The Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017, Story 1: Senate Majority Leader McConnell Commits To Passing Tax Reduction and Reform This Year Maybe — Best Efforts Only — Otherwise President Trump Will Run Against Congress in 2018 and Steve Bannon Will Find Candidates To Primary All Republicans Not on Trump Team — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Addresses 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas — Videos — Story 3: Prowling Pedophile Predator Pack —  Friends of Clinton, Epstein and Weinstein — War on Women By Dirty Deviant Democrats — Filthy Rich Too Big To Arrest? — Videos

Posted on October 16, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Assault, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Cartoons, Communications, Congress, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Elections, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, First Amendment, Former President Barack Obama, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Harvey Weinstein, Health, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Life, Lying, Media, National Interest, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 posted as soon as possible

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017 posted as soon as possible

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for trump and mcconnell in rose garden press conferenceImage result for values summit 2017Image result for Bill Clinton and harvey weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein

Image result for lJeffrey Epstein , bill clinton and harvey weinstein

Story 1: Senate Majority Leader McConnell Commits To Passing Tax Reduction and Reform This Year Maybe — Best Efforts Only — Otherwise President Trump Will Run Against Congress in 2018 and Steve Bannon Will Find Candidates To Primary All Republicans Not on Trump Team — — 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas –Videos — 

Image result for trump and mcconnell in rose garden press conference

Image result for steve bannon values summit 2017

Image result for president donald j. Trump values summit 2017

Trump Throws A Fit Because Democrats Won’t Destroy America

Donald Trump insults Mitch McConnell at press conference about taking money from lobbyists

BOOM! Mitch McConnell BLASTS Steve Bannon During Presser with Trump

Donald Trump Doubles Down On NFL Controversy After Hillary Clinton Tweet | TIME

President Trump CONFRONTED on his Press Conference with Mitch McConnell 10/16/2017

WATCH: President Trump Press Conference With Mitch McConnell 10/16/17

The Five 10/16/17 – The Five Fox News Today October 16, 2017 MITCH MCCONNELL, TRUMP PRESS CONFERENCE

 

Story 2: President Trump Addresses 2017 Values Summit — Merry Christmas — Videos —

Donald Trump at Values Voter Summit: We’re Saying MERRY CHRISTMAS Again!

President Trump Delivers Remarks to the 2017 Values Voter Summit

Kellyanne Conway Takes Questions at the Values Summit in Washington DC

PRESIDENT TRUMP SPEAKS AT VALUES VOTER SUMMIT 10/13/17 | Fox News October 13, 2017

Perkins: Trump hit all right notes at Values Voter Summit

Reaction To Trump At Values Voter Summit – Fox & Friends

Reverend William Barber On Values Voter Summit: ‘Greed And Not Grace’ | AM Joy | MSNBC

Bill Bennett with a Very Pro-Trump Speech. Value Voters Summit!

Laura Ingraham Speaks at the Values Summit in Washington DC.

Watch Phil Robertson Preach! Values Voters Summit

Dana Loesch Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Rep Mark Meadows Speech. Values Voters Summit

Lila Rose speaks at the 2017 Values Voter Summit

Steve Scalise Speech! Values Voters Summit!

Michele Bachmann! A Full on Sermon! Values Voters Summit!

Judge Roy Moore Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Sebastian Gorka Full Speech! Values Voter Summit

Steve Bannon Speaking at the Values Summit in Washington DC.

 

 

LIBERTY SCORECARD

List of A, B and C+ Scoring

Republican Senators Supporting Trump

 

 

 

 

GOP doesn’t have a clue — but Bannon does

Steve Bannon Hit List of Liberty Scorecard F Rated

Republican Senators Not Supporting Trump

MemberPartyStateLiberty Score®Years in DCNext ElectionPDF

Jeff Flake

Senator
Jeff Flake

AZ F 53% 2018

Dan Sullivan

Senator
Dan Sullivan

AKF 53% 2020

Pat Roberts

Senator
Pat Roberts

KS F 53% 20 2020

John Barrasso

Senator
John Barrasso

WY F 52% 2018

Todd Young

Senator
Todd Young

IN-F 50% 2022

Rob Portman

Senator
Rob Portman

OH F 49% 2022

Bill Cassidy

 

Senator
Bill Cassidy

LA F 47% 2020

Bob Corker

Senator
Bob Corker

TN F 47% 10 2018

John Thune

Senator
John Thune

SD F 44% 12 2022

Mitch McConnell

Senator
Mitch McConnell

KY F 42% 32 2020

Cory Gardner

Senator
Cory Gardner

CO F 42% 2020

Roy Blunt

Senator
Roy Blunt

MO F 41% 2022

John Cornyn

Senator
John Cornyn

TX F 40% 14 2020

Richard Burr

Senator
Richard Burr

NC F 40% 12 2022

Thom Tillis

Senator
Thom Tillis

NC F 37% 2020

Lindsey Graham

Senator
Lindsey Graham

SC F 33% 14 2020

John McCain

Senator
John McCain

AZ F 33% 30 2022

Mike Rounds

Senator
Mike Rounds

SD F 32% 2020

Shelley Capito

Senator
Shelley Capito

WV F 32% 16 2020

Orrin Hatch

Senator
Orrin Hatch

UT F 31% 40 2018

Johnny Isakson

Senator
Johnny Isakson

GA F 31% 12 2022

Roger Wicker

Senator
Roger Wicker

MS F 30% 2018

John Hoeven

Senator
John Hoeven

ND F 26% 2022

Thad Cochran

Senator
Thad Cochran

MS F 24% 38 2020

Lisa Murkowski

Senator
Lisa Murkowski

AK F 22% 14 2022

 

 

 

Trump White House fed up with the Senate

With tax cuts on the line, ‘We look at the Senate and go: ‘What the hell is going on?’” said White House budget director Mick Mulvaney.

President Donald Trump is pictured with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. | AP Photo
President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell held an unusual 40-minute unity press conference, intended to sooth a jittery party that’s watched Trump attack “Mitch M” for failing on health care reform. | Evan Vucci/AP Photo
President Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell stood side-by-side at the White House Monday afternoon to declare they’re “together totally” and “very united” heading into this fall’s tax reform battle.

But behind the scenes, Trump, his administration and even some senators are increasingly worried that taxes will go the way of Obamacare repeal in the Senate: Months of bickering ending in extreme embarrassment.

The debate hasn’t even started on the GOP’s plan, yet some senators are pushing their own tax proposals, while others are increasingly emboldened to defy the Republican president. It’s a dangerous mix considering that McConnell can only lose two votes assuming Democrats band together in opposition.

“We look at the Senate and go: ‘What the hell is going on?’” White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said in an interview Friday.

“The House passed health care, the House has already passed its budget, which is the first step of tax reform. The Senate hasn’t done any of that. Hell, the Senate can’t pass any of our confirmations,” Mulvaney fumed in an interview, slapping a table for emphasis. “You ask me if the Republican-controlled Senate is an impediment to the administration’s agenda: All I can tell you is so far, the answer’s yes.”

The revulsion for the Senate’s age-old traditions and byzantine procedure boiled over in public repeatedly on Monday. Trump complained in front of TV cameras that the Senate is “not getting the job done” and said he sees where Steve Bannon — his former chief strategist now planning to run primary challengers against incumbent Republican senators — “is coming from.”

And House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), when asked Monday to name the biggest impediment to tax reform, replied: “You ever heard of the United States Senate before?”

Shortly after, Trump and McConnell held an unusual 40-minute unity press conference, intended to sooth a jittery party that’s watched Trump attack “Mitch M” for failing on health care reform and McConnell assert that Trump had “excessive expectations” for Congress. Trump suggested he would try to get Bannon to back off on some of McConnell’s incumbents, and McConnell sought to keep the tax reform critics at bay after Trump said he wants it done this year.

“We’re gonna get this job done and the goal is to get it done by the end of the year,” McConnell said after lunching with the president. The meeting had been long-planned, but the impromptu press conference was Trump’s idea, two sources familiar with the event said.

McConnell is expected to hold a vote this week on the budget — a precondition for tax reform — and GOP aides expect it to pass. That will relieve some of the pressure on the chamber, which has been receiving flak nonstop from donors, House members and the president since the health care implosion this summer.

Administration officials are hoping that frustration produces enough pressure to force the Senate to pass tax reform. But already, there are signs of trouble.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is so skeptical that the Senate can enact the GOP’s tax framework that he’s begun pitching his own tax plans to colleagues. It would shift the burden of corporate taxes onto shareholders and allow individuals to opt out of the existing tax code and into a system without the confusing array of tax preferences and deductions that people can now choose.

It’s radically different from what congressional leaders and the president proposed. But Johnson said in an interview that leadership’s plan “is going to be very difficult to pass. We’ve already seen with the outline now, with the principles given, that’s going to be a challenge.”

“I don’t want to be a problem child here, but what I’m offering is a plan B,” Johnson added. “If they can’t get the votes … I’ve got an alternative.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas) brushed off any negativity about the Senate’s work, insisting that he never thought the party’s agenda is “off track.” But he said the sniping from Mulvaney and Ryan — and skepticism from some Republican senators about the prospects for tax reform — is not helpful.

“I don’t think that sort of thing is very constructive myself,” Cornyn said Monday.

The House is sure to labor to pass tax reform, too. Members from high-tax states are already rebelling against plans to gut the deduction for state and local taxes. But two White House officials said the most serious concerns are in the Senate.

“I was really not happy that this Congress couldn’t control its own members and get to a winning vote on health care,” said Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.). “This tax code is something we’ve got to do. We’ve got to do that this year. It’s a test of the Republican majority.”

But like with health care, the tax reform process is moving more slowly than many Republicans would like. There’s no bill yet, for starters. And White House officials have deliberately left some policy details vague because they’re unsure what it will take for various senators to get on board and want to leave their options open, one of these people said.

The White House officials expect a multitude of demands from Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) regarding the deficit, and from Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on middle-class tax cuts. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller, perhaps the most endangered Republican senator on the ballot next year, is expected to have his own asks.

Other moderate Republicans senators are expected to hold major sway as well, including Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Another wild card is Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who’s voted against past tax cuts and cast the decisive vote against Obamacare repeal.

“We’re expecting to have to make some deals here,” one official said.

Rattled that many senators are still on the fence, the Koch network encouraged their donors at a recent retreat to call Republican senators and push them to vote for tax reform. Vice President Mike Pence told donors at the Koch summit that they thought they could persuade Paul and that Trump planned to travel more to win wavering senators over.

And after working for months on an Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill that went nowhere, senators say they feel more urgency than they ever have on taxes.

“If you just stand there you get run over,” said Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.). “I don’t want to see what happened to us on health care happen to us on tax reform. Which is basically, we analyze it until we are paralyzed.”

If that happens again, Republicans are warning of dire consequences: Losing the House and possibly the Senate, and inviting a new wave of ire at incumbents. In an urgent plea over the weekend, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) even suggested on CBS’ “Face the Nation” that if the party can’t pass tax reform and repeal Obamacare within the next few months, “it will be the end of Mitch McConnell as we know it.”

People close to Trump said the White House isn’t there yet.

“We don’t get into leadership races down here,” Mulvaney said. But maybe, he suggested, the pressure on McConnell and “the Senate’s failure to pass health care might actually help us to get tax reform passed. Because I think they know they need to get something done.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/trump-senate-taxes-republicans-243839

 

Trump, McConnell: Republican tax plan could bleed into next year

Updated 

President Donald Trump on Monday raised the possibility that Republicans may fall short of their goal of rewriting the tax code by the end of this year.

“I would like to see it be done this year,” he told reporters. “But don’t forget it took years for the Reagan administration to get taxes done — I’ve been here for nine months.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, appearing alongside Trump at a White House news conference, also tamped down the bullish timeline laid out by some administration officials and congressional leaders.

“The goal is to get it done this calendar year, but it is important to remember that Obama signed Obamacare in March of year two [of his first term], Obama signed Dodd-Frank in July of year two,” McConnell said.

“We’re going to get this job done, and the goal is to get it done by the end of the year,” said McConnell.

Their comments are a rare acknowledgment by Republican leaders that their plans to rewrite the code may take longer than anticipated. They’re anxious to complete work on the code, their top legislative priority, by the close of this year, before next year’s midterm elections begin to loom. Last week, House Speaker Paul Ryan even raised the possibility of lawmakers working until this Christmas on a plan.

Speaking separately Monday in an interview with a Milwaukee-area radio station, Ryan was far more confident lawmakers would remain on schedule, predicting the House will pass its version of the plan within weeks.

“We’ll mark it up and pass it — so by early November, we’ll get it out of the House, we’ll send it to the Senate,” he told WTMJ. “The goal: Get law in December so that we wake up with New Year’s and a new tax code in 2018.”

Although Republicans have not yet released a detailed plan, they’ve already run into a number of hurdles, including objections by some blue-state Republicans that their plans to scrap a long-standing deduction for state and local taxes will mean tax hikes on their constituents. Republicans are now massaging those provisions.

In the Senate, lawmakers have signaled a willingness to go their own way on a number of issues, including how to tax corporations, whether to dump the estate tax and how much any plan should cost.

Republicans have also been stung by an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center showing the top 1 percent of earners would be the biggest winners under their proposal, which Republicans released in framework form last month.

“We are doing minor adjustments,” Trump told reporters. “We want to make sure that the middle class is the biggest beneficiary of the tax cuts.”

The next step for Republicans is agreeing on a budget, which will determine how much they can spend on their tax proposal. The Senate aims to approve this week its plan penciling in $1.5 trillion for tax cuts, which would have to be merged with a competing House proposal calling for a deficit-neutral tax rewrite as well as accompanying spending cuts.

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/16/trump-mcconnell-tax-plan-243833

Story 3: Prowling Pedophile Predator Pack —  Friends of Clinton, Epstein and Weinstein — War on Women By Dirty Deviant Democrats — Filthy Rich Too Big To Arrest? — Videos

Image result for BillJeffrey Epstein and harvey weinstein

Image result for lJeffrey Epstein , bill clinton and harvey weinstein

Hollywood sex scandal expands beyond Harvey Weinstein

SETH MACFARLANE AND FOUR HOLLYWOOD STARS WARNED US ABOUT HARVEY WEINSTEIN YEARS AGO

Courtney Love Warns About Harvey Weinstein In 2005 Video

Celebs who’ve called out Weinstein but aren’t so innocent themselves

Hollywood Was Quick To Attack Trump, But Matt Damon Protected Harvey Weinstein

To see Weinstein’s influence in Hollywood, look no further than the Oscars

Gutfeld: Hillary, Harvey and Hollywood

Tucker vs Hillary Adviser: Was She the Enabler For The Bill Clinton-Weiner-Weinstein Group?

Tucker Rips Hollywood, They Protected Harvey Weinstein for Years!

Mark Steyn: Clinton Democrats, Weinstein have much in common

Emma Thompson: Harvey Weinstein ‘top of harassment ladder’ – BBC Newsnight

Ann Coulter Talks Harvey Weinstein Scandal, Bob Corker

Harvey Weinstein May Not Go Down Alone — Money Trail Leads to Michael Moore and Quentin Tarantino

Rush Limbaugh 10/16/2017 | Leftists Try to Shift Blame from Harvey and Bill Clinton to Trump

#WoodyAllen Abandons What’s Left of His Perv-Skeevy Sense of Decency and Defends #HarveyWeinstein

Actress Jessica Barth on Her Encounter with Harvey Weinstein

Actress: Weinstein chased me around room naked

CNN Asks Why Are The Obamas Silent On Harvey Weinstein

Harvey Weinstein – Crackin’ Jokes Amidst Sexual Harassment Allegations | TMZ TV

Harvey Weinstein Accuser Describes Harrowing Encounter: He ‘Began Pleasuring Himself’

Gwyneth Paltrow and Angelina Jolie Say Harvey Weinstein Also Harassed Them | TMZ News

Gwyneth Paltrow and Dave on Harvey Weinstein, Late Show, November 25, 1998

Harvey Weinstein’s New Accuser: He Begged Me to Watch Him Masturbate at Sundance | TMZ

Rob Schneider Says He Was Sexually Harassed by Director, Harvey Weinstein’s Not Only One | TMZ

Jennifer Lawrence BLASTS Harvey Weinstein & More Stars Speak Out

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

What to know about Harvey Weinstein’s wife

Author James Patterson Investigates Jet-Setter/Sex-Offender Jeffrey Epstein – Crime Watch Daily

Jeffrey Epstein. The Lolita Express And The Pedophile Island

The bizarre case of Jeffrey Epstein / Sex scandal

Bill Clinton & Jeffrey Epstein: Politics + Sex Slave Connections

Bill Clinton and Jeffrey Epstein have a friendship that has caused speculation about pedophilia and sexual relationships that took place on Epstein’s island. After underage sex slaves were linked to Jeffrey Epstein, and with Epstein acting as a major donor to political campaigns of Democrats including Hillary Clinton, Conchita Sarnoff discusses her investigation into powerful and perverted influence at the highest levels , in this highlight from Buzzsaw hosted by Sean Stone.

Did South Park Expose The Epstein & Clinton Satanic Pedophile Cult

South Park: The Stick of Truth – Defeating a Pediphile

a warning from a few of the viewers about Steve Pieczenik

Who is Dr Steve Pieczenik? (Mini documentary)

The Clinton Pedophilia Connection

R 1313 – Dr Steve Pieczenik – Hillary Clinton May FACE CHARGES in Pedophilia Ring

The Pieczenik Crap is a Distraction from Actual Scandal

Donald Trump exposes Bill Clinton’s trips with Jeffrey Epstein’s “Pedophile Island”

LOOK AT BILL CLINTON’S FACE as TRUMP Lays Down The Truth About Bill’s Sexual Assaults to Many Women

 

British actress becomes fifth woman to accuse Weinstein of rape

No caption

British actress Lysette Anthony has told police that Harvey Weinstein raped her, the Sunday Times reported, becoming the fifth woman to level such accusations against the disgraced Hollywood mogul.

The 54-year-old actress, who currently appears in British soap Hollyoaks, told Metropolitan Police last week that she had originally met Weinstein in New York, and agreed to meet him later at his rented house in London, according to the paper.

“The next thing I knew he was half undressed and he grabbed me. It was the last thing I expected and I fled,” she told the Times.

Anthony, who appeared in Woody Allen’s 1992 film “Husbands and Wives”, said that Weinstein then began stalking her, turning up unannounced at her house.

“He pushed me inside and rammed me against the coat rack,” she said of the attack in the 1980s. “He was trying to kiss me and shove inside me. Finally I just gave up.”

Harvey Weinstein faces another rape claim

Harvey Weinstein faces another rape claim

Weinstein has denied all allegations of nonconsensual sex.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences expelled Weinstein on Saturday amid mounting accusations of sexual harassment, assault and rape.

An avalanche of claims have surfaced since the publication last week of an explosive New York Times report alleging a history of abusive behaviour by Weinstein dating back decades.

The producer’s wife, English fashion designer Georgina Chapman, has said she plans to divorce him.

Weinstein’s films have received more than 300 Oscar nominations and 81 statuettes, according to The Weinstein Company, which he co-founded after selling Miramax.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-4981326/British-actress-fifth-women-accuse-Weinstein-rape.html

 

High-Powered Sex Abusers: Too Big To Fail

CONCHITA SARNOFF

Executive Director, Alliance to Rescue Victims of Trafficking

Abuse of power, influence peddling, non-disclosure agreements, sexual favors, pay offs, terrified victims, and the inability to control sexual urges that stem from the dark side of man, all seem to be a running theme in the distinct cases of Hollywood’s, Harvey Weinstein and Wall Street’s infamous hedge fund manager, Jeffrey Epstein.

Both men–exceptionally intelligent, rich, respected marketing geniuses and armed with powerful friends and political allies such as the Clinton’s, seem to be above the law irrespective of their legal wrongdoings.  Yes, the violations committed by Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Epstein are different.  Mr. Weinstein has never been accused of sexually violating a minor unlike Mr. Epstein.  Epstein pled guilty to two counts of Solicitation of Prostitution with a Minor, in 2007, after a two-year federal investigation was shut down.  Mr. Epstein also has 2 pending cases in New York and Florida, twelve years after the criminal case closed.

Anyone who enjoys history knows that it tends to repeat itself.  In fact, it is exhaustively documented that some absolute monarchs and modern day dictators, given all power to rule, have all but declared themselves gods.  Three in particular come to mind— Emperor Caligula, nee Gaius Augustus Germanicus who ruled over the 3rd Roman Empire, Napoleon Bonaparte, the 19th Century’s Emperor of the French, and Adolf Hitler, Germany’s 20th Century, demonic ruler.

In 1887, British historian and moralist First Baron John Emerich Edward Acton, coined the phrase when expressing his opinion to Bishop Mandell Creighton about “Great men are always bad men.” He went on to explain, “Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  Perhaps Lord Acton was on to something.  The question to ask in 21st Century America is:  How can corporations, Civil Society, and the Department of Justice help curtail productive, powerful, successful executives and marketing geniuses such as Messrs. Weinstein and Epstein from harming young people in vulnerable positions?   Since two categories of laws exist, federal and state, should more legislation be enacted–by federal and state legislators–to protect the most vulnerable populations, men and women, in the United States?

Mr. Weinstein’s act of contrition seemed believable and resolute when he gave his public statement last week concerning his misconduct.  In a statement to The New York Times he said, “I came of age in the 60s and 70s, when all the rules about behavior and workplaces were different. That was the culture then.  I have since learned it’s not an excuse, in the office—or out of it. To anyone.   I realized some time ago that I needed to be a better person and my interactions with the people I work with have changed.  I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.”

In contrast to Mr. Weinstein’s public repentance and honesty, Jeffrey Epstein has never apologized for his actions.  On the contrary, when asked by a New York Post reporter in 2011 about serving time for solicitation with a minor, Epstein was not the least bit remorseful.

Mr. Epstein told the reporter, “I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an offender.  It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.”  This statement was in spite of him being advised to sign a Non- Prosecution Agreement. He pled guilty to 2 counts of prostitution with a minor ad served 13 months in a state jail followed by 18 months under house arrest, In Palm Beach.  When he was released he traveled to New York where he maintains a vast residence in Manhattan. He was forced to register as a sexual offender and designated a level 3. Level 3 is the highest risk category that poses a threat to public safety. Two dozen victims trafficked for sex testified against Mr. Epstein and his principal procurers.  Yet he still believes he is not a predator.  Perhaps Mr. Epstein does not understand that sexually abusing a child usually destroys the child’s psyche forever? Perhaps it does not concern Mr. Epstein to be identified as a registered sex offender, level 3?  After all, money begets power which most always precipitates forgiveness.

Last week in a surprising act of departure, The New York Times called on Mr. Weinstein to, “release women from any non-disclosure agreements.”

Should the news organization follow the same course of action and request Mr. Epstein release his victims from any non-disclosure agreements? In Epstein’s case, thousands of court files detailing the egregiousness of the sexual abuse cases have been heavily redacted and mostly sealed to the media and public.  Court files containing important evidence and hundreds of depositions given by victims and law enforcement remain under seal.  After all, Mr. Epstein’s cases represent far more egregious crimes against dozens of women than Mr. Weinstein’s case has thus far. Crimes committed by Mr. Epstein against dozens of underage victims, some as young as 12, that scarred them permanently.

According to the New York Times report, several striking similarities between the two cases show that in proper mogul fashion, Messrs. Weinstein and Epstein paid off dozens of allegations of sexual harassment for years before their cases were brought to light.  Both hired the best and brightest attorneys to represent them.

It’s interesting to note the difference in style of the principal attorneys representing each mogul.  One of Mr. Epstein’s lead attorneys was former Harvard University law professor, Alan Dershowitz.  Mr. Dershowitz was a close friend and lead attorney. In 2014, Mr. Dershowitz was accused by one of the victim’s, Virginia Louise Roberts, of sexual molestation when she was a minor.

In Mr. Weinstein’s case, the recent resignation of his Los Angeles attorney, Ms. Lisa Bloom, an outspoken and respected feminist and Ms. Gloria Allred’s daughter, left a lot to the imagination. No doubt the truth–in its entirety–will surface eventually.

Two more attorneys represent Mr. Weinstein. Charles Harder and New York’s, David Boies, continue to work on the case.  Mr. Boies, coincidentally, recently represented Virginia Louise Roberts-Giuffre.  The same victim who accused Mr. Dershowitz of sexually molesting her as a minor. Mr. Boies took on the defamation case Virginia Louise Giuffre vs. Ghislaine Maxwell, pro bono, in September 2015.

Ms. Roberts-Giuffre accused Ms. Maxwell, Mr. Epstein’s former companion, of multiple felonies including child sex trafficking.  Mr. Boies managed to settle the defamation case against Ms. Maxwell for an undisclosed amount at the eleventh hour just before the 2016 presidential elections.  Ms. Maxwell was identified as the principal procurer in dozens of court files.

Unlike the two victims, Virginia Louise Roberts-Giuffre and Lauren O’Connor, who inculpated Mr. Weinstein of sexual harassment, there are countless unknown victims of sexual abuse and harassment who refuse to come forward given the challenges women confront when testifying against rich and powerful sexual predators.  An accurate description of this dilemma was described in Ms. O’Connor’s memo, “I am a 28-year-old woman trying to make a living and a career. Harvey Weinstein is a 64-year-old, world famous man and this is his company. The balance of power is me: 0, Harvey Weinstein: 10.”

It is not surprising that so many victims prefer silence over the indignity, public shame of disclosure, unbalanced wheels of power and justice, and unremitting obstacles brought forth during a sexual crime investigation.  All of these daunting elements deter many victims, men and women, from ‘blowing the whistle.’  When it comes to the rich and famous, the powerful adage still holds: “The rich can get away with murder.”   While Mr. Weinstein was disgraced when he was let go by the Weinstein’s Company Board, on account of the sexual harassment charges, Mr. Epstein did not suffer any professional damage or humiliation.  Mr. Epstein continues to trade and invest his client’s money on Wall Street and other markets, his assets–domestic and off-shore–remain unfrozen, and he walks the streets freely, without any consequences and short of the $5 million dollars he had to pay three victims for restitution last month.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/10/12/high-powered-sex-abusers-too-big-to-fail/

The ‘sex slave’ scandal that exposed pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein

Modal TriggerThe ‘sex slave’ scandal that exposed pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein

In 2005, the world was introduced to reclusive billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, friend to princes and an American president, a power broker with the darkest of secrets: He was also a pedophile, accused of recruiting dozens of underage girls into a sex-slave network, buying their silence and moving along, although he has been convicted of only one count of soliciting prostitution from a minor. Visitors to his private Caribbean island, known as “Orgy Island,” have included Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew and Stephen Hawking.

According to a 2011 court filing by alleged Epstein victim Virginia Roberts Giuffre, she saw Clinton and Prince Andrew on the island but never saw the former president do anything improper. Giuffre has accused Prince Andrew of having sex with her when she was a minor, a charge Buckingham Palace denies.

“Epstein lives less than one mile away from me in Palm Beach,” author James Patterson tells The Post. In the 11 years since Epstein was investigated and charged by the Palm Beach police department, ultimately copping a plea and serving 13 months on one charge of soliciting prostitution from a 14-year-old girl, Patterson has remained obsessed with the case.

“He’s a fascinating character to read about,” Patterson says. “What is he thinking? Who is he?”

Patterson’s new book, “Filthy Rich: A Powerful Billionaire, the Sex Scandal That Undid Him, and All the Justice That Money Can Buy,” is an attempt to answer such questions. Co-authored with John Connolly and Tim Malloy, the book contains detailed police interviews with girls who alleged sexual abuse by Epstein and others in his circle. Giuffre alleged that Epstein’s ex-girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, daughter of the late media tycoon Robert Maxwell, abused her. Ghislaine Maxwell has denied allegations of enabling abuse.

Epstein has spent the bulk of his adult life cultivating relationships with the world’s most powerful men. Flight logs show that from 2001 to 2003, Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s private plane, dubbed “The Lolita Express” by the press, 26 times. After Epstein’s arrest in July 2006, federal tax records show Epstein donated $25,000 to the Clinton Foundation that year.

Bill Clinton in 1994.AP

Epstein was also a regular visitor to Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago, and the two were friends. According to the Daily Mail, Trump was a frequent dinner guest at Epstein’s home, which was often full of barely dressed models. In 2003, New York magazine reported that Trump also attended a dinner party at Epstein’s honoring Bill Clinton.

Last year, The Guardian reported that Epstein’s “little black book” contained contact numbers for A-listers including Tony Blair, Naomi Campbell, Dustin Hoffman, Michael Bloomberg and Richard Branson.

In a 2006 court filing, Palm Beach police noted that a search of Epstein’s home uncovered two hidden cameras. The Mirror reported that in 2015, a 6-year-old civil lawsuit filed by “Jane Doe No. 3,” believed to be the now-married Giuffre, alleged that Epstein wired his mansion with hidden cameras, secretly recording orgies involving his prominent friends and underage girls. The ultimate purpose: blackmail, according to court papers.

Britain’s Prince Andrew in 2012AP

“Jane Doe No. 3” also alleged that she had been forced to have sex with “numerous prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders.”

“We uncovered a lot of details about the police investigation and a lot about the girls, what happened to them, the effect on their lives,” Patterson says.

“The reader has to ask: Was justice done here or not?”

Epstein, now 63, has always been something of an international man of mystery. Born in Brooklyn, he had a middle-class upbringing: His father worked for the Parks Department, and his parents stressed hard work and education.

‘We uncovered a lot of details about the police investigation and a lot about the girls, what happened to them, the effect on their lives.’

 – James Patterson

Epstein was brilliant, skipping two grades and graduating Lafayette High School in 1969. He attended Cooper Union but dropped out in 1971 and by 1973 was teaching calculus and physics at Dalton, where he tutored the son of a Bear Stearns exec. Soon, Epstein applied his facility with numbers on Wall Street but left Bear Stearns under a cloud in 1981. He formed his own business, J. Epstein & Co.

The bar for entry at the new firm was high. According to a 2002 profile in New York magazine, Epstein only took on clients who turned over $1 billion, at minimum, for him to manage. Clients also had to pay a flat fee and sign power of attorney over to Epstein, allowing him to do whatever he saw fit with their money.

Still, no one knew exactly what Epstein did, or how he was able to amass a personal billion-dollar-plus fortune. In addition to a block-long, nine-story mansion on Manhattan’s Upper East Side, Epstein owns the $6.8 million mansion in Palm Beach, an $18 million property in New Mexico, the 70-acre private Caribbean island, a helicopter, a Gulfstream IV and a Boeing 727.

“My belief is that Jeff maintains some sort of money-management firm, though you won’t get a straight answer from him,” one high-level investor told New York magazine. “He once told me he had 300 people working for him, and I’ve also heard that he manages Rockefeller money. But one never knows. It’s like looking at the Wizard of Oz — there may be less there than meets the eye.”

Jeffrey Epstein’s Palm Beach homeSplash News

“He’s very enigmatic,” Rosa Monckton told Vanity Fair in 2003. Monckton was the former British CEO of Tiffany & Co. and confidante to the late Princess Diana. She was also a close friend of Epstein’s since the 1980s. “He never reveals his hand . . . He’s a classic iceberg. What you see is not what you get.”

Both profiles intimated that Epstein had a predilection for young women but never went further. In the New York magazine piece, Trump said Epstein’s self-professed image as a loner, an egghead and a teetotaler was not wholly accurate.

Donald Trump in 1990AP

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years,” Trump said. “Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

Three years after that profile ran, Palm Beach Police Officer Michele Pagan got a disturbing message. A woman reported that her 14-year-old stepdaughter confided to a friend that she’d had sex with an older man for money. The man’s name was Jeff, and he lived in a mansion on a cul-de-sac.

Pagan persuaded the woman to bring her stepdaughter down to be interviewed. In his book, Patterson calls the girl Mary. And Mary, like so many of the other girls who eventually talked, came from the little-known working-class areas surrounding Palm Beach.

A friend of a friend, Mary said, told her she could make hundreds of dollars in one hour, just for massaging some middle-aged guy’s feet. Lots of other girls had been doing it, some three times a week.

Mary claimed she had been driven to the mansion on El Brillo Way, where a female staffer escorted her up a pink-carpeted staircase, then into a room with a massage table, an armoire topped with sex toys and a photo of a little girl pulling her underwear off.

Ghislaine MaxwellGetty Images

Epstein entered the room, wearing only a towel, Mary said.

“He took off the towel,” Mary told Pagan. “He was a really built guy. But his wee-wee was very tiny.”

Mary said Epstein got on the table and barked orders at her. She told police she was alone in the room with him, terrified.

Pagan wrote the following in her incident report:

“She removed her pants, leaving her thong panties on. She straddled his back, whereby her exposed buttocks were touching Epstein’s exposed buttocks. Epstein then turned to his side and started to rub his penis in an up-and-down motion. Epstein pulled out a purple vibrator and began to massage Mary’s vaginal area.”

Palm Beach assigned six more detectives to the investigation. They conducted a “trash pull” of Epstein’s garbage, sifting through paper with phone numbers, used condoms, toothbrushes, worn underwear. In one pull, police found a piece of paper with Mary’s phone number on it, along with the number of the person who recruited her.

On Sept. 11, 2005, detectives got another break. Alison, as she’s called in the book, told Detective Joe Recarey that she had been going to Epstein’s house since she was 16. Alison had been working at the Wellington Green Mall, saving up for a trip to Maine, when a friend told her, “You can get a plane ticket in two hours . . . We can go give this guy a massage and he’ll pay $200,” according to her statement to the police.

Alison told Recarey that she visited Epstein hundreds of times. She said he had bought her a new 2005 Dodge Neon, plane tickets, and gave her spending money. Alison said he even asked her to emancipate from her parents so she could live with him full-time as his “sex slave.”

She said Epstein slowly escalated his sexual requests, and despite Alison’s insistence that they never have intercourse, alleged, “This one time . . . he bent me over the table and put himself in me. Without my permission.”

Alison then asked if what Epstein had done to her was rape and spoke of her abject fear of him.

An abridged version of her witness statement, as recounted in the book:

Alison: Before I say anything else . . . um, is there a possibility that I’m gonna have to go to court or anything?
Recarey: I mean, what he did to you is a crime. I’m not gonna lie to you.
Alison: Would you consider it rape, what he did?
Recarey: If he put himself inside you without permission . . . That, that is a crime. That is a crime.
Alison: I don’t want my family to find out about this . . . ’Cause Jeffrey’s gonna get me. You guys realize that, right? . . . I’m not safe now. I’m not safe.
Recarey: Why do you say you’re not safe? Has he said he’s hurt people before?
Alison: Well, I’ve heard him make threats to people on the telephone, yeah. Of course.
Recarey: You’re gonna die? You’re gonna break your legs? Or —
Alison: All of the above!

Alison also told Recarey that Epstein got so violent with her that he ripped out her hair and threw her around. “I mean,” she said, “there’s been nights that I walked out of there barely able to walk, um, from him being so rough.”

Two months later, Recarey interviewed Epstein’s former house manager of 11 years, documented in his probable-cause affidavit as Mr. Alessi. “Alessi stated Epstein receives three massages a day . . . towards the end of his employment, the masseuses . . . appeared to be 16 or 17 years of age at the most . . . [Alessi] would have to wash off a massager/vibrator and a long rubber penis, which were in the sink after the massage.”

Another house manager, Alfredo Rodriguez, told Recarey that very young girls were giving Epstein massages at least twice a day, and in one instance, Epstein had Rodriguez deliver one dozen roses to Mary, at her high school.

In May 2006, the Palm Beach Police Department filed a probable-cause affidavit, asking prosecutors to charge Epstein with four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor — a second-degree felony — and one count of lewd and lascivious molestation of a 14-year-old minor, also a second-degree felony.

Today, Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, albeit one who routinely settles civil lawsuits against him, brought by young women, out of court.

Palm Beach prosecutors said the evidence was weak, and after presenting the case to a grand jury, Epstein was charged with only one count of felony solicitation of prostitution. In 2008, he pleaded guilty and nominally served 13 months of an 18-month sentence in a county jail: Epstein spent one day a week there, the other six out on “work release.”

Today, Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, albeit one who routinely settles civil lawsuits against him, brought by young women, out of court. As of 2015, Epstein had settled multiple such cases.

Giuffre has sued Ghislaine Maxwell in Manhattan federal court, charging defamation — saying Maxwell stated Giuffre lied about Maxwell’s recruitment of her and other underage girls. Epstein has been called upon to testify in court this month, on Oct. 20.

The true number of Epstein’s victims may never be known.

He will be a registered sex offender for the rest of his life, not that it fazes him.

“I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender,’ ” Epstein told The Post in 2011. “It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.”

http://nypost.com/2016/10/09/the-sex-slave-scandal-that-exposed-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epstein/

Bill Clinton & Jeffrey Epstein: Politics + Sex Slave Connections

The Billionaire Pedophile Who Could Bring Down Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton

Billionaire sicko Jeffrey Epstein was long thought to be ammo against the Clintons—until a lurid new lawsuit accused Trump of raping one of Epstein’s girls himself.

For Jeffrey Epstein and his famous friends, the Aughts were a simpler time, when the businessmen, academics, and celebrities who counted themselves among the playboy philanthropist’s inner circle could freely enjoy the fruits of his extreme wealth and connections.

Epstein’s little black book and flight logs read like a virtual Who’s Who: Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Larry Summers, Kevin Spacey, Prince Andrew, and Naomi Campbell all hitched rides on Epstein’s private planes. Socialites and distinguished scientists went to visit Epstein’s island in St. Thomas, and cavorted at epic dinner parties at his palatial townhouse—then the largest privately owned residence in New York, as he liked to brag. There, they picked at elaborate meals catered by celebrity chefs like Rocco DiSpirito, marvelled at Epstein’s opulent decor, and noted the pack of very, very young model-types with whom Epstein always seemed to surround himself.

But a darker story was going on underneath the glamour. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting sex from an underage girl and quietly paid settlements to scores of alleged victims who said he serially molested them. But the girls kept coming out of the woodwork—in 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as a sex slave for his powerful friends—and that she’d been at parties on his private island with former President Clinton.

And just last week, yet another “Jane Doe” filed a suit in New York accusing Epstein and Donald Trump of raping her at a series of sex parties when she was only 13.

Trump has denied Jane Doe’s claims and his reps have said he barely knew Epstein—even though New York media in the ’90s regularly chronicled his comings-and-goings at Epstein’s Upper East Side palace, and even though Epstein had 14 private numbers for Trump and his family in his little black book. Meanwhile, Bill and Hillary Clinton have remained mum about their ties to the Palm Beach pedophile—despite evidence that shows Bill was one of the most famous and frequent passengers on Epstein’s “Lolita Express” and that Epstein donated money to the Clinton Foundation even after his conviction.

For months, talking heads have wondered whether Trump would use Epstein and his girls as a weapon against Bill and Hillary Clinton.

Less than a year before Florida police began investigating Jeffrey Epstein for the alleged rape and abuse of scores of young girls, the questionable billionaire responded to a call on Edge—an online club where navel-gazing intellectuals and academics meet to pose questions to one another—for a “bit of wisdom, some rule of nature… that you’ve noticed in the universe that might as well be named after you.”

“Epstein’s First Law,” he wrote, “Know when you are winning.”

“Epstein’s Second Law: The key question is not what can I gain but what do I have to lose.”

What the 63-year-old Ralph Lauren lookalike had to lose was his perverted double life. According to law-enforcement officials and alleged victims, between the years 1998 and 2007—and possibly even earlier—he ran a particularly vile pyramid scheme that involved paying minors around $200 at a time to perform sexual massages nearly every day and then recruit even younger girls to do the same. (“The more you do, the more you are paid,” one said.) During these massages, girls as young as 13 told police they were instructed to get undressed. Epstein would masturbate or penetrate them, they said—with his finger, or a vibrator, or his allegedly egg-shaped penis.

By the time Epstein was arrested in 2008, police in Palm Beach County, Florida, had already spent months monitoring his movements, rifling through his trash, and interviewing potential victims and witnesses. Police reported to prosecutors that they had gathered enough evidence to charge the money manager with several felonies: lewd and lascivious molestation and four counts of unlawful sexual activity with a minor. Epstein’s freedom, his wealth, his little black book full of famous folk—including princes, presidents, and prime ministers—all were seemingly at stake.

So Epstein did what the mega-rich do in these situations: hired star attorneys Gerald Lefcourt and Alan Dershowitz, who defended their client vigorously, reportedly having witnesses followed and discrediting the alleged victims by offering their MySpace pages as evidence of supposed drug use and scandalous behavior.

Prosecutors said Epstein’s dream team made successful prosecution unlikely. “Our judgment in this case, based on the evidence known at the time, was that it was better to have a billionaire serve time in jail, register as a sex offender, and pay his victims restitution than risk a trial with a reduced likelihood of success,” U.S. Attorney Alex Acosta explained in a 2011 letter.

And so, despite a decade of alleged serial sexual abuse and rape of an unknowable number of girls, some as many as 100 times according to court filings, the notoriously secretive financier was offered a deal. For the alleged systematic victimization of young girls—most of whom were plucked by Epstein’s assistants from Palm Beach’s poorer neighborhoods and groomed to adore or acquiesce to him—he was slapped with a 2008 conviction on a single charge of soliciting a minor; and sentenced to an 18-month stay in a Palm Beach county jail—of which he served only 13 months and was allowed to leave six days out of every week for “work release.” He also agreed to a few dozen confidential, out-of-court payoffs to his accusers, the most recent of which was finalized in 2011.

Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators,” as the U.S. Attorney called them—women who allegedly procured girls for Epstein—also received immunity from prosecution as a condition of the 2007 agreement that enraged the local police force for its leniency. As of 2015, according to The Guardian, two of these women had changed their names, and were operating businesses out of a building owned by Epstein’s brother, where it was alleged in court documents that Epstein had housed young women.

Though Epstein must register as a sex offender for life, and arguably suffer the world’s most revolting Google presence, he has seemingly retained his collection of elite academic and media friends as well as his fortune. Since his release in 2009, Epstein has gone about his business, running a mysterious money management firm (clients unknown, income unknown, investments and activities unknown) from his private 70-acre island in the U.S. Virgin Islands and spending time at his Uptown stone mansion. The palace was gifted to Epstein, some say, by its previous owner—Epstein’s guardian angel and the founder of The Limited Inc., Leslie Wexner.

From his plush perch, Epstein continues to dismiss any notions that he should be viewed as the child rapist that victims and Florida police say he is.

“I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an ‘offender,’” he told the New York Post in 2011, shortly after a New York judge classified him as a level 3 offender, or “a threat to public safety.”

“It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel,” Epstein said.

But for the wealthy and famous in Epstein’s orbit, his conviction has meant suspicion by association.

In December 2014, just as the Palm Beach lawsuits were winding down, another alleged victim emerged and her claims were salacious: Epstein, she said, had loaned her out as an underage sex slave to his famous friends—including Britain’s Prince Andrew and Epstein defense attorney Dershowitz (both men denied the charges). Coming forward in Britain’s Daily Mail in 2011, Virginia Roberts Guiffre—called Jane Doe #3 in a related lawsuit (PDF)—claimed that Epstein and his “girlfriend,” alleged madame Ghislaine Maxwell, forced her to have sex with the pair’s powerful pals and gather intel that Epstein could later use. In court documents, Guiffre testified, “Epstein and Maxwell also told me that they wanted me to produce things for them in addition to performing sex on the men. They told me to pay attention to the details about what the men wanted so I could report back to them.”

Guiffre noted that Epstein appeared to be collecting information on Prince Andrew—particularly on his alleged foot fetish—and claimed, “Epstein also trafficked me for sexual purposes to other powerful men, including politicians and powerful business executives. Epstein required me to describe the sexual events I had with these men presumably so that he could potentially blackmail them. I am still very fearful of these men today.”

A judge threw out Guiffre’s motion in 2015, but Guiffre stands by her claims and is suing Ghislaine Maxwell, whom she claims acted as Epstein’s madam.

Meanwhile, the men named by Guiffre seem eager for her to go away. “It’s as if I’ve been waterboarded for 15 months,” Dershowitz told the Boston Globeafter the settlement of a defamation case related to Guiffre’s claims. “This has taken a terrible toll on my family, on my friends…” Buckingham Palace has also denied the allegations against Prince Andrew, calling them “categorically untrue.”

UPDATE: This April, Giuffre’s lawyers withdrew her allegations against Dershowitz and said that it was a “mistake” to have filed the accusations in the first place. A federal judge later struck her allegations against Dershowitz from the court record. At Dershowitz’s request, Louis Freeh, the former head of the FBI, also conducted an independent investigation of her claims and published a statement noting, “Our investigation found no evidence to support the accusations of sexual misconduct against Professor Dershowitz.”

In her lawsuit, Guiffre had claimed that during trips to Epstein’s private island, she’d also encountered another very famous person: former President Bill Clinton. Guiffre alleges the former U.S. president visited Epstein’s “Orgy Island” when there were underage girls present, but added that she never had sex with him and never saw him have sex with any of the young women.

Still, it’s these sorts of allegations that have journalists and Clinton-haters circling. Just last month, pundits on MSNBC’s Morning Joe were speculating about Bill Clinton’s oft-discussed friendship with Epstein and whether it would be the go-to play for a Trump campaign looking to combat Hillary Clinton’s claims that Trump is bad for women.

Requests for comment to Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the Clinton Foundation were not returned.

The former president, who flew on the “The Lolita Express”at least 26 timesfrom 2001 to 2003, has never addressed his ties with Epstein, a onetime major Democratic donor, according to Federal Election Commission records, who also gave millions to the Clinton Foundation even after his arrest for abusing underage girls. “I invest in people—be it politics or science. It’s what I do,” Epstein has reportedly said to friends.

“There’s a 100 percent chance [Trump] is going there,” said former McCain strategist Steve Schmidt on Morning Joe, referring to Clinton’s friendship with the pervy moneyman.

***

Still, Trump may not want to actually “go there” in light of the new federal lawsuit against him.

Just last week, Trump’s own connections to Epstein made headlines when a Jane Doe claimed that the presumptive Republican nominee and his financier pal raped her on several occasions when she was 13 years old.

The allegations are explosive. And the circumstances surrounding them are very, very strange.

According to the complaint, filed in a Manhattan federal court, one of Epstein’s assistants approached Jane Doe as she waited for a bus at the New York Port Authority terminal and offered the teenager money and contacts that could lead to a modeling contract if she came to a party at Epstein’s house. Jane Doe says she attended several parties at Epstein’s Upper East Side mansion, and supposedly had sexual contact with Donald Trump at four of them. The fourth and final time she attended a party with Trump, she alleges he tied her to a bed with pantyhose, raped her, then beat her and threatened to kill her and her family if she told a soul.

This is the second time the woman has brought a suit against Trump and Epstein. The first, which she filed herself this April in California using the name Katie Johnson, was dismissed for failure to bring a claim under the civil-rights law under which she had filed suit. Calls to the phone number listed on the original suit were never answered, with no way to leave a voicemail. The plaintiff’s reported address in Twentynine Palms was a one-bedroom, one-bath home belonging to 72-year-old David Stacey, who had died on Oct. 9, and public records show no evidence of a Katie Johnson living at the property. Neighbors told RadarOnline that squatters had overrun the home while Stacey was hospitalized, and a real-estate agent reported the home had been turned over to the bank by April.

“The allegations are not only categorically false, but disgusting at the highest level and clearly framed to solicit media attention or, perhaps, are simply politically motivated,” Trump told RadarOnline, responding to the original lawsuit. “There is absolutely no merit to these allegations. Period.”

The new complaint charges that Trump’s denial amounts to defamation. This time, Johnson also has a declaration from a woman who claims to be a corroborating witness, known in the suit as Tiffany Doe. According to her statement, Tiffany was 22 when she lured Johnson to Epstein’s home and witnessed Johnson’s alleged rape firsthand.

Johnson has a number of non-anonymous supporters, though it’s a cast of characters who do little to allay Trump’s assertion that her claim was brought solely to influence the election.

According to a lengthy article on the site Jezebel, some eight months before Johnson filed her California lawsuit against Epstein and Trump, a man named Al Taylor—who claimed to be the “PR person” for something called the Erotic Heritage Museum in Las Vegas—reached out to a reporter at Gawker to shop a video recording of Johnson and her rape story. Taylor, who identified himself to The Daily Beast as “a friend” to Johnson, claims to have met her at a party where she revealed her alleged childhood assault by Trump. In a video published in part on Jezebel, a woman claiming to be Katie Johnson appears—wearing a blond wig, her face pixelated and her voice disguised. In it, she details the allegations of rape.

When The Daily Beast asked Taylor for a copy of the video, Taylor suggested it was still for sale. “I heard it would be worth $1 million,” Taylor said, claiming the proceeds from the sale would go to Johnson’s protection.

“We’ve got her in hiding,” he said.

Taylor has coincidentally been the subject of Epstein-related news before. In 2011, Taylor, at first freelance producing for The Jerry Springer Show then working alone, claimed to have made a million-dollar deal with Casey Anthony for an interview after the Florida woman’s acquittal in the murder of her 2-year-old daughter. When the interview didn’t happen, Taylor retained the services of Spencer Kuvin, a Palm Beach lawyer who also represented three Epstein victims. Taylor says he met Kuvin during an attempt to interview his Epstein clients. They settled with Epstein out of court and declined to be interviewed by Taylor.

But Taylor wasn’t the only party working to get the tape and Katie Johnson’s story to the media. According to Jezebel, Steve Baer, described in National Review as “a conservative activist and major, if secretive, donor to the conservative movement,” lobbied their reporter to publish Johnson’s claims. Baer is also, according to Jezebel, the father of Chandler Smith, an Ohio woman who happens to be the co-founder of an organization called Vote Trump Get Dumped, a campaign that urges ladies to withhold sex from Trump supporters. “Until Trump is defeated, we don’t date, sleep with, or canoodle with Trump supporters,” the group’s manifesto reads.

When Johnson’s case was thrown out in California, Taylor says he began looking for an attorney to file a new case for his “friend.” They approached Brad Edwards, the lawyer who has represented a number of Epstein victims through settlements—and who is now representing Virginia Roberts Guiffre in her claim against Epstein’s former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell as well as four alleged victims in the case against the federal government.

“I will say I’ve never represented [Johnson] and I won’t be representing her,” Edwards told The Daily Beast.

Edwards couldn’t comment on the conversations he had with Johnson or her representatives, citing attorney-client privilege. Concerning Trump’s involvement in Epstein’s illicit affairs, Edwards said he hadn’t seen any evidence that would implicate the GOP nominee and described Trump as “extremely helpful and honest,” during questioning.

When Edwards declined to take the case, Taylor told the website GossipExtrathey were shopping for representation. That’s how Johnson’s current attorney, Tom Meagher, says he found his client.

Meagher is a patent attorney in New Jersey who openly admits, “I’ve never taken on accusations like this,” but says he was drawn to Johnson’s story and believes her “100 percent.” In an effort to get media attention for Johnson’s case, Meagher attended a May fundraiser in Lawrenceville, New Jersey—thrown to pay off the debt incurred by Chris Christie’s failed presidential campaign, and one at which Donald Trump spoke. Described as “a protester” by a local reporter, Meagher confirms he was removed by security after holding up a sign that read: “Ask Trump About Katie Johnson.”

“I don’t have a view on the race,” Meagher now tells The Daily Beast. “I did before the matter, but now I’m apolitical so I can focus on my client.”

Concerning the timing of the lawsuit, Meagher says: “Of course, she does not want her rapist to be president.”

Despite several requests, The Daily Beast was not able to speak with Katie Johnson or Tiffany Doe. When asked whether any evidence of their claims existed outside of the Doe declarations, Taylor said Tiffany kept a journal of Epstein contacts. “She has all the goods,” Taylor said, but would not elaborate and said future names would only be released in response to a scandal on par with Donald Trump’s political ascent.

But Mike Fisten, a retired Miami-Dade homicide detective who worked as a private investigator in several Epstein-related cases, is skeptical about the new claims.

Fisten says Epstein had in effect two lives: “a business life and deviant pedphile life.” To find out which friends were involved in which life, Fisten carried a book with photos of Epstein’s contacts. In hundreds of interviews with hundreds of witnesses, he said no one has ever identified Trump as being involved in any kind of sexual activity with underage girls. In fact, Fisten recalls learning in the early 2000s that members of Trump’s private Palm Beach club, Mar-a-Lago, complained that Epstein was often accompanied by very young girls–“a different girl every week”—each of whom he would refer to as “his niece.” Fisten says he offered to look at Tiffany Doe’s book to vet her free of charge, but Taylor and Meagher declined.

Emails to the Trump Organization and the campaign for this story were not returned, but Trump’s attorney Alan Garten has repeatedly denied any relationship between his client and Epstein, other than Epstein’s Mar-a-Lago membership.

Still, it’s clear that Trump’s association with Epstein runs deeper than just pool days at Mar-a-Lago.

“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years,” Trump told New York Magazine in 2002. Calling him a “terrific guy,” Trump continued, “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it—Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

According to a 2003 profile in Vanity Fair and New York gossip rags that covered the goings-on of Epstein and his famous friends in the late ’90s, Trump would attend dinner parties at the 71st Street mansion. In April 1999, The Mail spotted Trump among the guests at a dinner Epstein threw in honor of Prince Andrew. In 2000, they reported he attended a “hookers and pimps” Halloween party. New York magazine reported Trump’s attendance at a 2003 dinner party thrown in honor of Bill Clinton. Magician David Blaine entertained the “barely clad models” with card tricks, but Clinton never appeared.

“I often see Donald Trump and there are loads of models coming and going, mostly at night,” a neighbor told The Mail on Sunday in 2000.

Then there is the black book, in which Epstein lists 14 phone numbers for Trump, including ones for his future wife Melania. Police evidence shows Trump has called Epstein, flown on Epstein’s plane, and eaten in Epstein’s Florida home.

Garten did not return a request for comment on these connections.

“Mr. Trump’s only connection with Mr. Epstein was that Mr. Epstein was one of thousands of people who has visited Mar-a-Lago,” the Trump attorney told a BuzzFeed reporter in 2015. “That’s it. Mr. Trump has NEVER been accused of having any involvement or even having any knowledge of any of Mr. Epstein’s conduct by anyone.”

That was true until last week. And while the media has been hesitant to report on Katie Johnson’s accusations, stories have emerged in recent days in outlets like the New York Daily News and Gothamist and more may be in the works: Johnson’s attorney says he taped an interview with ABC News and sources spoken to for this story said they had been contacted by other national news organizations.

Johnson will likely have her day in court, but—perhaps ironically, given Trump’s habit of “just asking” about conspiracy theories while claiming he’s not endorsing them—the veracity of her claims may not matter. True or not, they bring to light a number of disturbing questions about Epstein and his pre-Palm Beach days—ones both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will likely have to address.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-billionaire-pedophile-who-could-bring-down-donald-trump-and-hillary-clinton

Harvey Weinstein

Harvey WeinsteinCBE (born March 19, 1952) is an American film producer and former film studio executive. He and his brother Bob Weinstein co-founded Miramax, which produced several popular independent filmsincluding Pulp FictionClerksThe Crying Game, and Sex, Lies, and Videotape.[1] Harvey won an Academy Award for producing Shakespeare in Love, and garnered seven Tony Awards for producing a variety of winning plays and musicals, including The ProducersBilly Elliot the Musical, and August: Osage County.[2]

Weinstein and his brother Bob were co-chairmen of The Weinstein Company from 2005 to 2017. In October 2017, following numerous allegations of sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape against him, Harvey Weinstein was fired by his company’s board of directors,[3] and expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.[4]

Education and early career

Weinstein was born in the Flushing section of the New York City borough of Queens,[5] to a Jewish family.[6] His parents were Max Weinstein, a diamond cutter,[7] and Miriam (née Postel).[7][8] He grew up with his younger brother, Bob Weinstein, in a housing co-op named Electchester in New York City. He graduated from John Bowne High School and the University at Buffalo,[9][10] and received an honorarySUNYDoctorate of Humane Lettersin a ceremony at Buffalo in 2000.[11] Weinstein, his brother Bob, and Corky Burger independently produced rock concerts as Harvey & Corky Productions in Buffalo through most of the 1970s.[9][12]

Film career

1970s: Early work and creation of Miramax

Both Weinstein brothers had grown up with a passion for movies, and they nurtured a desire to enter the film industry. In the late 1970s, using profits from their concert promotion business, the brothers created a small independent film distribution company named Miramax, named after their parents, Miriam and Max.[8] The company’s first releases were primarily music-oriented concert films such as Paul McCartney‘s Rockshow.[13]

1980s: Success with arthouse and independent films

In the early 1980s, Miramax acquired the rights to two British films of benefit shows filmed for the human rights organization Amnesty International. Working closely with Martin Lewis, the producer of the original films, the Weinstein brothers edited the two films into one movie tailored for the American market. The resulting film was released as The Secret Policeman’s Other Ball in May 1982, and it became Miramax’s first hit. The movie raised considerable sums for Amnesty International and was credited by Amnesty with having helped to raise its profile in the United States.[9][12]

Weinstein at the 2002 Cannes Film Festival

The Weinsteins slowly built upon this success throughout the 1980s with arthouse films that achieved critical attention and modest commercial success. Harvey Weinstein and Miramax gained wider attention in 1988 with the release of Errol Morris‘ documentary The Thin Blue Line, which detailed the struggle of Randall Adams, a wrongfully convicted inmate sentenced to death row. The publicity that soon surrounded the case resulted in Adams’ release and nationwide publicity for Miramax. In 1989, their successful launch release of Steven Soderbergh‘s Sex, Lies, and Videotape propelled Miramax to become the most successful independent studio in America.[14]

Also in 1989, Miramax released two arthouse films, The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover, and director Pedro Almodóvar‘s film Tie Me Up! Tie Me Down!, both of which the MPAArating board gave an X-rating, effectively stopping nationwide release for these films. Weinstein sued the MPAA over the rating system. His lawsuit was later thrown out, but the MPAA introduced the NC-17 rating two months later.[15]

1990s–2000s: Further success, Disney ownership deal

Miramax continued to grow its library of films and directors until, in 1993, after the success of The Crying GameDisney offered the Weinsteins $80 million for ownership of Miramax.[16] The brothers agreed to the deal that would cement their Hollywood clout and ensure that they would remain at the head of their company, and the next year Miramax released their first blockbuster, Quentin Tarantino‘s Pulp Fiction, and distributed the popular independent film Clerks.

Miramax won its first Academy Award for Best Picture in 1997 with the victory of The English Patient. (Pulp Fiction was nominated in 1995 but lost to Forrest Gump).[17] This started a string of critical successes that included Good Will Hunting(1997) and Shakespeare in Love (1998), both of which won several awards, including numerous Academy Awards.[18][19][20][21]

2005–2017: The Weinstein Company

Weinstein in 2010

The Weinstein brothers left Miramax on September 30, 2005 to form their own production company, The Weinstein Company, with several other media executives, directors Quentin Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez, and Colin Vaines, who had successfully run the production department at Miramax for ten years.[22] In February 2011, filmmaker Michael Moore took legal action against the Weinstein brothers, claiming he was owed $2.7 million in profits for his documentary Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004), which he said had been denied to him by “Hollywood accounting tricks”.[23] In February 2012, Moore dropped the lawsuit for an undisclosed settlement.[24]

Managerial style and controversies

While lauded for opening up the independent film market and making it financially viable, Weinstein has been criticized by some for the techniques he has allegedly applied in his business dealings. Peter Biskind‘s book Down and Dirty Pictures: Miramax, Sundance and the Rise of Independent Film[9] details criticism of Miramax’s release history and editing of Asian films, such as Shaolin SoccerHero, and Princess Mononoke. There is a rumor that when Harvey Weinstein was charged with handling the U.S. release of Princess Mononoke, director Hayao Miyazaki sent him a samurai sword in the mail. Attached to the blade was a stark message: “No cuts.” Miyazaki commented on the incident: “Actually, my producer did that. Although I did go to New York to meet this man, this Harvey Weinstein, and I was bombarded with this aggressive attack, all these demands for cuts. I defeated him.”[25] Weinstein has always insisted that such editing was done in the interest of creating the most financially viable film. “I’m not cutting for fun,” Harvey Weinstein said in an interview. “I’m cutting for the shit to work. All my life I served one master: the film. I love movies.”[12][26]

Another example cited by Biskind was Phillip Noyce‘s The Quiet American (2002), whose release Weinstein delayed following the September 11 attacks owing to audience reaction in test screenings to the film’s critical tone towards America’s past foreign policy. After being told the film would go straight to video, Noyce planned to screen the film in Toronto International Film Festival in order to mobilize critics to pressure Miramax to release it theatrically. Weinstein decided to screen the film at the Festival only after he was lobbied by star Michael Caine, who threatened to boycott publicity for another film he had made for Miramax. The Quiet American received mostly positive reviews at the festival, and Miramax eventually released the film theatrically, but it was alleged that Miramax did not make a major effort to promote the film for Academy Award consideration, though Caine was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actor.[9]

Weinstein has also cultivated a reputation for ruthlessness and fits of anger. According to Biskind, Weinstein once put a New York Observer reporter in a headlock while throwing him out of a party. On another occasion, Weinstein excoriated director Julie Taymor and her husband during a disagreement over a test screening of her movie Frida.[12]

In a 2004 newspaper article, in New York magazine, Weinstein appeared somewhat repentant for his often aggressive discussions with directors and producers.[27] However, a Newsweek story on October 13, 2008, criticized Weinstein, who was accused of “hassling Sydney Pollack on his deathbed” about the release of the film The Reader. After Weinstein offered $1 million to charity if the accusation could be proven, journalist Nikki Finke published an email sent by Scott Rudin on August 22 asserting that Weinstein “harassed” Anthony Minghella‘s widow and a bedridden Pollack until Pollack’s family asked him to stop.[28][29]

In September 2009, Weinstein publicly voiced opposition to efforts to extradite Roman Polanski from Switzerland to the U.S. regarding a 1977 charge that he had drugged and raped a 13-year-old, to which Polanski had pleaded guilty before fleeing the country.[30] Weinstein, whose company had distributed a film about the Polanski case, questioned whether Polanski committed any crime,[31] prompting Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley to insist that Polanski’s guilty plea indicated that his action was a crime, and that several other serious charges were pending.[32]

In Oscar acceptance speeches since 1966, Weinstein was thanked a total of 34 times by actors and actresses – just as many times as God, and second only to Steven Spielberg with 43 mentions.[33]

Activism

Weinstein has been active on issues such as poverty, AIDSjuvenile diabetes, and multiple sclerosis research. He serves on the Board of the Robin Hood Foundation, a New York City-based non-profit that targets poverty, and co-chaired one of its annual benefits.[34] He is critical of the lack of gun control laws and universal health care in the United States.[35]

Weinstein is a longtime supporter and contributor to the Democratic Party including the campaigns of President Barack Obama and presidential candidates Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry.[36] He supported Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign,[37] and in 2012, he hosted an election fundraiser for President Obama at his home in Westport, Connecticut.[38]

Sexual assault allegations

In October 2017, The New York Times[39][40] and The New Yorker[3] reported that more than a dozen women accused Weinstein of sexually harassing, assaulting, or raping them. Many other women in the film industry subsequently reported similar experiences with Weinstein,[41] who denied any non-consensual sex. As a result of these accusations, Weinstein was fired from his production company[42], expelled from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,[4] his wife Georgina Chapman left him,[43] and leading figures in politics whom he had supported denounced him.[44]

On October 8, 2017, The Weinstein Company’s board fired Harvey Weinstein, following numerous allegations of his sexual misconduct.[45]

On October 12, 2017 Hachette Book Group dropped the imprint for Weinstein Books. [46]

Personal life

Weinstein has been married twice. In 1987, he married his assistant Eve Chilton. They divorced in 2004.[27][47] They had three children: Remy (previously Lily) (born 1995), Emma (born 1998), and Ruth (born 2002).[48] In 2007, he married English fashion designer and actress Georgina Chapman.[49] They have a daughter, India Pearl (born 2010),[50] and a son, Dashiell[51] (born 2013).[52]

Honors

On April 19, 2004, Weinstein was appointed an honorary Commander of the Order of the British Empire in recognition of his contributions to the British film industry. The award is “honorary” because Weinstein is not a citizen of a Commonwealth country.[53]

On March 2, 2012, Weinstein was made a knight of the French Legion of Honour, in recognition of Miramax’s efforts to increase the presence and popularity of foreign films in the United States.[54]

Selected filmography

Television.svgThis film, television or video-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it with reliably sourced additions.

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

Jeffrey Epstein

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jeffrey Epstein
Jeffrey Epstein at Harvard University.jpg

Epstein at Harvard University
Born Jeffrey Edward Epstein
January 20, 1953 (age 64)
BrooklynNew YorkU.S.
Residence Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands
Palm Beach, Florida
New York City
Nationality American
Citizenship United States
Occupation Financier
Owner, Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation

Jeffrey Edward Epstein (born January 20, 1953) is an American financier and registeredsex offender in the United States.[1] He worked at Bear Stearns early in his career and then formed his own firm, J. Epstein & Co. In 2008, Epstein was convicted of soliciting an underage girl for prostitution, for which he served 13 months in prison.[2] He lives in the US Virgin Islands.

Early life

Epstein was born in Brooklyn, New York, to a middle-class Jewish family. His father worked for New York City’s parks.[3]

Epstein attended Lafayette High School. He attended classes at Cooper Union from 1969 to 1971 and later at the Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences at NYU. He left without a degree.[citation needed]

Career

Epstein taught calculus and physics at the Dalton School in Manhattan from 1973 to 1975.[4] Among his students was a son of Alan C. Greenberg, chairman of Bear Stearns.[3]

In 1976, Epstein started work as an options trader at Bear Stearns,[4] where he worked in the special products division, advising high-net-worth clients on tax strategies.[4] Proving successful in his financial career, in 1980 Epstein became a partner at Bear Stearns.[4]

In 1982, Epstein founded his own financial management firm, J. Epstein & Co., managing the assets of clients with more than $1 billion in net worth. In 1987, Leslie Wexner, founder and chairman of Ohio-based The Limited chain of women’s clothing stores, became a well-known client.[4] Wexner acquired Abercrombie & Fitch the following year. In 1992 he converted a private school on the Upper East Side into an enormous residence. Epstein later bought that property, in the wealthiest part of Manhattan. In 1996, Epstein changed the name of his firm to the Financial Trust Company and, for tax advantages, based it on the island of St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands.[4]

In 2003, Epstein bid to acquire New York magazine. Other bidders were advertising executive Donny Deutsch, investor Nelson Peltzmedia mogul and publisher Mortimer Zuckerman, who had the New York Daily News, and film producer Harvey Weinstein. They were ultimately outbid by Bruce Wasserstein, a longtime Wall Street investor, who paid $55 million.[5]

In 2004, Epstein and Zuckerman committed up to $25 million to finance Radar, a celebrity and pop culture magazine founded by Maer Roshan. Epstein and Zuckerman were equal partners in the venture. Roshan, as its editor-in-chief, retained a small ownership stake.[6]

Residences

Epstein’s New York home is reputedly the largest private residence in Manhattan;[7] it was originally built as the Birch Wathen School. The 50,000-square-foot (4,600 m2), 9-story mansion is just off Fifth Avenue and overlooks the Frick Collection. The financier’s other properties include a villa in Palm Beach, Florida; an apartment in Paris; a 10,000-acre ranch with a hilltop mansion in Stanley, New Mexico;[8][9] and a private island near St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands called Little Saint James that includes a mansion and guest houses.

Science philanthropy

In 2000 he established the Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation, which funds science research and education. Prior to 2003, Epstein’s foundation funded Martin Nowak’s research at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey. In May 2003, Epstein established the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard University with a $30 million gift to the university.[10] Under the direction of Martin Nowak, the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is a graduate department that studies the evolution of molecular biology with the use of mathematics, focusing on diseases such as cancer, HIV and other viruses.[4][11]

The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation has also funded genetic research leading towards advances in such fields as Alzheimer’s disease, multiple sclerosis, ovarian cancer, breast cancer, colitis and Crohn’s disease. Epstein has given funds to the American Cancer Society, for projects such as circulating tumor cell technology, a blood test to identify genetic mutations to anti-inhibitor cancer drugs.[12]

Through such philanthropy, Epstein has associated with many well-known scientific figures, such as Gerald EdelmanMurray Gell-MannStephen HawkingKip ThorneLawrence KraussLee Smolin and Gregory Benford.[4][13][14] In 2006, Epstein’s foundations sponsored a conference on St. Thomas in the U.S. Virgin Islands with Hawking, Krauss, and Nobel laureates Gerard ‘t HooftDavid Gross and Frank Wilczek, covering such topics as unified gravity theory, neuroscience, the origins of language and global threats to the Earth.[14]

The Jeffrey Epstein VI Foundation has backed research into artificial intelligence; it had been supporting Marvin Minsky at MIT (until his death) and is supporting Ben Goertzel in Hong Kong.[15][16]

The extent of Epstein’s claimed philanthropy is unknown. This foundation fails to disclose information which other charities routinely disclose. Concerns have been raised over this lack of transparency, and in 2015 the New York Attorney General has reported as trying to get information.[17]

Criminal proceedings

In March 2005, a woman contacted Palm Beach, Florida police and alleged that her 14-year-old stepdaughter had been taken to Jeffrey Epstein’s mansion by an older girl. There she was paid $300 to strip and massage Epstein.[9] She had undressed, but left the encounter wearing her underwear.[18]

Police started an 11-month undercover investigation of Epstein, followed by a search of his home. The FBI also became involved in the investigation.[7] Subsequently, the police alleged that Epstein had paid several escorts to perform sexual acts on him. Interviews with five alleged victims and 17 witnesses under oath, a high school transcript, and other items they found in Epstein’s trash and home allegedly showed that some of the girls involved were under 18.[19] The police search of Epstein’s home found large numbers of photos of girls throughout the house, some of whom the police had interviewed in the course of their investigation.[18]

The International Business Times reported that papers filed in a 2006 lawsuit alleged that Epstein installed concealed cameras in numerous places on his property to record sexual activity with underage girls by prominent people for criminal purposes such as blackmail.[20]Epstein allegedly “loaned” girls to powerful people to ingratiate himself with them and also to gain possible blackmail information.[7] In 2015, evidence came to light that one of the powerful men at Epstein’s mansion may have been Prince Andrew of the UK.[7]

A former employee told the police that Epstein would receive massages three times a day.[18] Eventually the FBI received accounts from about 40 girls whose allegations of molestation by Epstein included overlapping details.[7]

The Guardian said, “Despite this, the US government eventually agreed to allow Epstein to plead guilty to just one count of soliciting prostitution from an underage girl under Florida state law. … Epstein agreed not to contest civil claims brought by the 40 women identified by the FBI, but escaped a prosecution that could have seen him jailed for the rest of his life. … Prosecutors agreed not to bring far more serious federal charges against Epstein, and not to charge “potential co-conspirators”, including four named individuals.”[7]

In May 2006, Palm Beach police filed a probable cause affidavit saying that Epstein should be charged with four counts of unlawful sex with minors and one molestation count.[18]

His team of defense lawyers included Gerald LefcourtAlan Dershowitz and later Ken Starr.[9] Epstein passed a polygraph test in which he was asked whether he knew of the underage status of the girls.[21]

After the federal government agreed to charging Epstein on one count under state law, the prosecution convened a grand jury. Former chief of Palm Beach police Michael Reiter later wrote to State Attorney Barry Krischer to complain of the state’s “highly unusual” conduct and asked him to remove himself from the case.[9] The grand jury returned a single charge of felony solicitation of prostitution,[22] to which Epstein pleaded not guilty in August 2006.[23]

Sentencing

In June 2008, after Epstein pleaded guilty to a single state charge of soliciting prostitution from girls as young as 14,[24] he was sentenced to 18 months in prison. He served 13 months before being released. At release, he was registered in New York State as a level three (high risk of re-offense) sex offender, a lifelong designation.[25][26]

Reactions

After the accusations became public, several persons and institutions returned donations which they had received from Epstein, including Eliot SpitzerBill Richardson,[11] and the Palm Beach Police Department.[19]Harvard University announced that it would not return any money.[11] Various charitable donations that Epstein had made to finance children’s education were also questioned.[24]

On June 18, 2010, Epstein’s former house manager, Alfredo Rodriguez, was sentenced to 18 months incarceration after being convicted on an obstruction charge for failing to turn over to police, and subsequently trying to sell, a journal in which he had recorded Epstein’s activities. FBI Special Agent Christina Pryor reviewed the material and agreed it was information “that would have been extremely useful in investigating and prosecuting the case, including names and contact information of material witnesses and additional victims”.[27][28]

Suit against federal government re: plea deal

In a separate case, on April 7, 2015, Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the allegations made by Virginia Roberts against Prince Andrew had no bearing on a current (and longrunning) lawsuit by alleged victims seeking to reopen Epstein’s non-prosecution plea agreement with the federal government; he ordered it to be struck from the record.[29] There was an effort to add Roberts and another woman as plaintiffs to that case. Judge Marra made no ruling as to whether claims by Roberts are true or false.[30] Marra specifically said that Roberts may later give evidence when the case comes to court.[31]

Civil proceedings

On February 6, 2008, an anonymous Virginia woman filed a $50 million civil lawsuit[32] in federal court against Epstein, alleging that when she was a 16-year-old minor in 2004–2005, she was “recruited to give Epstein a massage”. She claims she was taken to his mansion, where he exposed himself and had sexual intercourse with her, and paid her $200 immediately afterward.[22] A similar $50 million suit was filed in March 2008 by a different woman, who was represented by the same lawyer.[33] These and several similar lawsuits were dismissed. [34]

All other lawsuits were settled by Epstein out of court.[35] Epstein has made many out-of-court settlements with alleged victims and, as of January 2015, some cases remain open.[34]

A December 30, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by the Department of Justice’s agreement to Epstein’s limited 2008 plea; the suit also accuses Alan Dershowitz of sexually abusing a minor provided by Epstein.[36] (See Two Jane Does v. United States.) The allegations against Dershowitz were stricken by the judge and eliminated from the case because he said they were outside the intent of the suit to re-open the plea agreement.[29][37] A document filed in court alleges that Epstein ran a “sexual abuse ring”, and lent underage girls to “prominent American politicians, powerful business executives, foreign presidents, a well-known prime minister, and other world leaders”.[38]

Another woman, identified by the pseudonym “Katie Johnson”,[39] filed a lawsuit in California federal court on April 26, 2016, accusing Epstein and real estate businessman Donald Trump (now President of the United States) of raping her in 1994, when she was 13 years old.[40][41][42] At the time of filing, Trump was campaigning to become the Republican Party candidate for the office of U.S. President. Judges Ronnie Abrams and James C. Francis IV presided over the case against Epstein and Trump.[43]

The suit, which Johnson had filed without counsel, was dismissed on technical grounds after the court determined that the address listed for “Katie Johnson” was a foreclosed abandoned home whose resident had died and the provided telephone contact information was also not a functioning contact.[40] The woman (now using the pseudonym “Jane Doe”) filed a new lawsuit in June 2016, this time in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. She excluded some of her previous accusations, such as that Trump threw money for an abortion at her and that he called Epstein a “Jew bastard”.[44]

Following a delay caused by the accuser failing to show that the defendants had been served with formal notice of the suit,[45] the suit was voluntarily dismissed on September 16.[46] The woman’s lawyer said she would re-file the lawsuit and would provide an additional witness to substantiate the claims.[47]

On September 30, 2016, the woman re-filed the lawsuit in New York, with an additional witness identified by the pseudonym “Joan Doe”.[48][49] There was no further information available on the allegations outside the claims made anonymously by the two women. They were not made available for contact by the press.[40] Civil rights lawyer and legal analyst Lisa Bloom wrote in a June 2016 blog post for the Huffington Post that the claims by the anonymous individuals were credible enough to warrant further investigation.[42] Journalist Jon Swaine reported in The Guardian in July 2016 that the “Katie Johnson” lawsuits appeared to be orchestrated by Norm Lubow, a former producer on The Jerry Springer Show. He described Lubow as “an eccentric anti-Trump campaigner with a record of making outlandish claims about celebrities”.[50]

The woman failed to appear at a press conference announced by her attorneys, saying she was fearful because of threats. She granted an interview to The Daily Mail together with Bloom (whom the Daily Mail identified as her lawyer) and permitted photographs. Soon after that, the woman dropped her lawsuit against Epstein and Trump on November 4, 2016.[39][51][52] The Daily Mail said their reporters were aware of the woman’s identity but were honoring her request to protect her privacy and not release her name. Her attorneys said the woman dropped her suit out of fear, based on having received “numerous threats” against her life.[39]

Virginia Roberts lawsuits

In January 2015, a 31-year-old American woman, Virginia Roberts, alleged in a sworn affidavit that at the age of 17, she had been held as a sex slave by Epstein. She further alleged that he had trafficked her to several people, including Prince Andrew and Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz. Roberts also claimed that Epstein and others had physically and sexually abused her.[53]

Rogers alleged that the FBI may have been involved in a cover-up.[54] She said she had served as Epstein’s sex slave from 1999 to 2002 and had recruited other under-age girls.[55] Prince Andrew, Epstein and Dershowitz all denied having had sex with Roberts. Dershowitz took legal action over the allegations.[56][57][58] A diary purported to belong to Roberts was published online.[59][60] Epstein made a settlement with Roberts out of court, as he did in several other lawsuits.[7]

The BBC television series Panorama planned an investigation of the scandal.[61] As of 2016 these claims had not been tested in any law court.[62]

Personal life

In September 2002, Epstein flew Bill ClintonKevin Spacey and Chris Tucker to Africa in his private Boeing 727.[4][63]

Epstein is also a longtime friend of Prince Andrew, Duke of York, and has partied with celebrities such as Katie CouricGeorge StephanopoulosCharlie Rose, and Woody Allen.[64]

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

Steve Pieczenik

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Steve R. Pieczenik
Born December 7, 1943 (age 73)
HavanaCuba
Occupation Author, publisher, civil servant, psychiatrist
Nationality American
Genre Militaryspy
Website
http://www.stevepieczenik.com/

 

Steve R. Pieczenik (/pəˈɛnɪk/; born December 7, 1943) is an American science fiction writer, former United States Department of State official, psychiatrist, and publisher.

Early life and education

Pieczenik was born in Cuba of Jewish parents from Russia and Poland and was raised in France.[1] His father, a doctor from Dombrovicz who studied and worked in Toulouse, France,[2] fled Poland before World War II. His mother, a Russian Jew from Białystok, Poland,[2]fled Europe after many of her family members were killed. The couple met in Portugal, where both had fled ahead of the Nazi invaders.[2] Pieczenik was born in Cuba in 1943.[2][3] After living in Toulouse for six years, Pieczenik’s family migrated to the United States, where they settled in the Harlem area[2] of New York CityNew York.[4] Steve Pieczenik was 8 years old when his parents received their entry visa to the United States.[2]

Pieczenik is a classical pianist and wrote a full-length musical at the age of 8.[3]

Pieczenik is a Harvard University-trained psychiatrist and has a doctorate in international relations from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[2]

Pieczenik’s autobiography notes that he attended Booker T. Washington High School in the Harlem neighborhood of New York City. Pieczenik received a full scholarship to Cornell University at the age of 16.[2] According to Pieczenik, he received a BA degree in Pre-Medicine and Psychology from Cornell in 1964, and later attended Cornell University Medical College. He attained his PhD in international relations from MIT while studying at Harvard Medical School.[3] Pieczenik claims to be the first psychiatrist ever to receive a PhD focusing on international relations.[4]

While performing his psychiatry residency at Harvard, he was awarded the Harry E. Solomon award for his paper titled: “The hierarchy of ego-defense mechanisms in foreign policy decision making”.[2]

An article written by Pieczenik, “Psychological dimensions of international dependency”, appears in the American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol 132(4), Apr 1975, 428-431.[5]

Professional life

Pieczenik was Deputy Assistant Secretary of State under Henry KissingerCyrus Vance and James Baker.[2] His expertise includes foreign policy, international crisis management and psychological warfare.[6] He served the presidential administrations of Gerald FordJimmy CarterRonald Reagan and George H. W. Bush in the capacity of deputy assistant secretary.[7]

In 1974, Pieczenik joined the United States Department of State as a consultant to help in the restructuring of its Office for the Prevention of Terrorism.[1]

In 1976, Pieczenik was made Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for management.[1][4][8][9]

At the Department of State, he served as a “specialist on hostage taking”.[10] He has been credited with devising successful negotiating strategies and tactics used in several high-profile hostage situations, including the 1976 TWA Flight 355 hostage situation and the 1977 kidnapping of the son of Cyprus’ president.[1] He was involved in negotiations for the release of Aldo Moro after Moro was kidnapped.[11] As a renowned psychiatrist, he was utilized as a press source for early information on the mental state of the hostages involved in the Iran hostage crisis after they were freed.[12] In 1977, Pulitzer Prize–winning journalist Mary McGrory described Stephen Pieczenik as “one of the most ‘brilliantly competent’ men in the field of terrorism”.[13] He worked “side by side” with Police Chief Maurice J. Cullinane in the Washington, D.C. command center of Mayor Walter Washington during the 1977 Hanafi Siege.[14] In 1978, Pieczenik was known as “a psychiatrist and political scientist in the U.S. Department of State whose credentials and experiences are probably unique among officials handling terrorist situations”.[1]

On September 17, 1978 the Camp David Accords were signed. Pieczenik was at the secret Camp David negotiations leading up to the signing of the Accords. He worked out strategy and tactics based on psychopolitical dynamics. He correctly predicted that given their common backgrounds, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin would get along.[2]

In 1979, he resigned as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State over the handling of the Iranian hostage crisis.[3]

In the early 1980s, Pieczenik wrote an article for The Washington Post in which he claimed to have heard a senior U.S. official in the Department of State Operations Center give permission for the attack that led to the death of U.S. Ambassador Adolph Dubs in Kabul, Afghanistan, in 1979.[15]

Pieczenik got to know Syrian President Hafez al-Assad well during his 20 years in the Department of State.[2]

In 1982, Pieczenik was mentioned in an article in The New York Times as “a psychiatrist who has treated C.I.A. employees”.[16]

In 2001, Pieczenik operated as chief executive officer of Strategic Intelligence Associates, a consulting firm.[17]

Pieczenik has been affiliated in a professional capacity as a psychiatrist with the National Institute of Mental Health.[18]

Pieczenik has consulted with the United States Institute of Peace and the RAND Corporation.[19]

Pieczenik began mentorship of Drew Paul, founder of Blabor.com.[20] Blabor.com is now the production company responsible for Pieczenik’s web and media releases.[21][22]

As recently as October 6, 2012, Pieczenik was listed as a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).[23] According to Internet Archive, his name was removed from the CFR roster sometime between October 6 and November 18, 2012.[24] Publicly, Pieczenik no longer appears as a member of the CFR.[25]

Pieczenik is fluent in five languages, including Russian, Spanish and French.[1][2][3]

Pieczenik has lectured at the National Defense University.[6]

Writing ventures

Pieczenik has made a number of ventures into fiction, as an author (of State of Emergency and a number of other books)[26] and as a business partner of Tom Clancy for several series of novels.[27]

He studied medicine and writing, beginning with drama and poetry. But eventually “I turned to fiction because it allows me to address reality as it is or could be.”[2]

Pieczenik received a listed credit as co-creator for both Tom Clancy’s Op-Center and Tom Clancy’s Net Force, two best-selling series of novels, as a result of a business relationship with Tom Clancy. He was not directly involved in writing books in these series, but “assembled a team” including the ghost-writer who did author the novels, and someone to handle the “packaging” of the novels.[27][28] The Op-Center series alone had earned more than 28 million dollars in net profit for the partnership by 2003.[27] Tom Clancy’s Op-Center: Out of the Ashes was released in 2014 by St. Martins Press.

Books he has authored include novel Mind Palace (1985), novel Blood Heat (1989), self-help My Life Is Great! (1990) and paper-back edition Hidden Passions (1991), novel Maximum Vigilance (1993), novel Pax Pacifica (1995), novel State Of Emergency (1999), novel My Beloved Talleyrand (2005).[29] He’s also credited under the pseudonym Alexander Court for writing the novels Active Measures (2001), and Active Pursuit (2002).[30]

Pieczenik has had at least two articles published in the American Intelligence Journal, a peer-reviewed journal published by the National Military Intelligence Association.[31]

In September 2010, John Neustadt was recognized by Elsevier as being one of the Top Ten Cited Authors in 2007 and 2008 for his article, “Mitochondrial dysfunction and molecular pathways of disease.” This article was co-authored with Pieczenik.[32]

Pieczenik is the co-author of the published textbook, Foundations and Applications of Medical Biochemistry in Clinical Practice.[32]

Controversies

In 1992, Pieczenik told Newsday that in his professional opinion, President [George H. W.] Bush was “clinically depressed”. As a result, he was brought up on an ethics charge before the American Psychiatric Association and reprimanded. He subsequently quit the APA.[3]

He calls himself a “maverick troublemaker. You make your own rules. You pay the consequences.”[3]

The role he played in the negotiations to bring about the release of Aldo Moro, an Italian politician kidnapped by the Red Brigades, is fraught with controversy.[citation needed]

In 2013, Pieczenik spoke on Alex Jones’s radio show denying the Sandy Hook shooting ever occurred, labeling it a “false flag”[33] operation.

References

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017, Story 1: President Trump Signs Executive Order Promoting Competition in Health Insurance Market With Association and Temporary Health Insurance Plans — Ends Health Care Subsidies To Insurance Companies Never Approved By Congress — Video — Story 2: President Trump Nominates New Secretary of Homeland Security Nominee Kirstjen Nielsen — Videos — Story 3: Will Trump’s Promised Middle Class Tax Cut Become Law? — Tax Cut Yes — Fundamental Tax Reform No — Videos

Posted on October 12, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Life, Media, Medicare, Mike Pence, Monetary Policy, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Senate, Social Networking, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for trump signs executive order promoting competition in health insurance market 12 October 2017Image result for trump names new homeland security secretary appointment october 12, 2017

Image result for  cartoons fair tax and trumpImage result for trump speech in harrisburg pa on taxes

Image result for fairtaxImage result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for cartoons on trump tax framework

Image result for branco cartoons fair tax and trump

Image result for branco cartoons fair tax and trump

 

 

Story 1: President Trump Signs Executive Order Promoting Competition in Health Insurance Market With Association and Temporary Health Insurance Plans — Ends Health Care Subsidies To Insurance Companies Never Approved By Congress — Video —

Sen. Rand Paul Discusses Association Health Plans and Lowering Taxes – Oct. 12, 2017

Sen. Rand Paul Criticized Obama for Executive Orders. #SenRandPaul #Obama #JakeTapper

President Trump Signs an Executive Order to Promote Healthcare Choice and Competition

Sen. Rand Paul on Trump’s Health Order, Tax Reform

Senator Paul Joins President Trump in Signing of Executive Order

ALERT: Trump Issues Major “Healthcare” Announcement, No One Saw This Coming

Sen. Rand Paul Criticized Obama for Executive Orders. #SenRandPaul #Obama #JakeTapper

 

What Is an ERISA Health Insurance Plan? : Health Insurance & More

Selling Insurance Across State Lines – ACA’s Impact | HealthWatch Wisconsin & ABC for Health

Health Insurance Across State Lines

BREAKING: Trump Humiliates Congress With Jaw-Dropping Order

Rand Paul: Trump Will Kill Obamacare With Executive Actions

Executive Powers & Limitations | Principles of the Constitution

History Of Executive Orders – TheBlaze

Executive Orders from Hell! Why would an American President ever do this?

Are Executive Orders Constitutional?

Presidential Powers 2: Crash Course Government and Politics #12

Shadegg Discusses Buying Insurance Across State Lines with Neil Cavuto

Should companies sell across state lines?

Foiled in Congress, Trump Signs Order to Undermine Obamacare

President Trump signed an executive order on Thursday that clears the way for potentially sweeping changes to the country’s health insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and protections for consumers than those mandated under the Affordable Care Act.

The president’s plan, an 1,100-word directive to federal agencies, laid the groundwork for an expanding array of health insurance products, mainly less comprehensive plans offered through associations of small employers and greater use of short-term medical coverage.

It was the first time since efforts to repeal the landmark health law collapsed in Congress that Mr. Trump has set forth his vision of how to remake the nation’s health care system using the powers of the executive branch. It immediately touched off a furious debate over whether the move would fatally destabilize the Affordable Care Act marketplaces or add welcome options to consumers complaining of high premiums and not enough choice.

In Congress, the move seemed to intensify the polarization over health care. The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the president was offering “more affordable health insurance options” desperately needed by consumers. But the Senate Democratic leader, Chuck Schumer of New York, said Mr. Trump was “using a wrecking ball to single-handedly rip apart our health care system.”

Most of the changes will not occur until federal agencies write and adopt regulations implementing them. The process, which includes a period for public comments, could take months. That means the order will probably not affect insurance coverage next year, but could lead to major changes in 2019.

“With these actions,” Mr. Trump said at a White House ceremony, “we are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare.”

“This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for,” the president predicted, “and they’re going to be very happy.’’

But many patients, doctors, hospital executives and state insurance regulators were not so happy. They said the changes envisioned by Mr. Trump could raise costs for sick people, increase sales of bare-bones insurance and add uncertainty to wobbly health insurance markets.

“Today’s executive order could leave millions of cancer patients and survivors unable to access meaningful coverage,’’ said Chris Hansen, the president of the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society.

GRAPHIC

We’re Tracking the Ways Trump Is Scaling Back Obamacare. Here Are 11.

What the administration has done to weaken the health law.

In a statement from six physician groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the doctors predicted, “Allowing insurers to sell narrow, low-cost health plans likely will cause significant economic harm to women and older, sicker Americans who stand to face higher-cost and fewer insurance options.”

While many health insurers remained silent about the executive order, some voiced concern that it could destabilize the market.

The Trump proposal “would draw younger and healthier people away from the exchanges and drive additional plans out of the market,” warned Ceci Connolly, the chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans. “In turn, premiums would continue to increase, threatening the security of affordable coverage for millions of working families.”

The Affordable Care Act has expanded private insurance to millions of people through the creation of marketplaces, also known as exchanges, where people can purchase plans, in many cases using government subsidies to offset the cost. It also required that plans offered on the exchanges include a specific set of benefits, including hospital care, maternity care and mental health services, and it prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The order’s quickest impact on the marketplaces would be the potential expansion of short-term plans, which are exempt from Affordable Care Act requirements. The Obama administration limited the length of time people could enroll in such plans because companies were marketing them to healthy customers and luring people away from Affordable Care Act marketplaces, said Sabrina Corlette, a research professor at Georgetown University. She predicted companies would seize the opportunity to resume sale of such policies, which are much less expensive than A.C.A. plans. “There are companies that are poised to aggressively market this stuff,” she said.

Many health policy experts worry that if large numbers of healthy people move into such plans, it would drive up premiums for those left in Affordable Care Act plans because the risk pool would have sicker people.

“If the short-term plans are able to siphon off the healthiest people, then the more highly regulated marketplaces may not be sustainable,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “These plans follow no rules.”

Short-term policies could be useful to people in counties where only one insurer is offering plans in the Affordable Care Act marketplace, according to a White House document.

But short-term policies can also limit benefits and charge higher premiums to people who have expensive medical conditions, a type of discrimination banned in policies regulated under the Affordable Care Act.

Mr. Trump’s order would also eventually make it easier for small businesses to band together and buy insurance through entities known as association health plans, which could be created by business and professional groups. A White House official said these health plans “could potentially allow American employers to form groups across state lines” — a goal championed by Mr. Trump and many other Republicans — allowing more options and the formation of larger risk pools.

“This could turn back the clock three decades on small business insurance,” Mr. Levitt said. Without the oversight by states, “this could create an unregulated and risky market that we haven’t seen for decades,’ he said.

The order won applause from potential sponsors of association health plans, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry.

The White House released a document saying that some consumer protections would remain in place for association plans. “Employers participating in an association health plan cannot exclude any employee from joining the plan and cannot develop premiums based on health conditions” of individual employees, according to the document.

But state officials pointed out that an association health plan can set different rates for different employers, so that a company with older, sicker workers might have to pay much more than a firm with young, healthy employees.

“Two employers in an association can be charged very different rates, based on the medical claims filed by their employees,” said Mike Kreidler, the state insurance commissioner in Washington.

Mr. Trump’s order followed the pattern of previous policy shifts that originated with similar directives to agencies to come up with new rules. Within hours of his inauguration in January, he ordered federal agencies to find ways to waive or defer provisions of the Affordable Care Act that might burden consumers, insurers or health care providers. In May, he directed officials to help employers with religious objections to the federal mandate for insurance coverage of contraception.

Both of those orders were followed up with specific, substantive regulations that rolled back policies of President Barack Obama.

In battles over the Affordable Care Act this year, Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans said they wanted to give state officials vast new power to regulate insurance because state officials were wiser than federal officials and better understood local needs. But under the order, the federal government could pre-empt many state insurance rules, a prospect that alarms state insurance regulators.

The National Association of Insurance Commissioners, representing state officials, has long opposed association health plans because they could be largely exempt from state regulation. Ted Nickel, the president of the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, who is also the top insurance regulator in Wisconsin, said the proliferation of association health plans could further destabilize “already fragile markets.’’

Another part of Mr. Trump’s order indicates that he may wish to crack down on the consolidation of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, a trend that critics say has driven up costs for consumers. Mr. Trump said that administration officials, working with the Federal Trade Commission, should report to him within 180 days on federal and state policies that limit competition and choice in the health care industry.

Trump’s Association Health Plans Are An Old Idea That Hasn’t Worked

I write about healthcare business and policy  Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

President Donald Trump issued an executive order on health care Thursday that he said was designed to spur competition in the individual insurance market, but the main component of it has been tried before and hasn’t worked out well for small business or consumers.

Trump Thursday directed his cabinet to ease rules to allow small employers to band together through trade groups to create “Association Health Plans” that could form across state lines to offer coverage while attracting more competition among insurers.

President Donald Trump signs an executive order Thursday “to promote healthcare choice and competition.” (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

“They will have so many options,” Trump said Thursday morning at a signing ceremony for the executive order. “This will cost the U.S. government virtually nothing.”

But those who have studied insurance sales across state lines and past efforts dating to the 1980sof small groups to band together to compete with health plans say they haven’t worked. And when association health plans offering skimpier benefits have operated in the past, consumers have suffered and established insurers have stayed away from offering bare-bones policies as analysts expect they will do this time.

“AHPs do have a poor track record, both in terms of insolvency and also, unfortunately, of fraud,” Sabrina Corlette , professor with the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University who is also the consumer representative to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners said Thursday.

Trump said Thursday these new plans will draw “millions” of consumers to lower rates and policies free of “Obamacare” rules and regulations under the Affordable Care Act.

“The health insurance sold via the AHP could become exempt from consumer protections such as the essential health benefits standard and the prohibition on charging higher premiums to people with preexisting conditions,” Corlette and colleague Kevin Lucia wrote for The Commonwealth Fund. “The result would be increased risk for higher premiums and fewer plan options on the individual market, as well as fraud and insolvency.”

Even if AHPs have fewer rules to abide by than health insurers that sell on public exchanges under the ACA, the plans will still have to be well capitalized to pay doctors and hospitals and pool premiums to pay insurance claims. That requires a lot of money to establish health plan networks.

A key reason insurers like Aetna, Humana and UnitedHealth Group left the ACA’s public exchanges is due to lack of customers and disinterest in creating larger networks, particularly in rural areas where they haven’t historically operated. Rural areas have been largely dominated by Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, which are continuing to participate on the ACA’s public exchanges.

Health insurance companies in some states can already sell health coverage across state lines, but it hasn’t worked in large part because plans haven’t wanted to spend the money contracting with more doctors and hospitals in areas they have no enrollees. Six states have enacted laws allowing health plan sales across state lines and “no state was known to actually offer or sell such policies,” National Conference of State Legislatures said in a new report last week.

The health insurance industry issued a statement after Trump’s executive order that was far from an endorsement, saying plans needed to further evaluate its impact. But insurers don’t appear interested in eliminating consumer protections and the trend toward health plan networks that measure quality and health outcomes.

“Health plans remain committed to certain principles,” America’s Health Insurance Plans, which represents Anthem, Centene and several Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies, said. “We believe that reforms must stabilize the individual market for lower costs, higher consumer satisfaction, and better health outcomes for everyone. And we believe that we cannot jeopardize the stability of other markets that provide coverage for hundreds of millions of Americans.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2017/10/12/trumps-association-health-plans-are-an-old-idea-that-hasnt-worked/#695e56562748

President Trump signed an executive order on health care in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on Thursday. CreditDoug Mills/The New York Times

WASHINGTON — President Trump will scrap subsidies to health insurance companies that help pay out-of-pocket costs of low-income people, the White House said late Thursday. His plans were disclosed hours after the president ordered potentially sweeping changes in the nation’s insurance system, including sales of cheaper policies with fewer benefits and fewer protections for consumers.

The twin hits to the Affordable Care Act could unravel President Barack Obama’s signature domestic achievement, sending insurance premiums soaring and insurance companies fleeing from the health law’s online marketplaces. After Republicans failed to repeal the health law in Congress, Mr. Trump appears determined to dismantle it on his own.

Without the subsidies, insurance markets could quickly unravel. Insurers have said they will need much higher premiums and may pull out of the insurance exchanges created under the Affordable Care Act if the subsidies were cut off. Known as cost-sharing reduction payments, the subsidies were expected to total $9 billion in the coming year and nearly $100 billion in the coming decade.

“The government cannot lawfully make the cost-sharing reduction payments,” the White House said in a statement.

It concluded that “Congress needs to repeal and replace the disastrous Obamacare law and provide real relief to the American people.”

In a joint statement, the top Democrats in Congress, Senator Chuck Schumer of New York and Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, said Mr. Trump had “apparently decided to punish the American people for his inability to improve our health care system.”

“It is a spiteful act of vast, pointless sabotage leveled at working families and the middle class in every corner of America,” they said. “Make no mistake about it, Trump will try to blame the Affordable Care Act, but this will fall on his back and he will pay the price for it.”

Lawmakers from both parties have urged the president to continue the payments. Mr. Trump had raised the possibility of eliminating the subsidies at a White House meeting with Republican senators several months ago. At the time, one senator told him that the Republican Party would effectively “own health care” as a political issue if the president did so.

“Cutting health care subsidies will mean more uninsured in my district,” Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republican of Florida, wrote on Twitter late Thursday. She added that Mr. Trump “promised more access, affordable coverage. This does opposite.”

But Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, praised Mr. Trump’s decision and said the Obama administration had usurped the authority of Congress by paying the subsidies. “Under our Constitution,” Mr. Ryan said, “the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the executive branch.”

The future of the payments has been in doubt because of a lawsuit filed in 2014 by House Republicans, who said the Obama administration was paying the subsidies illegally. Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the United States District Court in Washington agreed, finding that Congress had never appropriated money for the cost-sharing subsidies.

The Obama administration appealed the ruling. The Trump administration has continued the payments from month to month, even though Mr. Trump has made clear that he detests the payments and sees them as a bailout for insurance companies.

This summer, a group of states, including New York and California, was allowed to intervene in the court case over the subsidies. The New York attorney general, Eric T. Schneiderman, said on Thursday night that the coalition of states “stands ready to sue” if Mr. Trump cut off the subsidies.

GRAPHIC

We’re Tracking the Ways Trump Is Scaling Back Obamacare. Here Are 12.

What the administration has done to weaken the health law.

Mr. Trump’s decision to stop the subsidy payments puts pressure on Congress to provide money for them in a spending bill.

Senator Lamar Alexander, Republican of Tennessee and the chairman of the Senate health committee, and Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the senior Democrat on the panel, have been trying to work out a bipartisan deal that would continue the subsidy payments while making it easier for states to obtain waivers from some requirements of the Affordable Care Act. White House officials have sent mixed signals about whether Mr. Trump was open to such a deal.

The decision to end subsidies came on the heels of Mr. Trump’s executive order, which he signed earlier Thursday.

With an 1,100-word directive to federal agencies, the president laid the groundwork for an expanding array of health insurance products, mainly less comprehensive plans offered through associations of small employers and greater use of short-term medical coverage.

It was the first time since efforts to repeal the landmark health law collapsed in Congress that Mr. Trump has set forth his vision of how to remake the nation’s health care system using the powers of the executive branch. It immediately touched off a debate over whether the move would fatally destabilize the Affordable Care Act marketplaces or add welcome options to consumers complaining of high premiums and not enough choice.

Most of the changes will not occur until federal agencies write and adopt regulations implementing them. The process, which includes a period for public comments, could take months. That means the order will probably not affect insurance coverage next year, but could lead to major changes in 2019.

“With these actions,” Mr. Trump said at a White House ceremony, “we are moving toward lower costs and more options in the health care market, and taking crucial steps toward saving the American people from the nightmare of Obamacare.”

“This is going to be something that millions and millions of people will be signing up for,” the president predicted, “and they’re going to be very happy.”

But many patients, doctors, hospital executives and state insurance regulators were not so happy. They said the changes envisioned by Mr. Trump could raise costs for sick people, increase sales of bare-bones insurance and add uncertainty to wobbly health insurance markets.

Chris Hansen, the president of the lobbying arm of the American Cancer Society, said the order “could leave millions of cancer patients and survivors unable to access meaningful coverage.”

In a statement from six physician groups, including the American Academy of Family Physicians, the doctors predicted that “allowing insurers to sell narrow, low-cost health plans likely will cause significant economic harm to women and older, sicker Americans who stand to face higher-cost and fewer insurance options.”

While many health insurers remained silent about the executive order, some voiced concern that it could destabilize the market. The Trump proposal “would draw younger and healthier people away from the exchanges and drive additional plans out of the market,” warned Ceci Connolly, the chief executive of the Alliance of Community Health Plans.

Administration officials said they had not yet decided which federal and state rules would apply to the new products. Without changing the law, they said, they can rewrite federal regulations so that more health plans would be exempt from some of its requirements.

The Affordable Care Act has expanded private insurance to millions of people through the creation of marketplaces, also known as exchanges, where people can purchase plans, in many cases using government subsidies to offset the cost. It also required that plans offered on the exchanges include a specific set of benefits, including hospital care, maternity care and mental health services, and it prohibited insurers from denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.

The executive order’s quickest effect on the marketplaces would be the potential expansion of short-term plans, which are exempt from Affordable Care Act requirements. Many health policy experts worry that if large numbers of healthy people move into such plans, it would drive up premiums for those left in Affordable Care Act plans because the risk pool would have sicker people.

“If the short-term plans are able to siphon off the healthiest people, then the more highly regulated marketplaces may not be sustainable,” said Larry Levitt, a senior vice president for the Kaiser Family Foundation. “These plans follow no rules.”

Mr. Trump’s order would also eventually make it easier for small businesses to band together and buy insurance through entities known as association health plans, which could be created by business and professional groups. A White House official said these health plans “could potentially allow American employers to form groups across state lines” — a goal championed by Mr. Trump and many other Republicans — allowing more options and the formation of larger risk pools.

Association plans have a troubled history. Because the plans were not subject to state regulations that required insurers to have adequate financial resources, some became insolvent, leaving people with unpaid medical bills. Some insurers were accused of fraud, telling customers that the plans were more comprehensive than they were and leaving them uncovered when consumers became seriously ill.

The White House said that a broader interpretation of federal law — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 — “could potentially allow employers in the same line of business anywhere in the country to join together to offer health care coverage to their employees.”

The order won applause from potential sponsors of association health plans, including the National Federation of Independent Business, the National Restaurant Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Associated Builders and Contractors, a trade group for the construction industry.

The White House released a document saying that some consumer protections would remain in place for association plans. “Employers participating in an association health plan cannot exclude any employee from joining the plan and cannot develop premiums based on health conditions” of individual employees, according to the document. But state officials pointed out that an association health plan can set different rates for different employers, so that a company with older, sicker workers might have to pay much more than a firm with young, healthy employees.

“Two employers in an association can be charged very different rates, based on the medical claims filed by their employees,” said Mike Kreidler, the state insurance commissioner in Washington.

Mr. Trump’s order followed the pattern of previous policy shifts that originated with similar directives to agencies to come up with new rules.

Within hours of his inauguration in January, he ordered federal agencies to find ways to waive or defer provisions of the Affordable Care Act that might burden consumers, insurers or health care providers. In May, he directed officials to help employers with religious objections to the federal mandate for insurance coverage of contraception.

Both of those orders were followed up with specific, substantive regulations that rolled back Mr. Obama’s policies.

3350COMMENTS

In battles over the Affordable Care Act this year, Mr. Trump and Senate Republicans said they wanted to give state officials vast new power to regulate insurance because state officials were wiser than federal officials and better understood local needs. But under Thursday’s order, the federal government could pre-empt many state insurance rules, a prospect that alarms state insurance regulators.

Another part of Mr. Trump’s order indicates that he may wish to crack down on the consolidation of doctors, hospitals and other health care providers, a trend that critics say has driven up costs for consumers. Mr. Trump said that administration officials, working with the Federal Trade Commission, should report to him within 180 days on federal and state policies that limit competition and choice in the health care industry.

Executive order (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Executive Orders are presidential directives issued by United States Presidents and are generally directed towards officers and agencies of the U.S. federal government. Executive orders may have the force of law, if based on the authority derived from statute or the Constitution itself. The ability to make such orders is also based on express or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the President some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[1]

Like both legislative statutes and regulations promulgated by government agencies, executive orders are subject to judicial review and may be overturned if the orders lack support by statute or the Constitution.[2] Major policy initiatives require approval by the legislative branch, but executive orders have significant influence over the internal affairs of government, deciding how and to what degree legislation will be enforced, dealing with emergencies, waging wars, and in general fine-tuning policy choices in the implementation of broad statutes.

Basis in the United States Constitution

The United States Constitution does not have a provision that explicitly permits the use of executive orders. The term executive power in Article II, Section 1, Clause 1 of the Constitution is not entirely clear. The term is mentioned as direction to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and is part of Article II, Section 3. The consequence of failing to comply could possibly be removal from office.[3][4]

The U.S. Supreme Court has held[5] that all executive orders from the President of the United States must be supported by the Constitution, whether from a clause granting specific power, or by Congress delegating such to the executive branch.[6] Specifically, such orders must be rooted in Article II of the US Constitution or enacted by the congress in statutes. Attempts to block such orders have been successful at times when such orders exceeded the authority of the president or could be better handled through legislation.[7]

The Office of the Federal Register is responsible for assigning the executive order a sequential number after receipt of the signed original from the White House and printing the text of the executive order in the daily Federal Register and Title 3 of the Code of Federal Regulations.[8]

History and use

With the exception of William Henry Harrison, all presidents beginning with George Washington in 1789 have issued orders that in general terms can be described as executive orders. Initially they took no set form. Consequently, such orders varied as to form and substance.[9]

The first executive order was issued by George Washington on June 8, 1789, addressed to the heads of the federal departments, instructing them “to impress me with a full, precise, and distinct general idea of the affairs of the United States” in their fields.[10]

The most famous executive order was by President Abraham Lincoln when he issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863. Political scientist Brian R. Dirck states:

The Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order, itself a rather unusual thing in those days. Executive orders are simply presidential directives issued to agents of the executive department by its boss.[11]

Until the early 1900s, executive orders went mostly unannounced and undocumented, seen only by the agencies to which they were directed. This changed when the Department of State instituted a numbering scheme in 1907, starting retroactively with United States Executive Order 1 issued on October 20, 1862, by President Abraham Lincoln.[12] The documents that later came to be known as “executive orders” apparently gained their name from this order issued by Lincoln, which was captioned “Executive Order Establishing a Provisional Court in Louisiana”.[13] This court functioned during the military occupation of Louisiana during the American Civil War, and Lincoln also used Executive Order 1 to appoint Charles A. Peabody as judge, and to designate the salaries of the court’s officers.[12]

President Truman’s Executive Order 10340 in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 US 579 (1952) placed all steel mills in the country under federal control. This was found invalid because it attempted to make law, rather than clarify or act to further a law put forth by the Congress or the Constitution. Presidents since this decision have generally been careful to cite which specific laws they are acting under when issuing new executive orders. Likewise, when presidents believe their authority for issuing an executive order stems from within the powers outlined in the Constitution, the order will simply proclaim “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution” instead.

Wars have been fought upon executive order, including the 1999 Kosovo War during Bill Clinton‘s second term in office. However, all such wars have had authorizing resolutions from Congress. The extent to which the president may exercise military power independently of Congress and the scope of the War Powers Resolution remain unresolved constitutional issues, although all presidents since its passage have complied with the terms of the resolution while maintaining that they are not constitutionally required to do so.

President Truman issued 907 executive orders, with 1,081 orders by Theodore Roosevelt, 1,203 orders by Calvin Coolidge, and 1,803 orders by Woodrow Wilson. Franklin D. Roosevelt has the distinction of making a record 3,522 executive orders.

Franklin Roosevelt

Prior to 1932, uncontested executive orders had determined such issues as national mourning on the death of a president, and the lowering of flags to half-staff. President Franklin Roosevelt issued the first of his 3,522 executive orders on March 6, 1933, declaring a bank holiday, forbidding banks to release gold coin or bullionExecutive Order 6102 forbade the hoarding of gold coin, bullion and gold certificates. A further executive order required all newly mined domestic gold be delivered to the Treasury.[14]

By Executive Order 6581, the president created the Export-Import Bank of the United States. On March 7, 1934, he created the National Industrial Recovery Act (Executive Order 6632). On June 29, the president issued Executive Order 6763 “under the authority vested in me by the Constitution”, thereby creating the National Labor Relations Board.

In 1934, while Charles Evans Hughes was Chief Justice of the United States (in the time period known as the Hughes Court), the Court found that the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA) was unconstitutional. The president then issued Executive Order 7073 “by virtue of the authority vested in me under the said Emergency Relief Appropriation Act of 1935“, reestablishing the National Emergency Council to administer the functions of the NIRA in carrying out the provisions of the Emergency Relief Appropriations Act. On June 15, he issued Executive Order 7075, which terminated NIRA and replaced it with the Office of Administration of the National Recovery Administration.[15]

In the years that followed, President Roosevelt replaced the outgoing judges with those more in line with his views, ultimately appointing Hugo BlackStanley ReedFelix FrankfurterWilliam O. DouglasFrank MurphyRobert H. Jackson and James F. Byrnes to the Court. Historically, only George Washington had equal or greater influence over Supreme Court appointments, choosing all of its original members. Justices Frankfurter, Douglas, Black, and Jackson dramatically checked presidential power by invalidating the executive order at issue in The Steel Seizure Case (i.e., Executive Order 10340). In that case Roosevelt’s successor, President Truman, had ordered private steel production facilities seized in support of the Korean War effort, but the Court held the executive order was not within the power granted to the President by the Constitution.

Table of Presidents using Executive Orders

President Number
issued [14]
Starting with
E.O. number [14]
George Washington 8 n/a
John Adams 1 n/a
Thomas Jefferson 4 n/a
James Madison 1 n/a
James Monroe 1 n/a
John Quincy Adams 3 n/a
Andrew Jackson 12 n/a
Martin van Buren 10 n/a
William Henry Harrison 0 n/a
John Tyler 17 n/a
James K. Polk 18 n/a
Zachary Taylor 5 n/a
Millard Fillmore 12 n/a
Franklin Pierce 35 n/a
James Buchanan 16 n/a
Abraham Lincoln 48 1
Andrew Johnson 79
Ulysses S. Grant 217
Rutherford B. Hayes 92
James Garfield 6
Chester Arthur 96
Grover Cleveland (first term) 113
Benjamin Harrison 143
Grover Cleveland (second term) 140
William McKinley 185
Theodore Roosevelt 1,081
William Howard Taft 724
Woodrow Wilson 1,803
Warren G. Harding 522
Calvin Coolidge 1,203
Herbert Hoover 968 5075
Franklin D. Roosevelt (~3.05 terms) 3,522 6071
Harry S. Truman 907 9538
Dwight D. Eisenhower 484 10432
John F. Kennedy 214 10914
Lyndon B. Johnson 325 11128
Richard Nixon 346 11452
Gerald R. Ford 169 11798
Jimmy Carter 320 11967
Ronald Reagan 381 12287
George H. W. Bush 166 12668
Bill Clinton[16] 308 12834
George W. Bush[16] 291 13198
Barack Obama[16] 276 13489
Donald Trump (as of September 29, 2017) [16][17] 49 13765

Reaction

Large policy changes with wide-ranging effects have been implemented through executive order, including the racial integration of the armed forces under Harry Truman and the desegregation of public schools under Dwight D. Eisenhower[citation needed].

Two extreme examples of an executive order are Franklin Roosevelt’s Executive Order 6102 “forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States” and Executive Order 9066, which delegated military authority to remove any or all people in a military zone (used to target Japanese-Americans and German-Americans in certain regions). The order was then delegated to GeneralJohn L. DeWitt, and subsequently paved the way for all Japanese-Americans on the West Coast to be sent to internment camps for the duration of World War II.

President George W. Bush issued Executive Order 13233 in 2001, which restricted public access to the papers of former presidents. The order was criticized by the Society of American Archivists and other groups, who stated that it “violates both the spirit and letter of existing U.S. law on access to presidential papers as clearly laid down in 44 USC 2201–07″, and adding that the order “potentially threatens to undermine one of the very foundations of our nation”. President Barack Obama revoked Executive Order 13233 in January 2009.[18]

The Heritage Foundation has accused presidents of abusing executive orders by using them to make laws without Congressional approval and moving existing laws away from their original mandates.[19]

Legal conflicts

In 1935, the Supreme Court overturned five of President Franklin Roosevelt’s executive orders (6199, 6204, 6256, 6284, 6855). Executive Order 12954, issued by President Bill Clinton in 1995, attempted to prevent the federal government from contracting with organizations that had strike-breakers on the payroll; a federal appeals court subsequently ruled that the order conflicted with the National Labor Relations Act, and invalidated the order.[20][21]

Congress has the power to overturn an executive order by passing legislation that invalidates it. Congress can also refuse to provide funding necessary to carry out certain policy measures contained with the order or to legitimize policy mechanisms. In the case of the former, the president retains the power to veto such a decision; however, the Congress may override a veto with a two-thirds majority to end an executive order. It has been argued that a congressional override of an executive order is a nearly impossible event, due to the supermajority vote required and the fact that such a vote leaves individual lawmakers vulnerable to political criticism.[22]

On July 30, 2014, the Republican-led House of Representatives approved a resolution authorizing Speaker of the HouseJohn Boehner to sue President Barack Obama over claims that he exceeded his executive authority in changing a key provision of the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”) on his own[23] and over what Republicans claimed had been “inadequate enforcement of the health care law”, which Republican lawmakers opposed. In particular, Republicans “objected that the Obama administration delayed some parts of the law, particularly the mandate on employers who do not provide health care coverage”.[24] The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on November 21, 2014.[25]

Part of President Donald Trump’s executive order Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, which temporarily banned entry to the US from citizens of seven Muslim-majority countries, including for permanent residents, was stayed by a federal court on January 28, 2017.[26]

State governors’ executive orders

Executive orders issued by state governors are not the same as statutes passed by state legislatures, but do have the force of law in a similar way to the federal system. State executive orders are usually based on existing constitutional or statutory powers of the governor and do not require any action by the state legislature to take effect.

Executive orders may, for example, demand budget cuts from state government when the state legislature is not in session, and economic conditions take a downturn, thereby decreasing tax revenue below what was forecast when the budget was approved. Depending on the state constitution, a governor may specify what percentage each government agency must reduce by, and may exempt those that are already particularly underfunded, or cannot put long-term expenses (such as capital expenditures) off until a later fiscal year. The governor may also call the legislature into special session.

There are also other uses for gubernatorial executive orders. In 2007, for example, George “Sonny” Perdue, governor of Georgia, issued an executive order for all of its state agencies to reduce water use during a major drought. This was also demanded of its counties‘ water systems, however it is unclear whether this order would have the force of law.

Presidential proclamation

According to political expert Phillip J. Cooper, a presidential proclamation “states a condition, declares a law and requires obedience, recognizes an event or triggers the implementation of a law (by recognizing that the circumstances in law have been realized)”.[27]Presidents define situations or conditions on situations that become legal or economic truth. These orders carry the same force of law as executive orders—the difference between the two is that executive orders are aimed at those inside government while proclamations are aimed at those outside government.

The administrative weight of these proclamations is upheld because they are often specifically authorized by congressional statute, making them “delegated unilateral powers.” Presidential proclamations are often dismissed as a practical presidential tool for policy making because of the perception of proclamations as largely ceremonial or symbolic in nature. However, the legal weight of presidential proclamations suggests their importance to presidential governance.[28]

See also

References

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_order_(United_States)

Powers of the President of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The President of the United States has numerous powers, including those explicitly granted by Article II of the United States Constitution.

The Constitution explicitly assigned the president the power to sign or veto legislation, command the armed forces, ask for the written opinion of their Cabinet, convene or adjourn Congress, grant reprieves and pardons, and receive ambassadors. The president may make treaties which need to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also appoint Article III judges and some officers with the advice and consent of the U.S. Senate. In the condition of a Senate recess, the president may make a temporary appointment.

Executive powers

Within the executive branch itself, the president has broad powers to manage national affairs and the priorities of the government. The president can issue rules, regulations, and instructions called executive orders, which have the binding force of law upon federal agencies but do not require approval of the United States Congress. Executive orders are subject to judicial review and interpretation.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 put additional responsibilities on the presidency for the preparation of the United States federal budget, although Congress was required to approve it.[1] The act required the Office of Management and Budget to assist the president with the preparation of the budget. Previous presidents had the privilege of impounding funds as they saw fit, however the United States Supreme Court revoked the privilege in 1998 as a violation of the Presentment Clause. The power was available to all presidents and was regarded as a power inherent to the office. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed in response to large-scale power exercises by President Nixon. The act also created the Congressional Budget Office as a legislative counterpoint to the Office of Management and Budget.

The president, as the Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, may also call into federal service individual state units of the National Guard. In times of war or national emergency, the Congress may grant the president broader powers to manage the national economy and protect the security of the United States, but these powers were not expressly granted by the United States Constitution.[2] During the Vietnam War, in 1973, Congress expeditiously passed the War Powers Act and severely limited the ability of the President to conduct warfare without Congressional approval. Congress was constitutionally provided the power to declare the war,[3] but if the president needed to send the troops to other countries for emergency reasons, approved statutes required the notification of Congress within forty-eight hours. For any time beyond sixty days, further congressional approval was required.

Powers related to legislation

The president has several options when presented with a bill from Congress. If the president agrees with the bill, he can sign it into law within ten days of receipt. If the president opposes the bill, he can veto it and return the bill to Congress with a veto message suggesting changes unless the Congress is out of session then the president may rely on a pocket veto.

Presidents are required to approve all of a bill or none of it; selective vetoes have been prohibited. In 1996, Congress gave President Bill Clinton a line-item veto over parts of a bill that required spending federal funds. The Supreme Court, in Clinton v. New York City, found Clinton’s veto of pork-barrel appropriations for New York City to be unconstitutional because only a constitutional amendment could give the president line-item veto power.[4]

When a bill is presented for signature, the president may also issue a signing statement with expressions of their opinion on the constitutionality of a bill’s provisions. The president may even declare them unenforceable but the Supreme Court has yet to address this issue.[5]

Congress may override vetoes with a two-thirds vote in both the House and the Senate. The process has traditionally been difficult and relatively rare. The threat of a presidential veto has usually provided sufficient pressure for Congress to modify a bill so the President would be willing to sign it.

Much of the legislation dealt with by Congress is drafted at the initiative of the executive branch.[6] The president may personally propose legislation in annual and special messages to Congress including the annual State of the Union address and joint sessions of Congress. If Congress has adjourned without acting on proposals, the president may call a special session of the Congress.

Beyond these official powers, the U.S. president, as a leader of his political party and the United States government, holds great sway over public opinion whereby they may influence legislation.

To improve the working relationship with Congress, presidents in recent years have set up an Office of Legislative Affairs. Presidential aides have kept abreast of all important legislative activities.

Powers of appointment

The President of the United States has several different appointment powers.

Before taking office, the president-elect must appoint more than 6,000 new federal positions.[7] The appointments range from top officials at U.S. government agencies, to the White House Staff, and members of the United States diplomatic corps. Many, but not all, of these positions at the highest levels are appointed by the president with the advice and consent of the United States Senate.[8]

The president also nominates persons to fill federal judicial vacancies, including federal judges, such as members of the United States Courts of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court. These nominations require Senate confirmation, and this can provide a major stumbling block for presidents who wish to shape the federal judiciary in a particular ideological stance.

As head of the executive branch, the president appoints the top officials for all federal agencies. These positions are listed in the Plum Book which outlines more than seven thousand appointive positions in the government. Many of these appointments are made by the president. In the case of ten agencies, the president is free to appoint a new agency head. For example, it is not unusual for the CIA‘s Director or NASA‘s Administrator to be changed by the president. Other agencies that deal with federal regulation such as the Federal Reserve Board or the Securities and Exchange Commission have set terms that will often outlast presidential terms. For example, governors of the Federal Reserve serve for fourteen years to ensure agency independence. The president also appoints members to the boards of directors for government-owned corporations such as Amtrak. The president can also make a recess appointment if a position needs to be filled while Congress is not in session.[9]

In the past, presidents could appoint members of the United States civil service. This use of the spoils system allowed presidents to reward political supporters with jobs. Following the assassination of President James Garfield by Charles J. Guiteau, a disgruntled office seeker, Congress instituted a merit-based civil service in which positions are filled on a nonpartisan basis.[10] The Office of Personnel Management now oversees the staffing of 2.8 million federal jobs in the federal bureaucracy.

The president must also appoint his staff of aides, advisers, and assistants. These individuals are political appointments and are not subject to review by the Senate. All members of the staff serve “at the pleasure of the President“.[11][12] Since 1995, the president has been required to submit an annual report to Congress listing the name and salary of every employee of the White House Office. The 2011 report listed 454 employees.[13]

Executive clemency

Article II of the United States Constitution gives the president the power of clemency. The two most commonly used clemency powers are those of pardon and commutation. A pardon is an official forgiveness for an acknowledged crime. Once a pardon is issued, all punishment for the crime is waived. The person accepting the pardon must, however, acknowledge that the crime did take place.[14] The president can only grant pardons for federal offences.[15] The president maintains the Office of the Pardon Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice to review all requests for pardons. The president can also commute a sentence which, in effect, changes the punishment to time served. While the guilty party may be released from custody or not have to serve out a prison term, all other punishments still apply.

Most pardons are issued as oversight of the judicial branch, especially in cases where the Federal Sentencing Guidelines are considered too severe. This power can check the legislative and judicial branches by altering punishment for crimes. Presidents can issue blanket amnesty to forgive entire groups of people. For example, President Jimmy Carter granted amnesty to Vietnam draft dodgers who had fled to Canada. Presidents can also issue temporary suspensions of prosecution or punishment in the form of respites. This power is most commonly used to delay federal sentences of execution.

Pardons can be controversial when they appear to be politically motivated. President George W. Bush commuted the sentence of White House staffer Lewis “Scooter” Libby.

Foreign affairs

Under the Constitution, the president is the federal official that is primarily responsible for the relations of the United States with foreign nations. The president appoints ambassadors, ministers, and consuls (subject to confirmation by the Senate) and receives foreign ambassadors and other public officials.[2] With the Secretary of State, the president manages all official contacts with foreign governments.

On occasion, the president may personally participate in summit conferences where heads of state meet for direct consultation.[16] For example, President Wilson led the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference in 1919 after World War I; President Franklin D. Roosevelt met with Allied leaders during World War II; and every president sits down with world leaders to discuss economic and political issues and to reach agreements.

Through the Department of State and the Department of Defense, the president is responsible for the protection of Americans abroad and of foreign nationals in the United States. The president decides whether to recognize new nations and new governments,[17] and negotiate treaties with other nations, which become binding on the United States when approved by two-thirds of the Senate. The president may also negotiate executive agreements with foreign powers that are not subject to Senate confirmation.[18]

Emergency powers

The Constitution does not expressly grant the president additional powers in times of national emergency. However, many scholars think that the Framers implied these powers because the structural design of the Executive Branch enables it to act faster than the Legislative Branch. Because the Constitution remains silent on the issue, the courts cannot grant the Executive Branch these powers when it tries to wield them. The courts will only recognize a right of the Executive Branch to use emergency powers if Congress has granted such powers to the president.[19]

A claim of emergency powers was at the center of President Abraham Lincoln’s suspension of habeas corpus without Congressional approval in 1861. Lincoln claimed that the rebellion created an emergency that permitted him the extraordinary power of unilaterally suspending the writ. With Chief Justice Roger Taney sitting as judge, the Federal District Court of Maryland struck down the suspension in Ex Parte Merryman, although Lincoln ignored the order. [20]

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt similarly invoked emergency powers when he issued an order directing that all Japanese Americans residing on the West Coast be placed into internment camps during World War II. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld this order in Korematsu v. United States[21]

Harry Truman declared the use of emergency powers when he nationalized private steel mills that failed to produce steel because of a labor strike in 1952.[22] With the Korean War ongoing, Truman asserted that he could not wage war successfully if the economy failed to provide him with the material resources necessary to keep the troops well-equipped.[23] The U.S. Supreme Court, however, refused to accept that argument in Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, voting 6-3 that neither Commander in Chief powers nor any claimed emergency powers gave the president the authority to unilaterally seize private property without Congressional legislation. [24]

Executive privilege

Executive privilege gives the president the ability to withhold information from the public, Congress, and the courts in national security and diplomatic affairs.[25] George Washington first claimed privilege when Congress requested to see Chief Justice John Jay‘s notes from an unpopular treaty negotiation with Great Britain. While not enshrined in the Constitution, Washington’s action created the precedent for privilege. When Richard Nixon tried to use executive privilege as a reason for not turning over subpoenaed audio tapes to a special prosecutor in the Watergate scandal, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Nixon that privilege was not absolute. The Court reasoned that the judiciary’s interest in the “fair administration of criminal justice” outweighed President Nixon’s interest in keeping the evidence secret.[26] Later President Bill Clinton lost in federal court when he tried to assert privilege in the Lewinsky affair. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Clinton v. Jones, which denied the use of privilege in cases of civil suits.[27]

Constraints on presidential power

Because of the vast array of presidential roles and responsibilities, coupled with a conspicuous presence on the national and international scene, political analysts have tended to place great emphasis on the president’s powers. Some have even spoken of “the imperial presidency“, referring to the expanded role of the office that Franklin D. Roosevelt maintained during his term.

President Theodore Roosevelt famously called the presidency a “bully pulpit” from which to raise issues nationally, for when a president raises an issue, it inevitably becomes subject to public debate. A president’s power and influence may be limited, but politically the president is certainly the most important power in Washington and, furthermore, is one of the most famous and influential of all Americans.

Though constrained by various other laws passed by Congress, the president’s executive branch conducts most foreign policy, and their power to order and direct troops as commander-in-chief is quite significant (the exact limits of what a president’s military powers without Congressional authorization are open to debate).

The Separation of Powers devised by the founding fathers was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as “checks and balances”. For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries, but these appointments must be approved by the Senate. The president can veto bills, or deny them. If he does that, the bill is sent back to Congress.

See also

References

 

Story 3: Will Trump’s Promised Middle Class Tax Cut Become Law? — Tax Cut Yes — Fundamental Tax Reform No — Videos

President Trump Delivers Incredible Tax Speech In PA

President Trump’s Major Speech on Tax Reform in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 10/11/17

Trump vows largest tax cut in the history of this country

FULL President Trump Hannity Interview 10/11/17

Donald Trump: Simplify the Tax Code

Bill Gates: Don’t tax my income, tax my consumption

Wealth Inequality in America

The middle class is shrinking just about everywhere in America

There’s less middle in the middle class as income inequality grows, Pew analysis finds

The American dream is turned into poverty. Documentary 2017

 

FairTax

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Fair Tax Economics 2016 DO

Income Tax vs. Consumption Tax

Shattering The FairTax Evasion Myth (long version)

Pence on the Fair Tax

Sen. Moran Discusses FairTax Legislation on U.S. Senate Floor

How will the FairTax affect CPA’s and Accountants?

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

FairTax Composite

 

Trump to trucking: Tax reform a boon for carriers, drivers and industry at large

By James Jaillet

 

Trump promises big tax cuts, but GOP-led Congress is already thinking about scaling back

President Trump promised the largest tax cut in history, but as he hit the road Wednesday to promote the plan, Republicans in Congress were quietly discussing scaling back key provisions in an effort to deliver the top White House priority.

There’s already talk that the cornerstone of the GOP proposal — a dramatically reduced 20% corporate tax rate that Trump has called a “red line” — may slip to 22% or 23%, those familiar with negotiations said.

Trump had originally promised a 15% rate for corporations. But Republicans are running into resistance from lawmakers and lobbyists who want to preserve deductions and loopholes that were targeted for elimination under the White House plan to offset the massive corporate cut from the current 35% rate.

Some Republicans are also pushing back against other parts of the president’s plan, such as scrapping the estate tax for the rich and eliminating deductions for state and local taxes, which would hurt residents in high-tax states like California and New York.

At an evening rally in Harrisburg, Pa., Trump said the corporate rate would be “no more than 20%.” But earlier this week, he acknowledged that changes may lie ahead. “We’ll be adjusting a little bit over the next few weeks to make it even stronger,” he said.

Negotiators say changes will be needed if Republicans, who can afford to lose only two votes in the Senate and about 20 in the House if no Democrats join in support, hope to avoid another embarrassing defeat like the collapse of their Obamacare repeal plan.

Fiscally conservative Republicans will be the hardest to win over because the GOP tax plan has been estimated by some outside groups to add more than $2 trillion to the deficit over 10 years.

Republicans are racing to pass their tax overhaul by the end of the year, hoping to give the economy a boost and quiet complaints that they have accomplished little with the party’s hold on the White House and Congress.

Yet even as Trump and top Republicans, including House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) and Vice President Mike Pence, talk up the tax plan in whistle-stop tours across the nation, it remains in flux, more of a concept than a proposal. Actual legislation remains weeks away.

“Everything is fluid right now,” said one business lobbyist, granted anonymity to discuss the private talks, adding that there are “realistic tensions” over the details.

Republicans are finding that their desire for lowering corporate and individual rates is running into the fiscal challenge of how to pay for the reductions without exacerbating the nation’s debt load.

They argue that tax cuts, even if deficit-financed, will spur economic growth and provide new revenue. But many economists question that theory, saying it hasn’t worked that way in the past.

In addition, Republicans — in order to take advantage of special budget rules that will allow them to pass the tax plan in the Senate with a simple majority — must find ways to offset some of the costs.

Every percentage-point reduction in the corporate rate reduces federal tax revenue by about $100 billion over 10 years. Slashing the corporate rate to 20% would cost about $1.5 trillion.

With lobbyists and lawmakers lining up to protect deductions and loopholes, tax bill drafters are having a tough time finding ways to cover the costs.

One main revenue source, the elimination of state and local tax deductions, could generate as much as $1.3 trillion over the decade. But talk of killing the deduction set off an outcry among high-tax state lawmakers in New York, New Jersey and California. Talks are now underway to restructure that proposal.

“As the swamp kicks in, they’re going to argue to keep all their special loopholes and deductions, and the more they get to keep, the less you can reduce the tax rate,” said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.). “There’s going to be tremendous pressure, but that’s why we have to hold the line on that.”

Corporate tax rates have been the focus throughout the process, as lawmakers try to bring the U.S. on par with the 35 developed nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, which have an average rate of 22.5%. Many U.S. corporations, however, pay much less than 35% thanks to loopholes.

Lowering corporate rates has been a top priority for businesses. The Koch brothers-aligned Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce released new ads Wednesday warning lawmakers against protecting favorite deductions.

In Harrisburg, Trump argued that corporate tax changes would benefit ordinary Americans, delivering as much as $4,000 per household. “You’re going to have so much money to spend,” he told the crowd.

The White House said changing the way foreign earnings are taxed — along with a one-time incentive to bring back some of the estimated $2.5 trillion U.S. companies have parked abroad — would result in $4,000 more for American workers over an eight-year period.

But experts doubted such a windfall would flow to workers and said the GOP’s planned changes to individual income tax rates would largely benefit the wealthiest Americans.

Mark Mazur, director of the Tax Policy Center, said he was “incredibly skeptical” of the White House’s $4,000 estimate, explaining that there are many reasons why wages have not kept up with the growth of corporate profits. He cited less powerful labor unions and competition from lower-wage workers abroad.

On Wednesday, Ryan outlined the schedule ahead during a closed-door meeting that left lawmakers expecting a House vote on a tax bill by Thanksgiving.

The Senate would follow if it clears a preliminary budget hurdle next week. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has panned the tax proposal as benefiting the wealthy. And Trump’s recent personal attacks on Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) certainly won’t help win his vote. Even before Trump mocked him, Corker was concerned the tax plan would increase the deficit.

But even as Republicans pursue a largely partisan approach without Democratic input, some predicted Wednesday there would be no adjustments to the proposed 20% corporate rate, since that seemed to be a core area of agreement.

“That’s so locked and loaded that I just don’t see that changing,” said Rep. Chris Collins(R-N.Y.), a Trump ally.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said the 20% rate was “for sure. I have commitments.”

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-congress-tax-cuts-20171011-story.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-982

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

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

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

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

 

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for list of psychotropic drugs

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

Image result for drug valium diazepam

Psychiatric Drug Links to Violent Behavior

Psychiatric Drugs Homicide and Suicide The Connection

Vegas shooter was reportedly prescribed anti-anxiety meds

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

Valium (Diazepam) Review and Side Effects

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

Top 10 Most Abused Prescription Drugs

00:57 #10: Dilaudid [aka Hydromorphone]

01:56 #9: Soma [aka Carisoprodol]

02:45 #8: Ambien [aka Zolpidem]

03:48 #7: Valium [aka Diazepam]

04:52 #6:  Fentanyl

05:53 #5: Xanax [aka Alprazolam]

07:05 #4: Adderall

08:28 #3:Codine

09:26 #2: Vicodine

10:50 #1: OxyCotin [OxyCodone]

‘As Prescribed’ – Trailer for Benzodiazepine Withdrawal Documentary

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

What are Benzodiazepines? Benzo Facts and Effects

Facts You Should Know About Benzodiazepine Abuse

Psychiatric Drugs Are More Dangerous than You Ever Imagined

How I got myself off valium – Benzodiazepine

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

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

GABA Neurotransmitters, Anxiety, and the Dangers of Benzodiazepines

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

Alcohol Effects and Neurotransmitters: The GABA and Glutamate Balance

GABA Neurotransmitters and Glutamate

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

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

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

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

SSRI Drugs are Dangerous!

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors

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

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

Psych Meds and Big Pharma and the Link to Shootings

19. Aggression III

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

20. Aggression IV

“Behave” by Robert Sapolsky, PhD

By Kyle Feldscher |   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SIDE EFFECTS OF DIAZEPAM (VALIUM)

For most patients, these are the typical side effects:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Drug- Induced Behavioural Disinhibition

Incidence, Mechanisms and Therapeutic Implications

Adverse Effects

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Disinhibitory reactions to benzodiazepines: A review

Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

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

Abstract

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

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

 

Benzodiazepines

What are Benzodiazepines

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

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

List of Benzodiazepines:

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

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

 

Image result for person of interest marilou danley

WATCH: Girlfriend of Las Vegas shooter releases statement through lawyer

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

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

Scott Adams offers another hypothesis on Stephen Paddock’s motivation

Scott Adams rules out some theories on the Vegas gunman

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

Scott Adams: FBI profile and possible motivation – Part 2

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

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

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

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

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

Marilou Danley: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know

Who is Marilou Danley?

Person of Interest: Season 1 Trailer

Person of Interest | Flashbacks S1-S4 | somewhat HD

 

Las Vegas Strip shooter prescribed anti-anxiety drug in June

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

by Reuters
Wednesday, 4 October 2017 02:36 GMT

ABOUT OUR HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE

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

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

* Live-in companion sought for questioning

* Wire transfer of $100,000 under examination

* Trump calls gunman ‘a sick, demented man’

* Killer amassed dozens of weapons, explosives, ammunition

* Massacre stirs gun control debate

By Sharon Bernstein and Alexandria Sage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ARSENAL RECOVERED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WHAT DROVE GUNMAN?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GUN DEBATE STIRRED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Person of interest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

History

According to Eric Lichtbau in the New York Times:

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

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

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

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

Hatfill v. Ashcroft

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

Definition

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

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

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

See also

References

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

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for leading of blacks

Image result for leading killer of blacks is abortion

Image result for second amendment and gun control

Image result for second amendment and gun control

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

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

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

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

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

Las Vegas Massacre: John Lott discusses gun laws and ownership

John Lott: The War on Guns

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

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

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

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

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

Ben Shapiro Responds To Jimmy Kimmel

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

Top 5 Gun Control Myths Debunked! | Louder With Crowder

HIDDEN CAM: “Gun Show Loophole” Exposed!

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

Vox Rebuttal: Gun Control Propaganda Debunked

Gun Contol Penn and Teller Bull Shit

Penn and Teller – Gun Control and Columbine

Penn & Teller on Gun Control

Penn & Teller on the 2nd Amendment

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

  • Second Amendment to the United States Constitution

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

    Close up image of the Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

    Contents

     [show

    Text

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Pre-Constitution background

    Influence of the English Bill of Rights of 1689

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Drafting and adoption of the Constitution

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

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

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

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

    • raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
    • provide and maintain a navy;
    • make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;
    • provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;
    • provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

    Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[91] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[92][93] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution’s adoption. This compromisepersuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[94] The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[95] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.

    Ratification debates

    The debate surrounding the Constitution’s ratification is of practical importance, particularly to adherents of originalist and strict constructionist legal theories. In the context of such legal theories and elsewhere, it is important to understand the language of the Constitution in terms of what that language meant to the people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.[96]

    The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.[97] Robert Whitehill, a delegate from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the draft Constitution with a bill of rights explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season,[98]though Whitehill’s language was never debated.[99]

    There was substantial opposition to the new Constitution, because it moved the power to arm the state militias from the states to the federal government. This created a fear that the federal government, by neglecting the upkeep of the militia, could have overwhelming military force at its disposal through its power to maintain a standing army and navy, leading to a confrontation with the states, encroaching on the states’ reserved powers and even engaging in a military takeover. Article VI of the Articles of Confederation states:

    No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the united States in congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the united States, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.[100][101]

    In contrast, Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the U.S. Constitution states:

    To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.[102]

    A foundation of American political thought during the Revolutionary period was concern about political corruption and governmental tyranny. Even the federalists, fending off their opponents who accused them of creating an oppressive regime, were careful to acknowledge the risks of tyranny. Against that backdrop, the framers saw the personal right to bear arms as a potential check against tyranny. Theodore Sedgwick of Massachusetts expressed this sentiment by declaring that it is “a chimerical idea to suppose that a country like this could ever be enslaved … Is it possible … that an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves or their brethren? or, if raised whether they could subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty and who have arms in their hands?”[103] Noah Webster similarly argued:

    Before a standing army can rule the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.[104][105]

    George Mason argued the importance of the militia and right to bear arms by reminding his compatriots of England’s efforts “to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them … by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.” He also clarified that under prevailing practice the militia included all people, rich and poor. “Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” Because all were members of the militia, all enjoyed the right to individually bear arms to serve therein.[104][106]

    Writing after the ratification of the Constitution, but before the election of the first Congress, James Monroe included “the right to keep and bear arms” in a list of basic “human rights”, which he proposed to be added to the Constitution.[107]

    Patrick Henry argued in the Virginia ratification convention on June 5, 1788, for the dual rights to arms and resistance to oppression:

    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.[108]

    While both Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, he confidently contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he contemptuously described as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” He assured his fellow citizens that they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed …”[104][109]

    By January 1788, Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia and Connecticut ratified the Constitution without insisting upon amendments. Several specific amendments were proposed, but were not adopted at the time the Constitution was ratified. For example, the Pennsylvania convention debated fifteen amendments, one of which concerned the right of the people to be armed, another with the militia. The Massachusetts convention also ratified the Constitution with an attached list of proposed amendments. In the end, the ratification convention was so evenly divided between those for and against the Constitution that the federalists agreed to amendments to assure ratification. Samuel Adams proposed that the Constitution:

    Be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless when necessary for the defence of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of their grievances: or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures.[104]

    Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

    James Madison‘s initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[110]

    On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison’s motion,[111] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[112] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[113]

    In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of “mal-administration of the government” using the “religiously scrupulous” clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

    The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

    A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[114]

    By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a Representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to “be passed upon distinctly by the States.”[115] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

    A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[116]

    The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words “for the common defence” next to the words “bear arms” was defeated. An extraneous comma added on August 25 was also removed.[117] The Senate then slightly modified the language and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version passed by the Senate was:

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

    The House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate, but the amendment as finally entered into the House journal contained the additional words “necessary to”:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[118]

    On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states.

    Militia in the decades following ratification

    Ketland brass barrel smooth bore pistol common in Colonial America

    During the first two decades following the ratification of the Second Amendment, public opposition to standing armies, among Anti-Federalists and Federalists alike, persisted and manifested itself locally as a general reluctance to create a professional armed police force, instead relying on county sheriffs, constables and night watchmen to enforce local ordinances.[64] Though sometimes compensated, often these positions were unpaid – held as a matter of civic duty. In these early decades, law enforcement officers were rarely armed with firearms, using billy clubs as their sole defensive weapons.[64] In serious emergencies, a posse comitatus, militia company, or group of vigilantesassumed law enforcement duties; these individuals were more likely than the local sheriff to be armed with firearms.[64] On May 8, 1792, Congress passed “[a]n act more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States” requiring:

    [E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.[119]

    The act also gave specific instructions to domestic weapon manufacturers “that from and after five years from the passing of this act, muskets for arming the militia as herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound.”[119] In practice, private acquisition and maintenance of rifles and muskets meeting specifications and readily available for militia duty proved problematic; estimates of compliance ranged from 10 to 65 percent.[120] Compliance with the enrollment provisions was also poor. In addition to the exemptions granted by the law for custom-house officers and their clerks, post-officers and stage drivers employed in the care and conveyance of U.S. mail, ferrymen, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners and those deployed at sea in active service; state legislatures granted numerous exemptions under Section 2 of the Act, including exemptions for: clergy, conscientious objectors, teachers, students, and jurors. And though a number of able-bodied white men remained available for service, many simply did not show up for militia duty. Penalties for failure to appear were enforced sporadically and selectively.[121] None is mentioned in the legislation.[119]

    The Model 1795 Musket was made in the U.S. and used in the War of 1812

    The first test of the militia system occurred in July 1794, when a group of disaffected Pennsylvania farmers rebelled against federal tax collectors whom they viewed as illegitimate tools of tyrannical power.[122] Attempts by the four adjoining states to raise a militia for nationalization to suppress the insurrection proved inadequate. When officials resorted to drafting men, they faced bitter resistance. Forthcoming soldiers consisted primarily of draftees or paid substitutes as well as poor enlistees lured by enlistment bonuses. The officers, however, were of a higher quality, responding out of a sense of civic duty and patriotism, and generally critical of the rank and file.[64] Most of the 13,000 soldiers lacked the required weaponry; the war department provided nearly two-thirds of them with guns.[64] In October, President George Washington and General Harry Lee marched on the 7,000 rebels who conceded without fighting. The episode provoked criticism of the citizen militia and inspired calls for a universal militia. Secretary of War Henry Knox and Vice-President John Adams had lobbied Congress to establish federal armories to stock imported weapons and encourage domestic production.[64] Congress did subsequently pass “[a]n act for the erecting and repairing of Arsenals and Magazines” on April 2, 1794, two months prior to the insurrection.[123]Nevertheless, the militia continued to deteriorate and twenty years later, the militia’s poor condition contributed to several losses in the War of 1812, including the sacking of Washington, D.C., and the burning of the White House in 1814.[121]

    Scholarly commentary

    Early commentary

    William Rawle of Pennsylvania (left) was a lawyer and district attorney; Thomas M. Cooleyof Michigan (right) was an educator and judge.
    Joseph Story of Massachusetts (left) became a U.S. Supreme Court justice; Tench Coxe of Pennsylvania (right) was a political economistand delegate to the Continental Congress.

    Richard Henry Lee

    In May of 1788, Richard Henry Lee wrote (Wikiquote link) in Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer #169 or Letter XVIII regarding the definition of a “militia.”

    George Mason

    In June of 1788, George Mason addressed (Wikiquote link) the Virginia Ratifying Convention regarding a “militia.”

    Tench Coxe

    In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[124]

    As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.[125][126]

    Tucker/Blackstone

    The earliest published commentary on the Second Amendment by a major constitutional theorist was by St. George Tucker. He annotated a five-volume edition of Sir William Blackstone‘s Commentaries on the Laws of England, a critical legal reference for early American attorneys published in 1803.[127] Tucker wrote:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4. This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty … The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game : a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes. True it is, their bill of rights seems at first view to counteract this policy: but the right of bearing arms is confined to protestants, and the words suitable to their condition and degree, have been interpreted to authorise the prohibition of keeping a gun or other engine for the destruction of game, to any farmer, or inferior tradesman, or other person not qualified to kill game. So that not one man in five hundred can keep a gun in his house without being subject to a penalty.[128]

    In footnotes 40 and 41 of the Commentaries, Tucker stated that the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment was not subject to the restrictions that were part of English law: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Amendments to C. U. S. Art. 4, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government” and “whoever examines the forest, and game laws in the British code, will readily perceive that the right of keeping arms is effectually taken away from the people of England.” Blackstone himself also commented on English game laws, Vol. II, p. 412, “that the prevention of popular insurrections and resistance to government by disarming the bulk of the people, is a reason oftener meant than avowed by the makers of the forest and game laws.”[127] Blackstone discussed the right of self-defense in a separate section of his treatise on the common law of crimes. Tucker’s annotations for that latter section did not mention the Second Amendment but cited the standard works of English jurists such as Hawkins.[129]

    Further, Tucker criticized the English Bill of Rights for limiting gun ownership to the very wealthy, leaving the populace effectively disarmed, and expressed the hope that Americans “never cease to regard the right of keeping and bearing arms as the surest pledge of their liberty.”[127]

    William Rawle

    Tucker’s commentary was soon followed, in 1825, by that of William Rawle in his landmark text, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America. Like Tucker, Rawle condemned England’s “arbitrary code for the preservation of game,” portraying that country as one that “boasts so much of its freedom,” yet provides a right to “protestant subjects only” that it “cautiously describ[es] to be that of bearing arms for their defence” and reserves for “[a] very small proportion of the people[.]”[130] In contrast, Rawle characterizes the second clause of the Second Amendment, which he calls the corollary clause, as a general prohibition against such capricious abuse of government power, declaring bluntly:

    No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[131]

    Speaking of the Second Amendment generally, Rawle said:[132]

    The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.[132][133]

    Rawle, long before the concept of incorporation was formally recognized by the courts, or Congress drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, contended that citizens could appeal to the Second Amendment should either the state or federal government attempt to disarm them. He did warn, however, that “this right [to bear arms] ought not…be abused to the disturbance of the public peace” and, paraphrasing Coke, observed: “An assemblage of persons with arms, for unlawful purpose, is an indictable offence, and even the carrying of arms abroad by a single individual, attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them, would be sufficient cause to require him to give surety of the peace.”[130]

    Joseph Story

    Joseph Story articulated in his influential Commentaries on the Constitution[134] the orthodox view of the Second Amendment, which he viewed as the amendment’s clear meaning:

    The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpations and arbitrary power of rulers; and it will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well-regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights.[135][136]

    Story describes a militia as the “natural defence of a free country,” both against foreign foes, domestic revolts and usurpation by rulers. The book regards the militia as a “moral check” against both usurpation and the arbitrary use of power, while expressing distress at the growing indifference of the American people to maintaining such an organized militia, which could lead to the undermining of the protection of the Second Amendment.[136]

    Lysander Spooner

    Abolitionist Lysander Spooner, commenting on bills of rights, stated that the object of all bills of rights is to assert the rights of individuals against the government and that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in support of the right to resist government oppression, as the only security against the tyranny of government lies in forcible resistance to injustice, for injustice will certainly be executed, unless forcibly resisted.[137] Spooner’s theory provided the intellectual foundation for John Brown and other radical abolitionists who believed that arming slaves was not only morally justified, but entirely consistent with the Second Amendment.[138] An express connection between this right and the Second Amendment was drawn by Lysander Spooner who commented that a “right of resistance” is protected by both the right to trial by jury and the Second Amendment.[139]

    The congressional debate on the proposed Fourteenth Amendment concentrated on what the Southern States were doing to harm the newly freed slaves, including disarming the former slaves.[140]

    Timothy Farrar

    In 1867, Judge Timothy Farrar published his Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America, which was written when the Fourteenth Amendment was “in the process of adoption by the State legislatures.”:[126][141]

    The States are recognized as governments, and, when their own constitutions permit, may do as they please; provided they do not interfere with the Constitution and laws of the United States, or with the civil or natural rights of the people recognized thereby, and held in conformity to them. The right of every person to “life, liberty, and property,” to “keep and bear arms,” to the “writ of habeas corpus” to “trial by jury,” and divers others, are recognized by, and held under, the Constitution of the United States, and cannot be infringed by individuals or even by the government itself.

    Judge Thomas Cooley

    Judge Thomas Cooley, perhaps the most widely read constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century, wrote extensively about this amendment,[142][143] and he explained in 1880 how the Second Amendment protected the “right of the people”:

    It might be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms; and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.[144]

    Late 20th century commentary

    Assortment of 20th century handguns

    In the latter half of the 20th century, there was considerable debate over whether the Second Amendment protected an individual right or a collective right.[145] The debate centered on whether the prefatory clause (“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) declared the amendment’s only purpose or merely announced a purpose to introduce the operative clause (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”). Scholars advanced three competing theoretical models for how the prefatory clause should be interpreted.[146]

    The first, known as the “states’ rights” or “collective right” model, held that the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals; rather, it recognizes the right of each state to arm its militia. Under this approach, citizens “have no right to keep or bear arms, but the states have a collective right to have the National Guard”.[126] Advocates of collective rights models argued that the Second Amendment was written to prevent the federal government from disarming state militias, rather than to secure an individual right to possess firearms.[147] Prior to 2001, every circuit court decision that interpreted the Second Amendment endorsed the “collective right” model.[148][149] However, beginning with the Fifth Circuit’s opinion United States v. Emerson in 2001, some circuit courts recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.[150]

    The second, known as the “sophisticated collective right model”, held that the Second Amendment recognizes some limited individual right. However, this individual right could only be exercised by actively participating members of a functioning, organized state militia.[151][152] Some scholars have argued that the “sophisticated collective rights model” is, in fact, the functional equivalent of the “collective rights model.”[153] Other commentators have observed that prior to Emerson, five circuit courts specifically endorsed the “sophisticated collective right model”.[154]

    The third, known as the “standard model”, held that the Second Amendment recognized the personal right of individuals to keep and bear arms.[126] Supporters of this model argued that “although the first clause may describe a general purpose for the amendment, the second clause is controlling and therefore the amendment confers an individual right ‘of the people’ to keep and bear arms”.[155] Additionally, scholars who favored this model argued the “absence of founding-era militias mentioned in the Amendment’s preamble does not render it a ‘dead letter’ because the preamble is a ‘philosophical declaration’ safeguarding militias and is but one of multiple ‘civic purposes’ for which the Amendment was enacted”.[156]

    Under both of the collective right models, the opening phrase was considered essential as a pre-condition for the main clause.[157] These interpretations held that this was a grammar structure that was common during that era[158] and that this grammar dictated that the Second Amendment protected a collective right to firearms to the extent necessary for militia duty.[159] However, under the standard model, the opening phrase was believed to be prefatory or amplifying to the operative clause. The opening phrase was meant as a non-exclusive example – one of many reasons for the amendment.[45] This interpretation is consistent with the position that the Second Amendment protects a modified individual right.[160]

    The question of a collective right versus an individual right was progressively resolved in favor of the individual rights model, beginning with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Emerson (2001), along with the Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller(2008), and McDonald v. Chicago (2010). In Heller, the Supreme Court resolved any remaining circuit splits by ruling that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[161] Although the Second Amendment is the only Constitutional amendment with a prefatory clause, such linguistic constructions were widely used elsewhere in the late eighteenth century.[162]

    Meaning of “well regulated militia”

    The term “regulated” means “disciplined” or “trained”.[163] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that “[t]he adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164]

    In the year prior to the drafting of the Second Amendment, in Federalist No. 29 Alexander Hamilton wrote the following about “organizing”, “disciplining”, “arming”, and “training” of the militia as specified in the enumerated powers:

    If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security … confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority … [but] reserving to the states … the authority of training the militia … A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.[76]

    Justice Scalia, writing for the Court in Heller: “In Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846), the Georgia Supreme Court construed the Second Amendment as protecting the ‘natural right of self-defence’ and therefore struck down a ban on carrying pistols openly. Its opinion perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second Amendment furthers the purpose announced in the prefatory clause, in continuity with the English right”:

    Nor is the right involved in this discussion less comprehensive or valuable: “The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta! And Lexington, Concord, Camden, River Raisin, Sandusky, and the laurel-crowned field of New Orleans, plead eloquently for this interpretation! And the acquisition of Texas may be considered the full fruits of this great constitutional right.[165]

    Justice Stevens in dissent:

    When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim “that the Second Amendment … codified a pre-existing right,” ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.[166]

    Meaning of “the right of the People”

    Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:

    Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people” – those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.[167]

    An earlier case, United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990), dealt with nonresident aliens and the Fourth Amendment, but led to a discussion of who are “the People” when referred to elsewhere in the Constitution:[168]

    The Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments provide that certain rights and powers are retained by and reserved to “the people” … While this textual exegesis is by no means conclusive, it suggests that “the people” protected by the Fourth Amendment, and by the First and Second Amendments, and to whom rights and powers are reserved in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, refers to a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community.

    There were several different reasons for this amendment, and protecting militias was only one of them; if protecting militias had been the only reason then the amendment could have instead referred to “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms” instead of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”.[169][170]

    Meaning of “keep and bear arms”

    In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term “to bear arms” implies only the military use of arms:

    Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context – that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”[167]

    In a dissent, joined by Justices SouterGinsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:

    The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.[171]

    Supreme Court cases

    In the century following the ratification of the Bill of Rights, the intended meaning and application of the Second Amendment drew less interest than it does in modern times.[172] The vast majority of regulation was done by states, and the first case law on weapons regulation dealt with state interpretations of the Second Amendment. A notable exception to this general rule was Houston v. Moore18 U.S. 1 (1820), where the U.S. Supreme Court mentioned the Second Amendment in an aside.[173] In the Dred Scott decision, the opinion of the court stated that if African Americans were considered U.S. citizens, “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right…to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”[174]

    State and federal courts historically have used two models to interpret the Second Amendment: the “individual rights” model, which holds that individuals hold the right to bear arms, and the “collective rights” model, which holds that the right is dependent on militia membership. The “collective rights” model has been rejected by the Supreme Court, in favor of the individual rights model.

    The Supreme Court’s primary Second Amendment cases include United States v. Miller, (1939); District of Columbia v. Heller (2008); and McDonald v. Chicago (2010).

    Heller and McDonald supported the individual rights model, under which the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms much as the First Amendment protects the right to free speech. Under this model, the militia is composed of members who supply their own arms and ammunition. This is generally recognized as the method by which militias have historically been armed, as the Supreme Court in Miller said:

    The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.[175]

    Of the collective rights model that holds that the right to arms is based on militia membership, the Supreme Court in Heller said:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[176]

    United States v. Cruikshank

    In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v. Cruikshank92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, “[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States.”[177]

    The Court stated that “[t]he Second Amendment…has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ……”[178] Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:

    The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.[179]

    Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.[180]

    Presser v. Illinois

    In Presser v. Illinois116 U.S. 252 (1886), Herman Presser headed a German-American paramilitary shooting organization and was arrested for leading a parade group of 400 men, training and drilling with military weapons with the declared intention to fight, through the streets of Chicago as a violation of Illinois law that prohibited public drilling and parading in military style without a permit from the governor.[64][181]

    At his trial, Presser argued that the State of Illinois had violated his Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court reaffirmed Cruikshank, and also held that the Second Amendment prevented neither the States nor Congress from barring private militias that parade with arms; such a right “cannot be claimed as a right independent of law.” This decision upheld the States’ authority to regulate the militia and that citizens had no right to create their own militias or to own weapons for semi-military purposes.[64] However the court said: “A state cannot prohibit the people therein from keeping and bearing arms to an extent that would deprive the United States of the protection afforded by them as a reserve military force.”[182]

    Miller v. Texas

    In Miller v. Texas153 U.S. 535 (1894), Franklin Miller was convicted and sentenced to be executed for shooting a police officer to death with an illegally carried handgun in violation of Texas law. Miller sought to have his conviction overturned, claiming his Second Amendment rights were violated and that the Bill of Rights should be applied to state law. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment did not apply to state laws such as the Texas law:[64] “As the proceedings were conducted under the ordinary forms of criminal prosecutions there certainly was no denial of due process of law.”[183]

    Robertson v. Baldwin

    In Robertson v. Baldwin165 U.S. 275 (1897), the Court stated in dicta that laws regulating concealed arms did not infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms and thus were not a violation of the Second Amendment:

    The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the “Bill of Rights,” were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.[184]

    United States v. Miller

    In United States v. Miller307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Supreme Court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act prohibiting the interstate transportation of unregistered Title II weapons:

    Jack Miller and Frank Layton “did unlawfully … transport in interstate commerce from … Claremore … Oklahoma to … Siloam Springs … Arkansas a certain firearm … a double barrel … shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length … at the time of so transporting said firearm in interstate commerce … not having registered said firearm as required by Section 1132d of Title 26, United States Code … and not having in their possession a stamp-affixed written order … as provided by Section 1132C …”[185]

    In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice McReynolds, the Supreme Court stated “the objection that the Act usurps police power reserved to the States is plainly untenable.”[186] As the Court explained:

    In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.[187]

    Gun rights advocates claim that the Court in Miller ruled that the Second Amendment protected the right to keep arms that are part of “ordinary military equipment.”[188] They also claim that the Court did not consider the question of whether the sawed-off shotgun in the case would be an applicable weapon for personal defense, instead looking solely at the weapon’s suitability for the “common defense.”[189] Law professor Andrew McClurg states, “The only certainty about Miller is that it failed to give either side a clear-cut victory. Most modern scholars recognize this fact.”[190]

    District of Columbia v. Heller

    Judgment

    The Justices who decided Heller

    According to the syllabus prepared by the U.S. Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions,[191] in District of Columbia v. Heller554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court held:[191][192]

    1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. pp. 2–53.[191][192]

    (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. pp. 2–22.[191][192]
    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. pp. 22–28.[191][192]
    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. pp. 28–30.[191][192]
    (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. pp. 30–32.[191][192]
    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. pp. 32–47.[191][192]
    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. pp. 47–54.[191][192]
    2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. pp. 54–56.[191][192]
    3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. pp. 56–64.[192]

    There are similar legal summaries of the Supreme Court’s findings in Heller.[193][194][195][196][197][198] For example, the Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up Heller’s findings and reasoning:

    In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever “in-depth examination” of the second amendment’s meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment “guarantee[s] the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” (id. at 592); that “central to” this right is “the inherent right of self-defense” (id. at 628); that “the home” is “where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” (id. at 628); and that, “above all other interests,” the second amendment elevates “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home” (id. at 635). Based on this understanding, the Court held that a District of Columbia law banning handgun possession in the home violated the second amendment. Id. at 635.[199]

    Notes and analysis

    Heller has been widely described as a landmark decision.[200][201][202][203][204] To clarify that its ruling does not invalidate a broad range of existing firearm laws, the majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, said:[205]

    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited … Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.[206]

    The Court’s statement that the right is limited has been widely discussed by lower courts and the media.[207][208][209][210][211] The majority opinion also said that the amendment’s prefatory clause (referencing the “militia”) serves to clarify the operative clause (referencing “the people”), but does not limit the scope of the operative clause, because “the ‘militia’ in colonial America consisted of a subset of ‘the people’….”[212]

    Justice Stevens’ dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said:

    The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.[213]

    Stevens went on to say the following:

    The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.[214]

    This dissent called the majority opinion “strained and unpersuasive” and said that the right to possess a firearm exists only in relation to the militia and that the D.C. laws constitute permissible regulation. In the majority opinion, Justice Stevens’ interpretation of the phrase “to keep and bear arms” was referred to as a “hybrid” definition that Stevens purportedly chose in order to avoid an “incoherent” and “[g]rotesque” idiomatic meeting.[214]

    Justice Breyer, in his own dissent joined by Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg, stated that the entire Court subscribes to the proposition that “the amendment protects an ‘individual’ right – i.e., one that is separately possessed, and may be separately enforced, by each person on whom it is conferred”.[215]

    Regarding the term “well regulated”, the majority opinion said, “The adjective ‘well-regulated’ implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.”[164] The majority opinion quoted Spooner from The Unconstitutionality of Slavery as saying that the right to bear arms was necessary for those who wanted to take a stand against slavery.[216] The majority opinion also stated that:

    A purposive qualifying phrase that contradicts the word or phrase it modifies is unknown this side of the looking glass (except, apparently, in some courses on Linguistics). If “bear arms” means, as we think, simply the carrying of arms, a modifier can limit the purpose of the carriage (“for the purpose of self-defense” or “to make war against the King”). But if “bear arms” means, as the petitioners and the dissent think, the carrying of arms only for military purposes, one simply cannot add “for the purpose of killing game.” The right “to carry arms in the militia for the purpose of killing game” is worthy of the mad hatter.[217]

    The dissenting justices were not persuaded by this argument.[218]

    Reaction to Heller has varied, with many sources giving focus to the ruling referring to itself as being the first in Supreme Court history to read the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Scalia, gives explanation of the majority legal reasoning behind this decision.[192] The majority opinion made clear that the recent ruling did not foreclose the Court’s prior interpretations given in United States v. CruikshankPresser v. Illinois, and United States v. Miller though these earlier rulings did not limit the right to keep and bear arms solely to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia (i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes).[192]

    Heller pertained to three District of Columbia ordinances involving restrictions on firearms amounting to a total ban. These three ordinances were a ban on handgun registration, a requirement that all firearms in a home be either disassembled or have a trigger lock, and licensing requirement that prohibits carrying an unlicensed firearm in the home, such as from one room to another.

    Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster…. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the District’s licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumed that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and did not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”[192]

    Justice Ginsburg has been a vocal critic of Heller. Speaking in an interview on public radio station WNYC, she called the Second Amendment “outdated,” saying:

    When we no longer need people to keep muskets in their home, then the Second Amendment has no function … If the Court had properly interpreted the Second Amendment, the Court would have said that amendment was very important when the nation was new; it gave a qualified right to keep and bear arms, but it was for one purpose only – and that was the purpose of having militiamen who were able to fight to preserve the nation.[219]

    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    On June 28, 2010, the Court in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), held that the Second Amendment was incorporated, saying that “[i]t is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.”[220] This means that the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[14] It also remanded a case regarding a Chicago handgun prohibition. Four of the five Justices in the majority voted to do so by way of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, while the fifth Justice, Clarence Thomas, voted to do so through the amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause.[221]

    Justice Thomas noted that the Privileges or Immunities Clause refers to “citizens” whereas the Due Process Clause refers more broadly to any “person”, and therefore Thomas reserved the issue of non-citizens for later decision.[222] After McDonald, many questions about the Second Amendment remain unsettled, such as whether non-citizens are protected through the Equal Protection Clause.[222]

    In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

    Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “[s]elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036).[199]

    Caetano v. Massachusetts

    On March 21, 2016, in a per curiam decision the Court vacated a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision upholding the conviction of a woman who carried a stun gun for self defense. The Court reiterated that the Heller and McDonald decisions saying that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding”, that “the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States”, and that the protection is not restricted to “only those weapons useful in warfare”.[15][223]

    United States Courts of Appeals decisions before and after Heller

    Before Heller

    Until District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), United States v. Miller (1939) had been the only Supreme Court decision that “tested a congressional enactment against [the Second Amendment].”[224] Miller did not directly mention either a collective or individual right, but for the 62-year period from Miller until the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Emerson (2001), federal courts recognized only the collective right,[225] with “courts increasingly referring to one another’s holdings…without engaging in any appreciably substantive legal analysis of the issue”.[224]

    Emerson changed this by addressing the question in depth, with the Fifth Circuit determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.[224] Subsequently, the Ninth Circuit conflicted with Emerson in Silviera v. Lockyer, and the D.C. Circuit supported Emerson in Parker v. District of Columbia.[224] Parker evolved into District of Columbia v. Heller, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.

    After Heller

    Since Heller, the United States courts of appeals have ruled on many Second Amendment challenges to convictions and gun control laws.[226][227] The following are post-Heller cases, divided by Circuit, along with summary notes:

    D.C. Circuit

    • Heller v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 08-1289 (RMU), No. 23., 25 – On March 26, 2010, the D.C. Circuit denied the follow up appeal of Dick Heller who requested the court to overturn the new District of Columbia gun control ordinances newly enacted after the 2008 Heller ruling. The court refused to do so, stating that the firearms registration procedures, the prohibition on assault weapons, and the prohibition on large capacity ammunition feeding devices were found to not violate the Second Amendment.[228] On September 18, 2015, the D.C. Circuit ruled that requiring gun owners to re-register a gun every three years, make a gun available for inspection or pass a test about firearms laws violated the Second Amendment, although the court upheld requirements that gun owners be fingerprinted, photographed, and complete a safety training course.[229]
    • Wrenn v. District of Columbia, No. 16-7025 – On July 25, 2017, the D.C. Circuit ruled that a District of Columbia regulation that limited conceal-carry licenses only to those individuals who could demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the chief of police, that they have a “good reason” to carry a handgun in public was essentially designed to prevent the exercise of the right to bear arms by most District residents and so violated the Second Amendment by amounting to a complete prohibition on firearms possession.[230]

    First Circuit

    • United States v. Rene E., 583 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2009) – On August 31, 2009, the First Circuit affirmed the conviction of a juvenile for the illegal possession of a handgun as a juvenile, under 18 U.S.C. § 922(x)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 5032, rejecting the defendant’s argument that the federal law violated his Second Amendment rights under Heller. The court cited “the existence of a longstanding tradition of prohibiting juveniles from both receiving and possessing handguns” and observed “the federal ban on juvenile possession of handguns is part of a longstanding practice of prohibiting certain classes of individuals from possessing firearms – those whose possession poses a particular danger to the public.”[231]

    Second Circuit

    • Kachalsky v. County of Westchester, 11-3942 – On November 28, 2012, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s may-issue concealed carry permit law, ruling that “the proper cause requirement is substantially related to New York’s compelling interests in public safety and crime prevention.”[232]

    Fourth Circuit

    • United States v. Hall, 551 F.3d 257 (4th Cir. 2009) – On August 4, 2008, the Fourth Circuit upheld as constitutional the prohibition of possession of a concealed weapon without a permit.[233]
    • United States v. Chester, 628 F.3d 673 (4th Cir. 2010) – On December 30, 2010, the Fourth Circuit vacated William Chester’s conviction for possession of a firearm after having been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).[234] The court found that the district court erred in perfunctorily relying on Heller’s exception for “presumptively lawful” gun regulations made in accordance with “longstanding prohibitions”.[235]
    • Kolbe v. Hogan, No. 14-1945 (4th Cir. 2016) – On February 4, 2016, the Fourth Circuit vacated a U.S. District Court decision upholding a Maryland law banning high-capacity magazines and semi-automatic rifles, ruling that the District Court was wrong to have applied intermediate scrutiny. The Fourth Circuit ruled that the higher strict scrutiny standard is to be applied on remand.[236] On March 4, 2016, the court agreed to rehear the case en banc on May 11, 2016.[237]

    Fifth Circuit

    • United States v. Dorosan, 350 Fed. Appx. 874 (5th Cir. 2009) – On June 30, 2008, the Fifth Circuit upheld 39 C.F.R. 232.1(l), which bans weapons on postal property, sustaining restrictions on guns outside the home, specifically in private vehicles parked in employee parking lots of government facilities, despite Second Amendment claims that were dismissed. The employee’s Second Amendment rights were not infringed since the employee could have instead parked across the street in a public parking lot, instead of on government property.[238][239]
    • United States v. Bledsoe, 334 Fed. Appx. 771 (5th Cir. 2009) – The Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of a U.S. District Court decision in Texas, upholding 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(6), which prohibits “straw purchases.” A “straw purchase” occurs when someone eligible to purchase a firearm buys one for an ineligible person. Additionally, the court rejected the request for a strict scrutiny standard of review.[233]
    • United States v. Scroggins, 551 F.3d 257 (5th Cir. 2010) – On March 4, 2010, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the conviction of Ernie Scroggins for possession of a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). The court noted that it had, prior to Heller, identified the Second Amendment as providing an individual right to bear arms, and had already, likewise, determined that restrictions on felon ownership of firearms did not violate this right. Moreover, it observed that Heller did not affect the longstanding prohibition of firearm possession by felons.

    Sixth Circuit

    • Tyler v. Hillsdale Co. Sheriff’s Dept., 775 F.3d 308 (6th Cir. 2014) – On December 18, 2014, the Sixth Circuit ruled that strict scrutiny should be applied to firearms regulations when regulations burden “conduct that falls within the scope of the Second Amendment right, as historically understood.”[240] At issue in this case was whether the Second Amendment is violated by a provision of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that prohibits possession of a firearm by a person who has been involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital. The court did not rule on the provision’s constitutionality, instead remanding the case to the United States district court that has earlier heard this case.[241] On April 21, 2015, the Sixth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc, thereby vacating the December 18 opinion.[242]

    Seventh Circuit

    • United States v. Skoien, 587 F.3d 803 (7th Cir. 2009) – Steven Skoien, a Wisconsin man convicted of two misdemeanor domestic violence convictions, appealed his conviction based on the argument that the prohibition violated the individual rights to bear arms, as described in Heller. After initial favorable rulings in lower court based on a standard of intermediate scrutiny,[243] on July 13, 2010, the Seventh Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled 10–1 against Skoien and reinstated his conviction for a gun violation, citing the strong relation between the law in question and the government objective.[243] Skoien was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for the gun violation, and will thus likely be subject to a lifetime ban on gun ownership.[244][245] Editorials favoring gun rights sharply criticized this ruling as going too far with the enactment of a lifetime gun ban,[246] while editorials favoring gun regulations praised the ruling as “a bucket of cold water thrown on the ‘gun rights’ celebration”.[247]
    • Moore v. Madigan (Circuit docket 12-1269)[248] – On December 11, 2012, the Seventh Circuit ruled that the Second Amendment protected a right to keep and bear arms in public for self-defense. This was an expansion of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and McDonald, each of which referred only to such a right in the home. Based on this ruling, the court declared Illinois’s ban on the concealed carrying of firearms to be unconstitutional. The court stayed this ruling for 180 days, so Illinois could enact replacement legislation.[249][250][251] On February 22, 2013, a petition for rehearing en banc was denied by a vote of 5-4.[252] On July 9, 2013, the Illinois General Assembly, overriding Governor Quinn’s veto, passed a law permitting the concealed carrying of firearms.[253]

    Ninth Circuit

    • Nordyke v. King, 2012 WL 1959239 (9th Cir. 2012) – On July 29, 2009, the Ninth Circuit vacated an April 20 panel decision and reheard the case en banc on September 24, 2009.[254][255][256][257] The April 20 decision had held that the Second Amendment applies to state and local governments, while upholding an Alameda County, California ordinance that makes it a crime to bring a gun or ammunition on to, or possess either while on, county property.[258][259] The en banc panel remanded the case to the three-judge panel. On May 2, 2011, that panel ruled that intermediate scrutiny was the correct standard by which to judge the ordinance’s constitutionality and remanded the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.[260] On November 28, 2011, the Ninth Circuit vacated the panel’s May 2 decision and agreed to rehear the case en banc.[261][262] On April 4, 2012, the panel sent the case to mediation.[263] The panel dismissed the case on June 1, 2012, but only after Alameda County officials changed their interpretation of the challenged ordinance. Under the new interpretation, gun shows may take place on county property under the ordinance’s exception for “events”, subject to restrictions regarding the display and handling of firearms.[264]
    • Teixeira v. County of Alameda, (Circuit docket 13-17132) – On May 16, 2016, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the right to keep and bear arms included being able to buy and sell firearms. The court ruled that a county law prohibiting a gun store being within 500 feet of a “[r]esidentially zoned district; elementary, middle or high school; pre-school or day care center; other firearms sales business; or liquor stores or establishments in which liquor is served” violated the Second Amendment.[265]

    See also

    Notes and citations

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26