persons who have demonstrated interest and expertise in an area related to the subject matter of this order and are not otherwise employees of the Federal Government. The President shall appoint the Council Chair from among the members. The Council shall comply with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App. 2.

(b) Functions. The Council shall:

      (1) advise the President, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, or such other executive branch officials as it deems appropriate, on policiesestablished under this order or its implementing directives, including recommended changes to those policies;

(2) provide recommendations to agency heads for specific subject areas for systematic declassification review; and

(3) serve as a forum to discuss policy issues in dispute.

(c) Meetings. The Council shall meet at least twice each calendar year, and as determined by the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs or the Director of the Office of Management and Budget.(d) Administration.

      (1) Each Council member may be compensated at a rate of pay not to exceed the daily equivalent of the annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the general schedule under section 5376 of title 5, United States Code, for each day during which that member is engaged in the actual performance of the duties of the Council.

(2) While away from their homes or regular place of business in the actual performance of the duties of the Council, members may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, as authorized by law for persons serving intermittently in the Government service (5 U.S.C. 5703(b)).

(3) To the extent permitted by law and subject to the availability of funds, the Information Security Oversight Office shall provide the Council with administrative services, facilities, staff, and other support services necessary for the performance of its functions.

(4) Notwithstanding any other Executive order, the functions of the President under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, that are applicable to the Council, except that of reporting to the Congress, shall be performed by the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office in accordance with the guidelines and procedures established by the General Services Administration.

Sec. 5.6. General Responsibilities. Heads of agencies that originate or handle classified information shall: (a) demonstrate personal commitment and commit senior management to the successful implementation of the program established under this order;(b) commit necessary resources to the effective implementation of the program established under this order; and

(c) designate a senior agency official to direct and administer the program, whose responsibilities shall include:

      (1) overseeing the agency’s program established under this order, provided, an agency head may designate a separate official to oversee special access programs authorized under this order. This official shall provide a full accounting of the agency’s special access programs at least annually;

(2) promulgating implementing regulations, which shall be published in the Federal Register to the extent that they affect members of the public;

(3) establishing and maintaining security education and training programs;

(4) establishing and maintaining an ongoing self-inspection program, which shall include the periodic review and assessment of the agency’s classified product;

(5) establishing procedures to prevent unnecessary access to classified information, including procedures that: (i) require that a need for access to classified information is established before initiating administrative clearance procedures; and (ii) ensure that the number of persons granted access to classified information is limited to the minimum consistent with operational and security requirements and needs;

(6) developing special contingency plans for the safeguarding of classified information used in or near hostile or potentially hostile areas;

(7) assuring that the performance contract or other system used to rate civilian or military personnel performance includes the management of classified information as a critical element or item to be evaluated in the rating of: (i) original classification authorities; (ii) security managers or security specialists; and (iii) all other personnel whose duties significantly involve the creation or handling of classified information;

(8) accounting for the costs associated with the implementation of this order, which shall be reported to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office for publication; and

(9) assigning in a prompt manner agency personnel to respond to any request, appeal, challenge, complaint, or suggestion arising out of this order that pertains to classified information that originated in a component of the agency that no longer exists and for which there is no clear successor in function.

Sec. 5.7. Sanctions. (a) If the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office finds that a violation of this order or its implementing directives may have occurred, the Director shall make a report to the head of the agency or to the senior agency official so that corrective steps, if appropriate, may be taken.(b) Officers and employees of the United States Government, and its contractors, licensees, certificate holders, and grantees shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently:

      (1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders;

(2) classify or continue the classification of information in violation of this order or any implementing directive;

(3) create or continue a special access program contrary to the requirements of this order; or

(4) contravene any other provision of this order or its implementing directives.

(c) Sanctions may include reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions in accordance with applicable law and agency regulation.(d) The agency head, senior agency official, or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order.

(e) The agency head or senior agency official shall:

      (1) take appropriate and prompt corrective action when a violation or infraction under paragraph (b), above, occurs; and

(2) notify the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office when a violation under paragraph (b)(1), (2) or (3), above, occurs.

PART 6 GENERAL PROVISIONSSec. 6.1. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall supersede any requirement made by or under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. “Restricted Data” and “Formerly Restricted Data” shall be handled, protected, classified, downgraded, and declassified in conformity with the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and regulations issued under that Act.(b) The Attorney General, upon request by the head of an agency or the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office, shall render an interpretation of this order with respect to any question arising in the course of its administration.

(c) Nothing in this order limits the protection afforded any information by other provisions of law, including the exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, and the National Security Act of 1947, as amended. This order is not intended, and should not be construed, to create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, or its employees. The foregoing is in addition to the specific provisos set forth in sections 1.2(b), 3.2(b) and 5.4(e) of this order.

(d) Executive Order No. 12356 of April 6, 1982, is revoked as of the effective date of this order.

Sec. 6.2. Effective Date. This order shall become effective 180 days from the date of this order.

      WILLIAM J. CLINTON

THE WHITE HOUSE,
April 17, 1995.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 738, August 17, 2017, Part 2, Story 1: Trump Plans For Islamic State — No More Nation Building and No More Policemen of The World — Extreme Vetting Of Immigrants –War of Civilizations — The West vs. Radical Islam — A New Hot War — Let The Games Begin –Greatest Foreign Policy Speech of Any Candidate in Over 50 Years — A+ Must Viewing — Videos

Posted on August 18, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Benghazi, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, European History, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Iraq, Islamic State, Israel, Jordan, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Life, Lying, Media, Middle East, MIssiles, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Scandals, Senate, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

 

Part 1, Story 1: Trump Plans For Islamic State — No More Nation Building and No More Policemen of The World — Extreme Vetting Of Immigrants –War of Civilizations — The West vs. Radical Islam — A New Hot War — Let The Games Begin –Greatest Foreign Policy Speech of Any Candidate in Over 50 Years — A+ Must Viewing — Videos

 

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world”

~George Washington’s Farewell Address

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, The inaugural pledge 

Donald Trump vows ‘extreme vetting’ of immigrants

Donald Trump’s full terrorism speech (Entire speech)

Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty…”

Dissecting Trump’s anti-terror plan

Gingrich on why Trump’s ISIS strategy is the right strategy

Donald Trump says Hillary Clinton wants to be America’s Angela Merkel – Youngstown, OH

Full Speech: Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech in Youngstown, Ohio (August 15, 2016)

Full Event: Donald Trump Foreign Policy Speech in Youngstown, Ohio (August 15, 2016)

“Lock Her Up” Say Rand Paul, Judge Jeanine, and Judge Napolitano! Corruption Everywhere!

Rand Paul And Donald Trump Agree: Hillary Created ISIS

Clash of Civilizations 1/2 ‘West, Islam, Orthordox, Chinese, Hindu, Japan, Latin America, Africa’

Clash of Civilizations 2/2 ‘Islam is very divided, Muslims are Fighting Themselves’

The Myth of the “Clash of Civilizations”. Edward Said

Edward Said On Orientalism

Edward Said on Culture and Imperialism

Edward Said The Last Interview 2003

Christopher Hitchens on American Imperialism, Iran, Iraq War, Israel, Palestine (1991)

Christopher Hitchens – The Axis of Evil revisited [2009]

Christopher Hitchens — Clash of civilizations (2009)

Christopher Hitchens on Iran and Iranians

Christopher Hitchens on Barack Obama

On The Day Christopher Hitchens died

Fact-checking Donald Trump’s ‘major’ speech on the Islamic State

By Glenn Kessler and Michelle Ye Hee Lee August 16 at 3:00 AM

Donald Trump traveled to Youngstown, Ohio, to deliver what was billed as a “major” speech on how to deal with the threat posed by the Islamic State terrorist group, a.k.a. ISIS. For reasons known only to Trump, he continued to repeat false statements that have been repeatedly debunked in the past. So here’s a roundup of some of the more notable claims made in the speech. As is our practice, we don’t award Pinocchios in roundups, but readers by now should be able to tell the real whoppers.

“This summer there’s been an ISIS attack launched outside the war zones of the Middle East — hard to believe — every 84 hours.”

This number comes from IntelCenter, a private counterterrorism intelligence company, but the time frame that Trump uses is cherry-picked.

The group’s data from June 8 to July 20, 2016, have gotten attention for the number of terrorist attacks directed or inspired by ISIS: one attack every 84 hours. That’s why Trump says that’s how many attacks there have been “this summer,” though the data cover approximately six weeks of the summer so far. CNN reported that the group’s count mirrors the outlet’s tracking data, but it’s just a brief snapshot.

IntelCenter has tracked attacks since the Islamic State announced its “caliphate” in June 2014. Since then, there have been 76 attacks in 21 countries, killing 966 and injuring 2,812, the website says. Those data cover June 29, 2014, to Aug. 6, 2016. That means there were about three attacks every month over the 26 months covered by the data.

“The rise of ISIS is the direct result of policy decisions made by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton.”

This is false and facile. The terrorist group is the direct result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, as we explored in our interview with Washington Post reporter Joby Warrick, who won a Pulitzer Prize for his book on the rise of the Islamic State. (Trump, of course, supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003.) At best, one could argue that actions that Obama failed to take (over Clinton’s opposition) helped contribute to the growth of ISIS.

“Iran, the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism, is now flush with $150 billion in cash released by the United States.”

Trump always makes it sound like this is U.S. taxpayer money  and he always uses a too-high estimate. Because of international sanctions over its nuclear program, Iran had billions of dollars in assets that were frozen in foreign banks around the globe. With sanctions lifted, in theory those funds would be unlocked.

But the Treasury Department has estimated that once Iran fulfills other obligations, it would have about $55 billion left. (Much of the other money was obligated to illiquid projects in China.) For its part, the Central Bank of Iran said the number was actually $32 billion, not $55 billion.

“It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s global ‘Apology Tour.’”

Trump resurrects an old — and discredited — Republican talking point. His prepared text even cited an April 2009 article written by Karl Rove as its source. As we demonstrated more than five years ago, Rove took Obama’s quotes out of context and twisted their meaning in order to build a tendentious case. The whole notion of an Obama apology tour was a fiction from the start  and was worthy of Four Pinocchios.

“It all began in 2009 with what has become known as President Obama’s global ‘Apology Tour.’”

 

“The failures in Iraq were compounded by Hillary Clinton’s disaster in Libya. President Obama has since said he regards Libya as his worst mistake.”

First of all, Trump was a fervent advocate of intervening in Libya. On a video uncovered by BuzzFeed, Trump declared in 2011: “Gaddafi in Libya is killing thousands of people. Nobody knows how bad it is, and we’re sitting around. We have soldiers all over the Middle East, and we’re not bringing them in to stop this horrible carnage, and that’s what it is: It’s a carnage …. Now, we should go in, we should stop this guy, which would be very easy and very quick.”

Second, Trump misquotes Obama. In the quote cited by the Trump campaign, Obama said that intervening was “the right thing to do.” What he regretted as his worst mistake was failing to plan for “the day after.”

“I was an opponent of the Iraq War from the beginning — a major difference between me and my opponent.”

What will it take for Trump to just admit that he had supported the Iraq invasion before he opposed it, after the invasion already took place? This is yet another Four Pinocchio claim.

There is no sign that Trump made headlines about his vocal Iraq War stance in 2003, nor that Trump clearly opposed the Iraq War prior to the invasion. We compiled a complete timeline of his comments leading up to the invasion and found that his comments were not “loud,” “clear” nor in “headlines” as he repeatedly claimed on the campaign trail.

Yet Trump continues to use this line, even though numerous news outlets have debunked it. This time, Trump cherry-picked his own quote to back up his claim: “Three months before the invasion, I said in an interview with Neil Cavuto … that perhaps we shouldn’t be doing it yet. And that the economy is a much bigger problem.”

He was referring to a January 2003 interview on Fox Business, about two months before the invasion. During it, Trump gave a lukewarm reaction to the Iraq invasion and urged then-President George W. Bush to make a decision. Below is the context for that claim. As readers can see, Trump did not weigh in on whether the United States should attack or not (“either you attack or you don’t attack”).

Cavuto: If you had to sort of break down for the president, if you were advising him, how much time do you commit to Iraq versus how much time you commit to the economy, what would you say?
Trump: Well, I’m starting to think that people are much more focused now on the economy. They are getting a little bit tired of hearing, we’re going in, we’re not going in, the — you know, whatever happened to the days of the Douglas MacArthur. He would go and attack. He wouldn’t talk. We have to — you know, it’s sort like either do it or don’t do it. When I watch Dan Rather explaining how we are going to be attacking, where we’re going to attack, what routes we’re taking, what kind of planes we’re using, how to stop them, how to stop us, it is a little bit disconcerting. I’ve never seen this, where newscasters are telling you how — telling the enemy how we’re going about it, we have just found out this and that. It is ridiculous.
Cavuto: Well, the problem right there.
Trump: Either you attack or you don’t attack.
Cavuto: The problem there, Donald, is you’re watching Dan Rather. Maybe you should just be watching Fox.
Trump: Well, no, I watch Dan Rather, but not necessarily fondly. But I happened to see it the other night. And I must tell you it was rather amazing as they were explaining the different — I don’t know if it is fact or if it is fiction, but the concept of a newscaster talking about the routes is — just seems ridiculous. So the point is either you do it or you don’t do it, or you — but I just — or if you don’t do it, just don’t talk about it. When you do it, you start talking about it.
Cavuto: So you’re saying the leash on this is getting kind of short here, that the president has got to do something presumably sooner rather than later and stringing this along could ultimately hurt us.
Trump: Well, he has either got to do something or not do something, perhaps, because perhaps shouldn’t be doing it yet and perhaps we should be waiting for the United Nations, you know. He’s under a lot of pressure. He’s — I think he’s doing a very good job. But, of course, if you look at the polls, a lot of people are getting a little tired. I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned.

“I was an opponent of the Iraq War from the beginning — a major difference between me and my opponent.”

 

“In August of 2004, very early, right after the conflict, I made a detailed statement to Esquire magazine in an interview [opposing the invasion].”

Trump clearly was outspoken about his opposition to the Iraq War starting in 2004, the year he reportedly considered a presidential bid. (Instead, he launched his popular TV series, “The Apprentice.”) Trump did sharply criticize the war in Iraq in the August 2004 cover story of Esquire magazine. But this was nearly 18 months after the invasion in March 2003.

Trump also has pointed several times to a July 2004 Reuters article as proof he opposed the war from the outset. The Reuters article is a preview of the August 2004 Esquire cover story. Somehow, in Trump’s mind, 2004 has turned into 2003, and Trump now says he “was against the war from the very beginning,” even prior to the March 2003 invasion.

“But I have been just as clear in saying what a catastrophic mistake Hillary Clinton and President Obama made with the reckless way in which they pulled out.”

Trump criticizes the 2011 withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq, saying Obama “got us out the wrong way.” But Trump supported rapid withdrawal as early as March 2007, saying the United States should “declare victory and leave.” So once again Trump criticizes Obama and Clinton for taking action he advocated.

“I have long said that we should have kept the oil in Iraq.”

This is nonsensical. The Bush administration invested a lot of diplomatic effort in assuring Middle Eastern allies that the United States was not invading because of Iraq’s oil fields. Moreover, oil revenue was crucial to ensuring a functioning Iraqi state — which is why insurgents often targeted the oil sector in Iraq.

In any event, seizing the oil of a sovereign nation after invading it would be considered a “grave breach” of the Geneva Conventions, one of the cornerstones of international law, as well as other international agreements. Maybe Trump’s staff should arrange a tutorial on international law.

“I had previously said that NATO was obsolete because it failed to deal adequately with terrorism. Since my comments, they have changed their policy and now have a new division focused on terror threats.”

NATO has disputed Trump’s repeated claim that NATO created a new assistant secretary general for intelligence because of his critique. “There’s no connection to any national election campaign,”NATO said, noting that the post had been under consideration several years before Trump began saying the organization was obsolete. NATO first committed to increased counterterrorism activities at a summit in Wales in 2012.

“Unlike Hillary Clinton, who has risked so many lives with her careless handling of sensitive information, my administration will not telegraph exactly military plans and what they are.”

Tellingly, Trump’s prepared text offered no footnote for this claim. There is little evidence that Clinton disclosed military plans through use of a private email server for State Department communications.

There indeed was sensitive information in Clinton’s emails, as the FBI found in its investigation into her use of her private server. Some of the emails were in reference to specific drone strikes being planned, the Wall Street Journal reported. But Trump exaggerates to say they “telegraph exactly military plans and what they are.”

Rather, these were vaguely worded emails forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her private email account. The Journal reported that the emails “were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, officials said. Law-enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information.”

“We admit about 100,000 permanent immigrants from the Middle East every year.”

Trump overstates the figure here. The number of people seeking lawful permanent resident status (“a green card”) adds up to about 76,000 people if you include the Arab countries in the Levant, Persian Gulf and North Africa, according to 2014 Department of Homeland Security figures.

You get to around 100,000 only by including Afghanistan and Pakistan, which of course are outside the traditional “Middle East.” Other Muslim countries, such as Indonesia (2,139) and Somalia (5,190), do not significantly add to the total.

“The United States subcommittee on Immigration estimates that Hillary Clinton’s plan would mean roughly 620,000 refugees from all current refugee-sending nations in her first term, assuming no cuts to other refugee programs.”

This figure stems from the unverified assumption that Clinton, who has called for 55,000 additional refugees from Syria, would continue at that pace for every year of her first term, on top of the Obama administration’s proposal for 100,000 refugees for fiscal year 2017. The committee then multiples 155,000 times four years to reach 620,000 refugees. Clinton has never proposed such a “plan,” so this is an invented figure. Clinton only has proposed an increase of 55,000 refugees for one year.

“A neighbor saw suspicious behavior. Bombs on the floor and other things, but didn’t warn authorities because they said they didn’t want to be accused of racial profiling.”

There is no evidence this was the case. There have been unconfirmed second- or third-hand reports— a friend of a friend of a neighbor — that a neighbor claimed to have noticed suspicious activity but did not report anything for fear of doing racial profiling. The religion of this supposed neighbor is unknown, but presumably a fear of racial profiling would suggest the neighbor was not Muslim.

Trump ad-libbed the phrase about “bombs on the floor.” Even the secondhand reports don’t suggest a neighbor saw “bombs on the floor” — just that they received numerous packages at their home and were in their garage late at night.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/16/fact-checking-donald-trumps-major-speech-on-the-islamic-state/

 

Clash of Civilizations

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Samuel P. Huntington (2004 World Economic Forum).jpg
The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
Clash civilizations.jpg
Author Samuel P. Huntington
Publisher Simon & Schuster
Publication date
1996
ISBN 0-684-84441-9
OCLC 38269418

The Clash of Civilizations (COC) is a hypothesis that people’s cultural and religious identities will be the primary source of conflict in the post-Cold War world. It was proposed by political scientistSamuel P. Huntington in a 1992 lecture[1] at the American Enterprise Institute, which was then developed in a 1993 Foreign Affairs article titled “The Clash of Civilizations?”,[2] in response to his former student Francis Fukuyama‘s 1992 book, The End of History and the Last Man. Huntington later expanded his thesis in a 1996 book The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order.

The phrase itself was earlier used by Albert Camus in 1946,[3] and by Bernard Lewis in an article in the September 1990 issue of The Atlantic Monthly titled “The Roots of Muslim Rage”.[4]Even earlier, the phrase appears in a 1926 book regarding the Middle East by Basil Mathews: Young Islam on Trek: A Study in the Clash of Civilizations (p. 196).

This expression derives from “clash of cultures,” already used during the colonial period and the Belle Époque.[5]

Overview

Huntington began his thinking by surveying the diverse theories about the nature of global politics in the post-Cold War period. Some theorists and writers argued that human rights,liberal democracy, and the capitalist free market economy had become the only remaining ideological alternative for nations in the post-Cold War world. Specifically, Francis Fukuyama argued that the world had reached the ‘end of history‘ in a Hegelian sense.

Huntington believed that while the age of ideology had ended, the world had only reverted to a normal state of affairs characterized by cultural conflict. In his thesis, he argued that the primary axis of conflict in the future will be along cultural and religious lines.[6]

As an extension, he posits that the concept of different civilizations, as the highest rank of cultural identity, will become increasingly useful in analyzing the potential for conflict.

In the 1993 Foreign Affairs article, Huntington writes “The Clash of Civilizations?” At the end of the article, he writes:

This is not to advocate the desirability of conflicts between civilizations. It is to set forth descriptive hypothesis as to what the future may be like.[2]

In addition, the clash of civilizations, for Huntington, represents a development of history. In the past, world history was mainly about the struggles between monarchs, nations and ideologies, such as seen within Western civilization. But after the end of the Cold War, world politics moved into a new phase, in which non-Western civilizations are no longer the exploited recipients of Western civilization but have become additional important actors joining the West to shape and move world history.[7]

Major civilizations according to Huntington

The clash of civilizations according to Huntington (1996), as presented in the book.[8]

Huntington divided the world into the “major civilizations” in his thesis as such:

Huntington’s thesis of civilizational clash

Russia and India are what Huntington terms ‘swing civilizations’ and may favor either side. Russia, for example, clashes with the many Muslim ethnic groups on its southern border (such as Chechnya) but—according to Huntington—cooperates with Iran to avoid further Muslim-Orthodox violence in Southern Russia, and to help continue the flow of oil. Huntington argues that a “Sino-Islamic connection” is emerging in which China will cooperate more closely with Iran, Pakistan, and other states to augment its international position.

Huntington also argues that civilizational conflicts are “particularly prevalent between Muslims and non-Muslims”, identifying the “bloody borders” between Islamic and non-Islamic civilizations. This conflict dates back as far as the initial thrust of Islam into Europe, its eventual expulsion in the Iberian reconquest and the attacks of the OttomanTurks on Eastern Europe and Vienna. Huntington also believes that some of the factors contributing to this conflict are that both Christianity (which has deeply influenced Western civilization) and Islam are:

  • Missionary religions, seeking conversion of others
  • Universal, “all-or-nothing” religions, in the sense that it is believed by both sides that only their faith is the correct one
  • Teleological religions, that is, that their values and beliefs represent the goals of existence and purpose in human existence.
  • Religions that perceive irreligious people who violate the base principles of those religions to be furthering their own pointless aims, which leads to violent interactions.

More recent factors contributing to a Western-Islamic clash, Huntington wrote, are the Islamic Resurgence and demographic explosion in Islam, coupled with the values of Western universalism—that is, the view that all civilizations should adopt Western values—that infuriate Islamic fundamentalists. All these historical and modern factors combined, Huntington wrote briefly in his Foreign Affairs article and in much more detail in his 1996 book, would lead to a bloody clash between the Islamic and Western civilizations. The political party Hizb ut-Tahrir also reiterate Huntington’s views in their published book, The Inevitability of Clash of Civilisation.[10]

Why Civilizations will Clash

Huntington offers six explanations for why civilizations will clash:

  1. Differences among civilizations are too basic in that civilizations are differentiated from each other by history, language, culture, tradition, and, most important, religion. These fundamental differences are the product of centuries, so they will not soon disappear.
  2. The world is becoming a smaller place. As a result, interactions across the world are increasing, which intensify “civilization consciousness” and the awareness of differences between civilizations and commonalities within civilizations.
  3. Due to economic modernization and social change, people are separated from longstanding local identities. Instead, religion has replaced this gap, which provides a basis for identity and commitment that transcends national boundaries and unites civilizations.
  4. The growth of civilization-consciousness is enhanced by the dual role of the West. On the one hand, the West is at a peak of power. At the same time, a return-to-the-roots phenomenon is occurring among non-Western civilizations. A West at the peak of its power confronts non-Western countries that increasingly have the desire, the will and the resources to shape the world in non-Western ways.
  5. Cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones.
  6. Economic regionalism is increasing. Successful economic regionalism will reinforce civilization-consciousness. Economic regionalism may succeed only when it is rooted in a common civilization.

The West versus the Rest

Huntington suggests that in the future the central axis of world politics tends to be the conflict between Western and non-Western civilizations, in Kishore Mahbubani‘s phrase, the conflict between “the West and the Rest.” He offers three forms of general actions that non-Western civilization can take in response to Western countries.[11]

  1. Non-Western countries can attempt to achieve isolation in order to preserve their own values and protect themselves from Western invasion. However, Huntington argues that the costs of this action are high and only a few states can pursue it.
  2. According to the theory of “band-wagoning” non-Western countries can join and accept Western values.
  3. Non-Western countries can make an effort to balance Western power through modernization. They can develop economic, military power and cooperate with other non-Western countries against the West while still preserving their own values and institutions. Huntington believes that the increasing power of non-Western civilizations in international society will make the West begin to develop a better understanding of the cultural fundamentals underlying other civilizations. Therefore, Western civilization will cease to be regarded as “universal” but different civilizations will learn to coexist and join to shape the future world.

Core state and fault line conflicts

In Huntington’s view, intercivilizational conflict manifests itself in two forms: fault line conflicts and core state conflicts.

Fault line conflicts are on a local level and occur between adjacent states belonging to different civilizations or within states that are home to populations from different civilizations.

Core state conflicts are on a global level between the major states of different civilizations. Core state conflicts can arise out of fault line conflicts when core states become involved.[12]

These conflicts may result from a number of causes, such as: relative influence or power (military or economic), discrimination against people from a different civilization, intervention to protect kinsmen in a different civilization, or different values and culture, particularly when one civilization attempts to impose its values on people of a different civilization.[12]

Modernization, westernization, and “torn countries”

Critics of Huntington’s ideas often extend their criticisms to traditionalcultures and internal reformers who wish to modernize without adopting the values and attitudes of Western culture. These critics[who?] sometimes claim that to modernize it is necessary to become Westernized to a very large extent, so that sources of tension with the West will be reduced.

Japan, China and the Four Asian Tigers have modernized in many respects while maintaining traditional or authoritarian societies which distinguish them from the West. Some of these countries have clashed with the West and some have not.

Perhaps the ultimate example of non-Western modernization is Russia, the core state of the Orthodox civilization. Huntington argues that Russia is primarily a non-Western state although he seems to agree that it shares a considerable amount of cultural ancestry with the modern West. According to Huntington, the West is distinguished from Orthodox Christian countries by its experience of the Renaissance, Reformation, the Enlightenment; by overseas colonialism rather than contiguous expansion and colonialism; and by the infusion of Classical culture through ancient Greece rather than through the continuous trajectory of the Byzantine Empire.

Huntington refers to countries that are seeking to affiliate with another civilization as “torn countries.” Turkey, whose political leadership has systematically tried to Westernize the country since the 1920s, is his chief example. Turkey’s history, culture, and traditions are derived from Islamic civilization, but Turkey’s elite, beginning with Mustafa Kemal Atatürk who took power as first President in 1923, imposed western institutions and dress, embraced the Latin alphabet, joined NATO, and is seeking to join the European Union.

Mexico and Russia are also considered to be torn by Huntington. He also gives the example of Australia as a country torn between its Western civilizational heritage and its growing economic engagement with Asia.

According to Huntington, a torn country must meet three requirements to redefine its civilizational identity. Its political and economic elite must support the move. Second, the public must be willing to accept the redefinition. Third, the elites of the civilization that the torn country is trying to join must accept the country.

The book claims that to date no torn country has successfully redefined its civilizational identity, this mostly due to the elites of the ‘host’ civilization refusing to accept the torn country, though if Turkey gained membership in theEuropean Union, it has been noted that many of its people would support Westernization, as in the following quote by EU Minister Egemen Bağış: “This is what Europe needs to do: they need to say that when Turkey fulfills all requirements, Turkey will become a member of the EU on date X. Then, we will regain the Turkish public opinion support in one day.”[13] If this were to happen, it would, according to Huntington, be the first to redefine its civilizational identity.

Criticism

Huntington has fallen under the stern critique of various academic writers, who have either empirically, historically, logically, or ideologically challenged his claims (Fox, 2005; Mungiu Pippidi & Mindruta, 2002; Henderson & Tucker, 2001; Russett, Oneal, & Cox, 2000; Harvey, 2000).[14][15][16][17] In an article explicitly referring to Huntington, scholar Amartya Sen (1999) argues that “diversity is a feature of most cultures in the world. Western civilization is no exception. The practice of democracy that has won out in the modern West is largely a result of a consensus that has emerged since the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution, and particularly in the last century or so. To read in this a historical commitment of the West—over the millennia—to democracy, and then to contrast it with non-Western traditions (treating each as monolithic) would be a great mistake” (p. 16).[18]

In his 2003 book Terror and Liberalism, Paul Berman argues that distinct cultural boundaries do not exist in the present day. He argues there is no “Islamic civilization” nor a “Western civilization”, and that the evidence for a civilization clash is not convincing, especially when considering relationships such as that between the United States and Saudi Arabia. In addition, he cites the fact that many Islamic extremists spent a significant amount of time living and/or studying in the Western world. According to Berman, conflict arises because of philosophical beliefs various groups share (or do not share), regardless of cultural or religious identity.[19]

Edward Said issued a response to Huntington’s thesis in his 2001 article, “The Clash of Ignorance“.[20] Said argues that Huntington’s categorization of the world’s fixed “civilizations” omits the dynamic interdependency and interaction of culture. A longtime critic of the Huntingtonian paradigm, and an outspoken proponent of Arab issues, Edward Said (2004) also argues that the clash of civilizations thesis is an example of “the purest invidious racism, a sort of parody of Hitlerian science directed today against Arabs and Muslims” (p. 293).[21]

Noam Chomsky has criticized the concept of the clash of civilizations as just being a new justification for the United States “for any atrocities that they wanted to carry out”, which was required after the Cold War as the Soviet Union was no longer a viable threat.[22]

Opposing concepts

Mohammad Khatami, reformistpresident of Iran (in office 1997–2005), introduced the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations as a response to Huntington’s theory.

In recent years, the theory of Dialogue Among Civilizations, a response to Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations, has become the center of some international attention. The concept was originally coined by Austrian philosopher Hans Köchler in an essay on cultural identity (1972).[23] In a letter to UNESCO, Köchler had earlier proposed that the cultural organization of the United Nations should take up the issue of a “dialogue between different civilizations” (dialogue entre les différentes civilisations).[24] In 2001, Iranian president Mohammad Khatamiintroduced the concept at the global level. At his initiative, the “dialogue among civilizations” was the basis for United Nations’ resolution to name the year 2001 as the Year of Dialogue among Civilizations.[25][26] The year 2001 was proclaimed as the “United Nations Year of Dialogue among Civilizations”.[27]

The Alliance of Civilizations (AOC) initiative was proposed at the 59th General Assembly of the United Nations in 2005 by the Spanish Prime Minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and co-sponsored by the Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. The initiative is intended to galvanize collective action across diverse societies to combat extremism, to overcome cultural and social barriers between mainly the Western and predominantly Muslim worlds, and to reduce the tensions and polarization between societies which differ in religious and cultural values.

Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician best known for his intense criticism of Islam, has stated on several occasions that there is a clash between Western civilization and barbarism, referring to Islam.[28][29][30]

Intermediate Region

Huntington’s geopolitical model, especially the structures for North Africa and Eurasia, is largely derived from the “Intermediate Region” geopolitical model first formulated by Dimitri Kitsikisand published in 1978.[31] The Intermediate Region, which spans the Adriatic Sea and the Indus River, is neither western nor eastern (at least, with respect to the Far East) but is considered distinct.

Concerning this region, Huntington departs from Kitsikis contending that a civilizational fault line exists between the two dominant yet differing religions (Eastern Orthodoxy and Sunni Islam), hence a dynamic of external conflict. However, Kitsikis establishes an integrated civilization comprising these two peoples along with those belonging to the less dominant religions of Shia Islam, Alevism, and Judaism. They have a set of mutual cultural, social, economic and political views and norms which radically differ from those in the West and the Far East.

In the Intermediate Region, therefore, one cannot speak of a civilizational clash or external conflict, but rather an internal conflict, not for cultural domination, but for political succession. This has been successfully demonstrated by documenting the rise of Christianity from the hellenized Roman Empire, the rise of the Islamic caliphates from the Christianized Roman Empire and the rise of Ottoman rule from the Islamic caliphates and the Christianized Roman Empire.

See also

Individuals
Book
  • The West’s Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations? by Tony Blankley

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 704, June 22, 2016, Story 1: Part 1 of 2, Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump — Videos

Posted on June 22, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Eugenics, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Islam, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, Monetary Policy, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, Pro Life, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Rifles, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Servers, Social Science, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Transportation, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

 

Story 1: Part 1 of 2,  Trump Destroys The CLIPPER — Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Hillary Clinton — Sink — The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER, Sink The CLIPPER –Sink Hillary Clinton — Elect Donald J. Trump —  Videos

HillaryClinton-Scandals-vs-DonaldTrumphillary-underwaterHillary-Clinton-and-racist-Margaret-Sanger

 

 

Full Speech : Donald Trump Delivers Anti Hillary Clinton Speech in New York City 6/22/16

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 1!

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 2!

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 3!

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Destroys Hillary Clinton In New York City Speech – 6/22/2016 Part 4!

Gutfeld: Meet the anti-Romney

Donald Trump seeking to destroy Hillary Clinton

The Real Story: June 22, 2016- Chris Wallace: Trump’s case has got to be against Clinton

Anonymous – Hillary Clinton: The Hillary Files Full Documentary

“Hillary’s America” Trailer | Official Teaser Trailer HD

clinton cash

Peter Schweizer talks Clinton Cash on CNN

Clinton Cash The Movie Official Trailer

Peter Schweizer

“Money and Politics” – Peter Schweizer

Peter Schweizer reacts to State Department IG report on Clinton Emails

• The Tangled Clinton Web • Clinton Cash • 4/24/15 •

Hillary Clinton lying for 13 minutes straight.

YouTube Debate: Hillary – Are You a Liberal?

Hillary Clinton honors Margaret Sanger

Hillary Clinton admires Margaret Sanger’s Planned Parenthood

– JUNE 22, 2016 –

DONALD J. TRUMP ON THE STAKES OF THE ELECTION

Today I‘d like to share my thoughts about the stakes in this election.

People have asked me why I am running for President.

I have built an amazing business that I love and I get to work side-by-side with my children every day.

We come to work together and turn visions into reality.

We think big, and then we make it happen.

I love what I do, and I am grateful beyond words to the nation that has allowed me to do it.

So when people ask me why I am running, I quickly answer: I am running to give back to this country which has been so good to me.

When I see the crumbling roads and bridges, or the dilapidated airports, or the factories moving overseas to Mexico, or to other countries, I know these problems can all be fixed, but not by Hillary Clinton – only by me.

The fact is, we can come back bigger and better and stronger than ever before –Jobs, jobs, jobs!

Everywhere I look, I see the possibilities of what our country could be. But we can’t solve any of these problems by relying on the politicians who created them.

We will never be able to fix a rigged system by counting on the same people who rigged it in the first place.

The insiders wrote the rules of the game to keep themselves in power and in the money.

That’s why we’re asking Bernie Sanders’ voters to join our movement: so together we can fix the system for ALL Americans. Importantly, this includes fixing all of our many disastrous trade deals.

Because it’s not just the political system that’s rigged. It’s the whole economy.

It’s rigged by big donors who want to keep down wages.

It’s rigged by big businesses who want to leave our country, fire our workers, and sell their products back into the U.S. with absolutely no consequences for them.

It’s rigged by bureaucrats who are trapping kids in failing schools.

It’s rigged against you, the American people.

Hillary Clinton who, as most people know, is a world class liar –

just look at her pathetic email and server statements, or her phony landing in Bosnia where she said she was under attack but the attack turned out to be young girls handing her flowers, a total self-serving lie.

Brian Williams’ career was destroyed for saying far less.

Yesterday, she even tried to attack me and my many businesses. But here is the bottom line: I started off in Brooklyn New York, not so long ago, with a small loan and built a business worth over 10 billion dollars. I have always had a talent for building businesses and, importantly, creating jobs. That is a talent our country desperately needs.

I am running for President to end the unfairness and to put you, the American worker, first.

We are going to put America First, and we are going to Make America Great again.

 

This election will decide whether we are ruled by the people, or by the politicians.

Here is my promise to the American voter:

If I am elected President, I will end the special interest monopoly in Washington, D.C.

The other candidate in this race has spent her entire life making money for special interests – and taking money from special interests.

Hillary Clinton has perfected the politics of personal profit and theft.

She ran the State Department like her own personal hedge fund – doing favors for oppressive regimes, and many others, in exchange for cash.

Then, when she left, she made $21.6 million giving speeches to Wall Street banks and other special interests – in less than 2 years – secret speeches that she does not want to reveal to the public.

Together, she and Bill made $153 million giving speeches to lobbyists, CEOs, and foreign governments in the years since 2001.

They totally own her, and that will never change.

The choice in this election is a choice between taking our government back from the special interests, or surrendering our last scrap of independence to their total and complete control.

Those are the stakes.

Hillary Clinton wants to be President. But she doesn’t have the temperament, or, as Bernie Sanders’ said, the judgement, to be president.

She believes she is entitled to the office.

Her campaign slogan is “I’m with her.”

You know what my response to that is? I’m with you: the American people.

She thinks it’s all about her.

I know it’s all about you – I know it’s all about making America Great Again for All Americans.

 

Our country lost its way when we stopped putting the American people first.

We got here because we switched from a policy of Americanism – focusing on what’s good for America’s middle class – to a policy of globalism, focusing on how to make money for large corporations who can move their wealth and workers to foreign countries all to the detriment of the American worker and the American economy.

We reward companies for offshoring, and we punish companies for doing business in America and keeping our workers employed.

This is not a rising tide that lifts all boats.

This is a wave of globalization that wipes out our middle class and our jobs.

We need to reform our economic system so that, once again, we can all succeed together, and America can become rich again.

That’s what we mean by America First.

Our country will be better off when we start making our own products again, bringing our once great manufacturing capabilities back to our shores.

Our Founders understood this.

One of the first major bills signed by George Washington called for “the encouragement and protection of manufactur[ing]” in America.

Our first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned us by saying:

“The abandonment of the protective policy by the American government will produce want and ruin among our people.”

I have visited the cities and towns across America and seen the devastation caused by the trade policies of Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton supported Bill Clinton’s disastrous NAFTA, just like she supported China’s entrance into the World Trade Organization.

We’ve lost nearly one-third of our manufacturing jobs since these two Hillary-backed agreements were signed.

Our trade deficit with China soared 40% during Hillary Clinton’s time as Secretary of State — a disgraceful performance for which she should not be congratulated, but rather scorned.

Then she let China steal hundreds of billions of dollars in our intellectual property – a crime which is continuing to this day.

Hillary Clinton gave China millions of our best jobs, and effectively let China completely rebuild itself.

In return, Hillary Clinton got rich!

The book Clinton Cash, by Peter Schweitzer, documents how Bill and Hillary used the State Department to enrich their family at America’s expense.

She gets rich making you poor.

Here is a quote from the book: “At the center of US policy toward China was Hillary Clinton…at this critical time for US-china relations, Bill Clinton gave a number of speeches that were underwritten by the Chinese government and its supporters.”

These funds were paid to the Clinton bank account while Hillary was negotiating with China on behalf of the United States.

She sold out our workers, and our country, for Beijing.

Hillary Clinton has also been the biggest promoter of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which will ship millions more of our jobs overseas – and give up Congressional power to an international foreign commission.

Now, because I have pointed out why it would be such a disastrous deal, she is pretending that she is against it. She has even deleted this record of total support from her book – deletion is something she is very good at — (at least 30,000 emails are missing.)

But this latest Clinton cover-up doesn’t change anything: if she is elected president, she will adopt the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and we will lose millions of jobs and our economic independence for good. She will do this, just as she has betrayed the American worker on trade at every single stage of her career – and it will be even worse than the Clintons’ NAFTA deal.

I want trade deals, but they have to be great for the United States and our workers.

We don’t make great deals anymore, but we will once I become president.

 

It’s not just our economy that’s been corrupted, but our foreign policy too.

The Hillary Clinton foreign policy has cost America thousands of lives and trillions of dollars – and unleashed ISIS across the world.

No Secretary of State has been more wrong, more often, and in more places than Hillary Clinton.

Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched.

Among the victims is our late Ambassador, Chris Stevens. He was left helpless to die as Hillary Clinton soundly slept in her bed — that’s right, when the phone rang at

3 o’clock in the morning, she was sleeping.

Ambassador Stevens and his staff in Libya made hundreds of requests for security.

Hillary Clinton’s State Department refused them all.

She started the war that put him in Libya, denied him the security he asked for, then left him there to die.

To cover her tracks, Hillary lied about a video being the cause of his death.

Here is what one of the victim’s mothers had to say:

“I want the whole world to know it: she lied to my face, and you don’t want this person to be president.”

In 2009, before Hillary Clinton was sworn in, it was a different world.

Libya was cooperating.

Iraq was seeing a reduction in violence.

Syria was under control.

Iran was being choked by sanctions.

Egypt was governed by a friendly regime that honored its peace treaty with Israel.

ISIS wasn’t even on the map.

Fast forward to 2013: In just four years, Secretary Clinton managed

to almost single-handedly destabilize the entire Middle East.

Her invasion of Libya handed the country over to the ISIS barbarians.

Thanks to Hillary Clinton, Iran is now the dominant Islamic power in the Middle East, and on the road to nuclear weapons.

Hillary Clinton’s support for violent regime change in Syria has thrown the country into one of the bloodiest civil wars anyone has ever seen – while giving ISIS a launching pad for terrorism against the West.

She helped force out a friendly regime in Egypt and replace it with the radical Muslim Brotherhood. The Egyptian military has retaken control, but Clinton has opened the Pandora’s box of radical Islam.

Then, there was the disastrous strategy of announcing our departure date from Iraq, handing large parts of the country over to ISIS killers.

ISIS threatens us today because of the decisions Hillary Clinton has made.

ISIS also threatens peaceful Muslims across the Middle East, and peaceful Muslims across the world, who have been terribly victimized by horrible brutality – and who only want to raise their kids in peace and safety.

In short, Hillary Clinton’s tryout for the presidency has produced one deadly foreign policy disaster after another.

It all started with her bad judgment in supporting the War in Iraq in the first place.

Though I was not in government service, I was among the earliest to criticize

the rush to war, and yes, even before the war ever started.

But Hillary Clinton learned nothing from Iraq, because when she got into power,

she couldn’t wait to rush us off to war in Libya.

She lacks the temperament, the judgment and the competence to lead.

In the words of a Secret Service agent posted outside the Oval Office:

“She simply lacks the integrity and temperament to serve

in the office…from the bottom of my soul, I know this to be true…Her leadership style – volcanic, impulsive…disdainful of the rules set for everyone else – hasn’t changed a bit.”

Perhaps the most terrifying thing about Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is that she refuses to acknowledge the threat posed by Radical Islam.

In fact, Hillary Clinton supports a radical 550% increase in Syrian refugees coming into the United States, and that’s an increase over President Obama’s already very high number.

Under her plan, we would admit hundreds of thousands of refugees from the most dangerous countries on Earth – with no way to screen who they are or what they believe.

Already, hundreds of recent immigrants and their children have been convicted of terrorist activity inside the U.S.

The father of the Orlando shooter was a Taliban supporter from Afghanistan, one of the

most repressive anti-gay and anti-women regimes on Earth.

I only want to admit people who share our values and love our people.

Hillary Clinton wants to bring in people who believe women should be enslaved

and gays put to death.

Maybe her motivation lies among the more than 1,000 foreign donations Hillary failed to disclose while at the State Department.

Hillary Clinton may be the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.

Here is some more of what we learned from the book,

Clinton Cash:

  • A foreign telecom giant faced possible State Department sanctions for providing technology to Iran, and other oppressive regimes. So what did this company do? For the first time ever, they decided to pay Bill Clinton $750,000 for a single speech. The Clintons got their cash, the telecom company escaped sanctions.
  • Hillary Clinton’s State Department approved the transfer of 20% of America’s uranium holdings to Russia, while 9 investors in the deal funneled $145 million to the Clinton Foundation.
  • Hillary Clinton appointed a top donor to a national security board with top secret access – even though he had no national security credentials.
  • Hillary Clinton accepted $58,000 in jewelry from the government of Brunei when she was Secretary of State – plus millions more for her foundation. The Sultan of Brunei has pushed oppressive Sharia law, including the punishment of death by stoning for being gay. The government of Brunei also stands to be one of the biggest beneficiaries of Hillary’s Trans-Pacific Partnership, which she would absolutely approve if given the chance.
  • Hillary Clinton took up to $25 million from Saudi Arabia, where being gay is also punishable by death.
  • Hillary took millions from Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and many other countries that horribly abuse women and LGBT citizens.

To cover-up her corrupt dealings, Hillary Clinton illegally stashed her State Department emails on a private server.

Her server was easily hacked by foreign governments – perhaps even by her financial backers in Communist China – putting all of America in danger.

Then there are the 33,000 emails she deleted.

While we may not know what is in those deleted emails, our enemies probably do.

So they probably now have a blackmail file over someone who wants to be President of the United States.

This fact alone disqualifies her from the Presidency.

We can’t hand over our government to someone whose deepest, darkest secrets may be in the hands of our enemies.

 

National security is also immigration security –

and Hillary wants neither.

Hillary Clinton has put forward the most radical immigration platform in the history of the United States.

She has pledged to grant mass amnesty and in her first 100 days, end virtually all immigration enforcement, and thus create totally open borders in the United States

The first victims of her radical policies will be poor African-American and Hispanic workers who need jobs. They are the ones she will hurt the most.

Let me share with you a letter our campaign received from Mary Ann Mendoza.

She lost her amazing son, Police Sergeant Brandon Mendoza, after he was killed by an illegal immigrant because of the open borders policies supported by Hillary Clinton.

Sadly, the Mendoza family is just one of thousands who have suffered the same fate.

Here is an excerpt from Mrs. Mendoza’s letter:

“Hillary Clinton, who already has the blood of so many on her hands, is now announcing that she is willing to put each and every one of our lives in harms’ way – an open door policy to criminals and terrorists to enter our country. Hillary is not concerned about you or I, she is only concerned about the power the presidency would bring to her. She needs to go to prison to pay for the crimes she has already committed against this country.”

Hillary also wants to spend hundreds of billions to resettle Middle Eastern refugees in the United States, on top of the current record level of immigration.

For the amount of money Hillary Clinton would like to spend on refugees, we could rebuild every inner city in America.

Hillary’s Wall Street immigration agenda will keep immigrant communities poor, and unemployed Americans out of work. She can’t claim to care about African-American and Hispanic workers when she wants to bring in millions of new low-wage workers

to compete against them.

 

Here are a few things a Trump Administration will do for America in the first 100 days:

  •  Appoint judges who will uphold the Constitution. Hillary Clinton’s radical judges will virtually abolish the 2nd amendment.
  • Change immigration rules to give unemployed Americans an opportunity to fill good-paying jobs
  • Stand up to countries that cheat on trade, of which there are many
  • Cancel rules and regulations that send jobs overseas
  • Lift restrictions on energy production
  • Repeal and replace job-killing Obamacare — it is a disaster.
  • Pass massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs.
  • Impose tough new ethics rules to restore dignity to the Office of Secretary of State.

There is one common theme in all of these reforms.

It’s going to be America First.

 

This is why the stakes in November are so great.

On election day, the politicians stand trial before the people.

The voters are the jury. Their ballots are the verdict. We don’t need or want another Clinton or Obama.

Come November, the American people will have a chance to issue a verdict on the politicians that have sacrificed their security, betrayed their prosperity, and sold out

their country.

They will have a chance to vote for a new agenda with big dreams, bold ideas and enormous possibilities for the American people.

Hillary Clinton’s message is old and tired. Her message is that can’t change.

My message is that things have to change – and this is our one chance do it. This is our last chance to do it.

Americans are the people that tamed the West, that dug out the Panama Canal, that sent satellites across the solar system, that built the great dams, and so much more.

Then we started thinking small.

We stopped believing in what America could do, and became reliant on other countries, other people, and other institutions.

We lost our sense of purpose, and daring.

But that’s not who we are.

Come this November, we can bring America back – bigger and better, and stronger than ever.

We will build the greatest infrastructure on the planet earth – the roads and railways and airports of tomorrow.

Our military will have the best technology and finest equipment – we will bring it back all the way.

Massive new factories will come roaring into our country – breathing life and hope into our communities.

Inner cities, which have been horribly abused by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat Party, will finally be rebuilt.

Construction is what I know — nobody knows it better.

The real wages for our workers have not been raised for 18 years — but these wages will start going up, along with the new jobs. Hillary’s massive taxation, regulation and open borders will destroy jobs and drive down wages for everyone.

We are also going to be supporting our police and law enforcement — we can never forget the great job they do.

I am also going to appoint great Supreme Court Justices.

Our country is going to start working again.

People are going to start working again.

Parents are going to start dreaming big for their children again – including parents in our inner cities.

Americans are going to start believing in the future or our country.

We are going to make America rich again.

We are going to make America safe again.

We are going to make America Great Again – and Great Again For EVERYONE.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-on-the-stakes-of-the-election

“You can’t change Donald” – Longtime Trump…

Donald J. Trump: The Long Road to the White House (1980 – 2015)

Full Event: Donald Trump Rally in Dallas, TX (6-16-16)

 

Clinton ‘gets rich making you poor,’ Trump charges

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 694, June 7, 2016, Story 1: Trump Vs. Clinton and Obama — Trump’s Attack Pivot — Hillary and Bill Clinton and The Politics of Personal Enrichment — Corrupt To The Core — Hillary The Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) — Hillary CLIPPER Clinton — Pronk Prediction: Clinton Loses, Trump Wins, Obama Pardons — Videos

Posted on June 8, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Bombs, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Countries, Cruise Missiles, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Illegal Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, IRS, Labor Economics, Language, Middle East, Monetary Policy, News, Nuclear, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Tax Policy, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

Story 1: Trump Vs. Clinton and Obama — Trump’s Attack Pivot — Hillary and Bill Clinton and The Politics of Personal Enrichment — Corrupt To The Core — Hillary The Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist (CLIPPER) — Hillary CLIPPER Clinton — Pronk Prediction: Clinton Loses, Trump Wins, Obama Pardons — Videos

The Green Papers
2016 Presidential Primaries, Caucuses, and Conventions

Copyright www.flags.net/UNST.htm Republican Convention
Presidential Nominating Process
Debate –  Fox – Cleveland, Ohio: Thursday 6 August 2015
Debate – CNN – Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Simi Valley, California: Wednesday 16 September 2015
Debate – CNBC – Boulder, Colorado: Wednesday 28 October 2015
Debate – Fox Business News – Milwaukee, Wisconsin: Tuesday 10 November 2015
Debate – CNN – Las Vegas, Nevada: Tuesday 15 December 2015
Debate – Fox Business Channel, Charleston, South Carolina: Thursday 14 January 2016
Debate – Fox – Iowa: Thursday 28 January 2016
Debate – CBS – South Carolina: February 2016 (presumably)
Debate – NBC/Telemundo – Texas: Friday 26 February 2016
Debate – CNN – TBD: March 2016 (presumably)
Debate – Salt Lake City, Utah (announced 20 February 2016): Monday 21 March 2016
41st Republican National Convention: Monday 18 July – Thursday 21 July 2016
Republicans
Candidate Popular
Vote
Delegate Votes
Soft
Pledged
Soft
Unpledged
Soft
Total
Hard Total
Trump, Donald John, Sr. 13,441,060  44.23% 1,457  61.66% 80  73.39% 1,537  62.18% 1,441  58.29%
Cruz, Rafael Edward “Ted” 7,728,950  25.44% 553  23.40% 16  14.68% 569  23.02% 551  22.29%
Kasich, John Richard 4,200,855  13.82% 161   6.81% 3   2.75% 164   6.63% 161   6.51%
Rubio, Marco A. 3,513,387  11.56% 166   7.02%   166   6.72% 173   7.00%
Carson, Benjamin Solomon “Ben”, Sr. 825,240   2.72% 7   0.30%   7   0.28% 9   0.36%
Bush, John Ellis “Jeb” 286,342   0.94% 4   0.17%   4   0.16% 4   0.16%
Uncommitted 72,667   0.24% 12   0.51% 7   6.42% 19   0.77% 130   5.26%
Paul, Randal H. “Rand” 66,746   0.22% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04%
Christie, Christopher James “Chris” 57,572   0.19%        
Huckabee, Michael Dale “Mike” 51,391   0.17% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04%
Fiorina, Carleton Sneed “Carly” 40,513   0.13% 1   0.04%   1   0.04% 1   0.04%
(others) 33,962   0.11%        
Santorum, Richard John “Rick” 16,625   0.05%        
No Preference 16,590   0.05%        
Gilmore, James Stuart “Jim”, III 13,785   0.05%        
Graham, Lindsey Olin 5,663   0.02%        
Gray, Elizabeth 5,449   0.02%        
Others