The Pronk Pops Show 1301, August 5, 2019, Alert Breaking News — Story 1: President Donald J. Trump Addressed The Nation on Two Terrorist Mass Shootings — Videos — Story 2: Mass Shooting in El Paso Walmart 22 killed and 24 Injured with Many in Critical Condition, 21-year old from Dallas, Texas, Arrested and in Custody — Videos — Story 3: Mass Shooting in Dayton, Ohio, 9 Killed Including The Shooter and 26 Injured — Videos — Story 4: Red Flagging The Gun Grabbing of Radical Extremist Democrat Socialist (REDS) — Racists of Color — Mass Shooters Are Not Mentally Ill But Evil — They Knew Exactly What They Were Doing — Vote Out of Office All Democrats and Republicans Voting For Red Flag Laws — Infringement of Second Amendment Right — Trump Betraying Second Amendment Rights of American People — Videos

Posted on August 3, 2019. Filed under: 2020 Democrat Candidates, 2020 President Candidates, 2020 Republican Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Crime, Culture, Deep State, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Education, Elections, Environment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Government, Government Spending, Hate Speech, History, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Killing, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Mass Shooting Homicides, Media, Mexico, Networking, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Social Networking, United States of America, Welfare Spending | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1301 August 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1300 August 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1299 July 31, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1298 July 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1297 July 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1296 July 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1295 July 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1294 July 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1293 July 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1292 July 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1291 July 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1290 July 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1289 July 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1288 July 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1287 July 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1286 July 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1285 July 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1284 July 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1283 July 1, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1282 June 27, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1281 June 26, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1280 June 25, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1279 June 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1278 June 20, 2019 

Pronk Pops Show 1277 June 19, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1276 June 18, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1275 June 17, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1274 June 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1273 June 12, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1272 June 11, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1271 June 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1270 June 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1269 June 5, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1268 June 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1267 May 30, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1266 May 29, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1265 May 28, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1264 May 24, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1263 May 23, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1262 May 22, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1261 May 21, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1260 May 20, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1259 May 16, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1258 May 15, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1257 May 14, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1256 May 13, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1255 May 10, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1254 May 9, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1253 May 8, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1252 May 7, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1251 May 6, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1250 May 3, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1249 May 2, 2019

Pronk Pops Show 1248 May 1, 2019

See the source image

A number of local businesses, stores, shops, and restaurants were placed on lock down during the shooting

See the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source imageView image on Twitter

Image result for mass shooting el paso texas walmart

 

See the source image

Will Be Updated and Expanded Monday, August 5, 2019

Story 1: President Donald J. Trump Addressed The Nation on Two Terrorist Mass Shootings — Videos

Trump speaks on the mass shootings in Texas and Ohio

President Donald Trump makes a statement on mass shootings | USA TODAY

Eddie Glaude: It’s Easy To Place It All On Donald Trump’s Shoulders. This Is Us. | Deadline | MSNBC

Beto O’Rouke blames Trump for violence in U.S. after shootings in El Paso, Dayton

Beto O’Rourke Calls Out Trump as a Racist After El Paso Shooting | NowThis

Beto O’Rourke In El Paso: Trump ‘Is A Racist And He Stokes Racism’ | NBC News

Full Booker: Trump ‘Is Responsible’ For Rising Hate | Meet The Press | NBC News

Full Panel: ‘We Are All Struggling To Find The Right Words’ | Meet The Press | NBC News

America’s Gun Culture Is Melting Down

 

Story 2: Mass Shooting in El Paso Walmart 22 killed and 20 Wounded with Many in Critical Condition, 21-year old Patrick Crusius from Dallas, Texas, Arrested and in Custody — Videos —

El Paso Police holds press conference after mass shooting

Police give update on El Paso, Texas shooting

Multiple Fatalities Reported: SWAT Team Arrives at Scene of El Paso, Texas Shooting

El Paso Walmart shooting: Gunman ‘armed with AK-47 guns down 18 people at store’ – Breaking News 24

Update on Walmart mass shooting El Paso suspect brought into custody

BREAKING NEWS: Several killed in Texas mall shooting

El Paso Shooting Multiple Victims Reported at Shopping Center

Multiple deaths reported after mass shooting at shopping centre in El Paso, Texas

People frantically flee El Paso mall in active shooting

Multiple people shot in El Paso, Texas

HUNDREDS of people outside of Vitalant in West El Paso waiting to donate Blood to Victims||

Beto O’Rourke on Today’s Shooting at The El Paso Wal Mart | August 3, 2019

Death toll in El Paso Walmart massacre rises to 22 – with victims including a grandfather who shielded his wife and nine-year-old granddaughter from bullets, an Army veteran and a hero mom who saved her two-month-old son

  • The number of people killed in Saturday’s mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, rose to 22 by midday on Monday  
  • The shooter was confirmed to be 21-year-old Patrick Crusius of Allen, Texas    
  • Less than 20 minutes before the shooting, Crusius allegedly shared a twisted and seething anti-immigrant manifesto outlining his sickening motives  
  • One of the victims was David Johnson, 63, who was killed while protecting his wife and granddaughter from gunfire 
  • Arturo Benavides, 60, was also killed while shopping with his wife, who escaped
  • The victim’s niece described him as ‘a strong-willed, caring, giving, and special person’ well known in the community after years as a Sun Metro bus driver
  • Jordan Anchondo, 25, and her husband Andre were confirmed among the dead 
  • Jordan’s heartbroken sister Leta Jamrowski said the mother fell on her son after she was shot, and he is now in the hospital being treated for broken bones  
  • Mexican authorities said seven of their nationals were also killed 
  • One of them, Jorge Calvillo, died shielding his granddaughter’s soccer team 
  • To add a victim to this list, please contact megan.sheets@mailonline.com 

The number of people killed in Saturday’s mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, has risen to 22, El Paso police announced Monday morning.

A gunman, identified by police as Patrick Crusius, opened fire on the crowded store in what authorities are calling an act of domestic terrorism.

Witnesses said the shooter showed ‘no remorse’ as he unleashed a spray of bullets on the super-store at the Cielo Vista Mall, a popular shopping destination for people both sides of the US-Mexico border.

At least 22 people were killed and more than two dozen were injured before Crusius was arrested.

Among the victims were a grandfather who shielded his wife and nine-year-old granddaughter from a hail of bullets, an Army veteran, a 15-year-old boy and a pair of hero parents who saved their two-month-old son.

Less than 20 minutes before the shooting, Crusius allegedly uploaded a twisted and seething anti-immigrant manifesto to an online forum outlining his sickening motives and revealing that he intended to target Hispanics.

Mexican authorities confirmed that seven Mexican nationals were among those killed.

People pray beside crosses with the names of victims who died in the shooting to a makeshift memorial after the shooting that left 22 people dead at the Cielo Vista Mall WalMart in El Paso, Texas

A police officer walks past a makeshift memorial outside Walmart, near the scene of a mass shooting which left at least 22 people dead

A police officer walks past a makeshift memorial outside Walmart, near the scene of a mass shooting which left at least 22 people dead

THE VICTIMS

David Johnson 

David Johnson, 63, was killed while protecting his wife and nine-year-old granddaughter from gunfire, according to family members.

Johnson’s family got separated from him during the rampage and was initially told that he was receiving medical attention.

When they arrived at the hospital they learned that the person identified as David Johnson was not their loved one, and their search for him continued.

On Sunday the family received confirmation that he was killed.

His wife and granddaughter both returned home safely thanks to his heroic actions.

David Johnson, 63, was killed while protecting his wife and nine-year-old granddaughter from gunfire during the shooting rampage at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday

David Johnson, 63, was killed while protecting his wife and nine-year-old granddaughter from gunfire during the shooting rampage at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, on Saturday

Arturo Benavides

US Army veteran Arturo Benavides, 60, had been shopping with his wife when gunfire erupted. She managed to escape, but her husband did not.

Several family members posted to social media over Saturday and Sunday looking for information about the man they knew as ‘Turi’. They were heartbroken to learn that he was among the victims.

Benavides’ niece, Jacklin Luna, described her uncle as ‘a strong-willed, caring, giving, and special person’ who well known in the community in the years he spent as a Sun Metro bus driver.

‘He was the person to always give a helping hand, a home to stay, and a meal,’ Luna told Buzzfeed of her uncle on Sunday.

‘He loved each and every one of us in our own ways. Loved oldies on a Sunday morning, sitting out on his chair in the front porch with his dog Milo at his feet.’

Arturo Benavides, 60, has been identified as one of the 22 people killed in Saturday's shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas

Arturo Benavides, 60, has been identified as one of the 22 people killed in Saturday’s shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas

Benavides' niece, Jacklin Luna (above together), described her uncle as 'a strong-willed, caring, giving, and special person' who well known in the community in the years he spent as a Sun Metro bus driver

Benavides’ niece, Jacklin Luna (above together), described her uncle as ‘a strong-willed, caring, giving, and special person’ who well known in the community in the years he spent as a Sun Metro bus driver

Jordan and Andre Anchondo

Hero mom Jordan Anchondo, 25, was killed while shielding her two-month-old son from bullets.

She was shopping for back-to-school supplies when the attack happened.

Anchondo’s heartbroken sister Leta Jamrowski said the mother-of-three fell on top of the infant as she was shot. The boy suffered broken bones and is being treated in a hospital.

‘From the baby’s injuries, they said that more than likely my sister was trying to shield him,’ Jamrowski, 19, told the Associated Press.

‘So when she got shot she was holding him and she fell on him, so that’s why he broke some of his bones.

‘He pretty much lived because she gave her life.’

Jordan’s husband Andre was also killed in the attack, the family confirmed Sunday.

A friend recalled that he had recently turned his life around after struggles with drug dependence and run-ins with the law.

The friend, Koteiba “Koti” Azzam said: ‘I love the guy. He had the character and the charisma..

Azzam said Anchondo had started a business in El Paso, building things from granite and stone, and made it successful through hard work.

He also was on the verge of completing a home he was building for his family.

In addition to their two-month-old son, the couple also share two daughters.

Jordan Anchondo, 25, was shot dead while shielding her two-month-old son (above together) from gunfire during the massacre

Jordan Anchondo, 25, was shot dead while shielding her two-month-old son (above together) from gunfire during the massacre

Anchondo's heartbroken sister Leta Jamrowski revealed she was among the 22 people killed

The 25-year-old victim is seen in a photo posted to social media

Anchondo’s heartbroken sister Leta Jamrowski revealed she was among the 22 people killed. The 25-year-old victim is seen left and right in photos posted to social media

Jordan's husband Andre Anchondo (right) was also among the dead

Jordan’s husband Andre Anchondo (right) was also among the dead

Jordan and Andre Anchondo are seen in a wedding photo from a year ago

Jordan and Andre Anchondo are seen in a wedding photo from a year ago

Andre Anchondo (above with his two daughters) is still missing as of Sunday afternoon

Andre Anchondo (above with his two daughters) is still missing as of Sunday afternoon

Woman pleads for information on missing relative after shooting

Angelina Englisbee

Angie Englisbee, an 86-year-old grandmother, was also killed, relatives told media.

Her son Will Englisbee told CNN that his brother last spoke to their mother by cell phone while she waited in line at Walmart, just minutes before the shooting.

Her granddaughter Mia told the New York Times that Angie had seven children and a son who died in infancy. She raised her children alone after her husband died of a heart attack.

Mia said: ‘She was a very strong person, very blunt. It feels like hell — it doesn’t feel real.’

Angie Englisbee, an 86-year-old grandmother, was also killed

Angie Englisbee, an 86-year-old grandmother, was also killed

Javier Rodriguez

Javier Rodriguez, 15, was identified by his aunt, Elvira Rodriguez, on Sunday afternoon.

She shared a photo of the boy on Facebook asking for any information about her nephew, only to follow it up two hours later with a confirmation of his death.

‘Thank you to everybody who helped us search for my nephew. We found him,’ she wrote.

‘I just don’t get why ? I know I’ll never have answers. I’m so confused, hurt, mad!!!!! May you Rest In Peace baby boy!!! We love you so much baby!!!!!’

15-year-old Javier Rodriguez (right), was identified by his aunt on Sunday+31

15-year-old Javier Rodriguez (right), was identified by his aunt on Sunday

A relative shared this image of Javier Rodriguez after the shooting asking if anyone had seen him

Leonardo Campos and Maribel Hernandez

Leonardo Campos Jr and his wife Maribel Hernandez were among those killed in the attack, the Pharr-San Juan-Alamo school district said.

A statement to the Monitor said: ‘The PSJA Family is sad to hear reports of the loss of one of our own, PSJA High School Class of 1996 Alum Leonardo Campos Jr during yesterday’s tragic shooting in El Paso’.

A friend posted on Facebook: ‘Leo, you were a great friend and always with a big heart. We are going to miss you brother.’

Hernandez’s brother told KFOX14 they dropped off their dog at a groomer and then went shopping.

He said he knew something was wrong when the groomer called and said the dog was never picked up.

A family member tracked the GPS on the couple’s vehicle and saw it was in the Walmart parking lot.

Police confirmed on Sunday that both Hernandez and Campos had died.

Leonardo Campos Jr and his wife Maribel Hernandez were among those killed in the attack

Leonardo Campos Jr and his wife Maribel Hernandez were among those killed in the attack

A friend posted on Facebook: 'Leo, you were a great friend and always with a big heart. We are going to miss you brother'

A friend posted on Facebook: ‘Leo, you were a great friend and always with a big heart. We are going to miss you brother’

Seven Mexican nationals

Mexican authorities confirmed that seven of their nationals were among those killed.

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador confirmed that six others were injured, including Mario de Alba Montes, 45, Olivia Mariscal Rodriguez, 44, and 10-year-old Erika de Alba Mariscal.

Those killed were:

Sara Esther Regalado and Adolfo Cerros Hernández

The children of Sara and Adolfo announced on Facebook that their parents had been killed in the attack.

The children of Sara and Adolfo announced on Facebook that their parents had been killed

The children of Sara and Adolfo announced on Facebook that their parents had been killed

Sara Esther Regalado

Gloria Irma Márquez

The family of Gloria Irma Marquez confirmed online that she had been killed.

They wrote online: ‘Gloria was a dedicated mother, grandmother and friend.’

Gloria Irma Marquez was a mother and grand mother

Gloria Irma Marquez was a mother and grand mother

Jorge Calvillo García

Jorge Calvillo, of Torreón, Mexico, was one of the first people killed in the shooting when Crusius opened fire on a group of people raising money for his granddaughter Emily’s soccer team.

Calvillo’s nephew Raul Ortega said the grandfather jumped in to shield the young girls from the bullets when he was shot.

His son Luis Calvillo, Emily’s father and coach of the soccer team, was also shot. He is said to be in critical condition.

Jorge Zermeño Infante, the mayor of Jorge Calvillo’s hometown Torreón, confirmed his death, writing on Facebook: ‘God comfort his family and friends, as well as all those affected with this event.’

Jorge Calvillo (left) was one of the first people killed in the shooting when Crusius opened fire on a group of people raising money for his granddaughter Emily's soccer team

Jorge Calvillo (left) was one of the first people killed in the shooting when Crusius opened fire on a group of people raising money for his granddaughter Emily’s soccer team

María Eugenia Legarreta Rothe

María Eugenia Legarreta Rothe, originally from Chihuahua, was confirmed killed by her sister, who wrote online: ‘It’s something I can’t assimilate’.

María had reportedly gone to El Paso to pick her daughter up from the airport, but had stopped at Walmart to do some shopping first.

María Eugenia Legarreta Rothe was confirmed killed by her sister

María Eugenia Legarreta Rothe was confirmed killed by her sister

Ivan Filiberto Manzano

Ivan Filiberto Manzano, of Ciudad Juarez, was confirmed killed by by Mexican authorities.

He had two children, aged five and nine.

Ivan Filiberto Manzano was a father of two

Ivan Filiberto Manzano was a father of two

Elsa Mendoza de la Mora

Elsa Mendoza de la Mora, of the city of Yepomera, was a teacher and principal of Jaime Torres Bodet Elementary School.

She had gone into the Walmart to buy some items, while her husband and son waited in the car, her family told Mexican newspaper Milenio .

Former students described her as ‘an excellent teacher loved by all’.

Elsa Mendoza de la Mora was among those killed, it was confirmed

Elsa Mendoza de la Mora was among those killed, it was confirmed

The twenty-minute massacre was the eighth deadliest in US history.

Surveillance video shows a man believed to be Crusius walking in through the front entrance of the Cielo Vista Mall Walmart with an AK47-styled assault rifle.

The gunman, wearing what appears to be ear defenders and cargo pants, first opened fire in the parking lot outside the store, shooting and killing ‘locals that were fundraising outside the Walmart selling water. Children and adults.’

He then walked through the front door in a calm and confident state, as if he was ‘on a mission’, a witness said.

He described Crusius as a ‘wicked man’ who ‘shot and murdered 20 people and injured 26 others, including precious little children’.

Trump said he is asking the Justice Department to propose legislation to ensure that those who commit hate crimes and mass murders face the death penalty.

Referencing both shootings, the president said: ‘These barbaric slaughters are an assault upon our community.

‘We are outraged and sickened by this monstrous evil. … We are a loving nation and our children are entitled to grow up in a just, peaceful and loving society. Together we lock arms to shoulder the grief.

‘In one voice, our nation must condemn racism, bigotry and white supremacy.’

The Dayton shooting took place just after 1am on Sunday, leaving nine people dead and 26 injured.

Antonio Basbo cries while standing next to the cross for his partner Margie Reckard at the make shift memorial for the mass shooting

Antonio Basbo cries while standing next to the cross for his partner Margie Reckard at the make shift memorial for the mass shooting

A man prays beside crosses with the names of victims who died at a makeshift memorial after the shooting that left 22 people dead

A man prays beside crosses with the names of victims who died at a makeshift memorial after the shooting that left 22 people dead

A man kneels and prays at the make shift memorial for the mass shooting that happened at a Walmart in El Paso

A man kneels and prays at the make shift memorial for the mass shooting that happened at a Walmart in El Paso

Patrick Crusius has been described by those who knew him as a short-tempered 'loner' with long-held animosity toward Mexican immigrants

Crusius is seen in the back of a police cruiser after his arrest

Patrick Crusius has been described by those who knew him as a short-tempered ‘loner’ with long-held animosity toward Mexican immigrants. The 21-year-old suspect from Allen is seen left in a driver’s license photo and right in the back of a police car after his arrest
Surveillance footage shows the shooter entering the Walmart wielding an AK-47 assault rifle

Surveillance footage shows the shooter entering the Walmart wielding an AK-47 assault rifle

 

White Nationalists Pose Challenge to Investigators

Home-grown terrorists, some motivated by white-nationalist ideologies, often fly under the radar

Mourners gather at a vigil Sunday after a mass shooting in Dayton, Ohio. PHOTO: JOHN MINCHILLO/ASSOCIATED PRESS

The shootings in Texas and Ohio that killed at least 31 people over the weekend left authorities searching for how to confront the challenges posed by mass violence and domestic terrorism, especially attacks driven by white-nationalist ideologies.

Violence committed by white men inspired by an extremist ideology make up a growing number of domestic terrorism cases, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Of about 850 current domestic terrorism cases, 40% involve racially motivated violent extremism and a majority of those cases involve white supremacists, the FBI said.

 

*Mass shootings are the mass killings that involve guns, with four or more people killed, not including the assailant. †Year to date

Sources: News reports (deadliest shootings); Associated Press/USA Today/Northeastern University Mass Murder Database (killings, shootings by year)

Saturday’s attack in majority-Hispanic El Paso, Texas, which left at least 22 people dead, was allegedly committed by a 21-year-old white man who was believed to have posted a manifesto of sorts that espoused anti-immigrant and white-nationalist ideology on a popular far-right website not long before the shooting.

Assailants in other recent attacks, including at synagogues in Pittsburgh and Poway, Calif., also espoused white-nationalist beliefs.

“We are most concerned about lone offenders, primarily using firearms, as these lone offenders represent the dominant trend for lethal domestic terrorists,” Michael McGarrity, the FBI’s top counterterrorism official, recently told lawmakers. “Frequently, these individuals act without a clear group affiliation or guidance, making them challenging to identify, investigate and disrupt.”

As of Sunday night, the motive of the Dayton, Ohio, shooter, who killed nine and injured 27, was unclear, authorities said. The man was shot dead by police.

Preventing—and understanding—such crimes has been vexing for federal law-enforcement officials, who in recent years had been more focused on the threat posed by radical Islam and homegrown terrorists who pledge fealty to Islamic State. But now, Mr. McGarrity said, that approach is changing as domestic-terrorism-related arrests and killings have surpassed those involving Islamic extremism in recent years.

The young white men who have largely perpetrated the recent shootings typically aren’t on law enforcement’s radar or part of any larger organized enterprise, experts said. The ideology they often claim adherence to appears on shadowy websites like 8chan, which describes itself as “The darkest reaches of the internet.”

Those corners of the internet can be tough for law enforcement to mine, said Clint Watts, a research fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute. “It’s a free-for-all and it’s anonymous,” said Mr. Watts. Mr. Watts said law enforcement now has to use more “human intelligence” sources. Rather than relying on computers scraping websites and forums for suspicious activity, law enforcement increasingly must turn to the expensive and difficult work of gathering information through individual relationships and infiltration of extremist groups, he said.

Another difficulty in thwarting attacks: The vast majority of young disaffected men who embrace white nationalist ideology won’t commit mass violence, said Dr. Jonathan Metzl, a professor at Vanderbilt University who has studied the role of white nationalism in mass shootings. He said that more focus is needed on combating the ideology, given the difficulties of trying to predict the next mass shooters.

Others, including some members of Congress and experts who study U.S. extremism, said the FBI has been too slow to divert some of the extensive resources it devotes to combating Islamic terrorism to thwarting domestic hate groups. The bureau expended considerable resources on white supremacy in the 1990s but changed its focus after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

“As the Justice Department adapted counterterrorism as their number one priority, we weren’t looking at all terrorism equally,” said Michael German, a former FBI agent who worked undercover in white-supremacist and neo-Nazi groups in California and Washington during the 1990s.

In an interview, former Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who left the Trump administration in May, said fighting racist ideologies is a job for both law enforcement and politicians. Mr. Trump, he said, can play a role by personally condemning white nationalism.

Mr. Rosenstein, who in a tweet Saturday noted an urgent need to combat white terrorism, said the president “can deter it by making clear that he does not approve, just as he does for Islamic terrorist ideologies. The lesson of 9/11 is that the government should focus on deterring future attacks and not just condemning past killers.”

In the past, Mr. Trump at times appeared to be equivocal about such groups. After white supremacists in Charlottesville, Va., clashed with counterprotesters in 2017, leading to a woman’s death, the president said there were “very fine people, on both sides.”

The White House didn’t respond to requests for comment.

One pervasive belief that has linked white-nationalist mass shooters all over the world—from Norway in 2011 to New Zealand earlier this year and now El Paso—is that they and their countries are under attack by nonwhites and immigrants.

The shooters in El Paso and in April at a synagogue in Poway, Calif., both allegedly wrote that they were inspired by the attacker who killed 51 people in Christchurch mosque shootings in New Zealand in March.

The Christchurch shooter titled his manifesto “The Great Replacement,” also the name of a 2011 anti-immigration book by French author Renaud Camus. The book holds that white people are at risk of being replaced by migration and the growth of minorities.

The anti-immigrant screed written by the alleged El Paso shooter also cited the “great replacement” theory. It described a potential mass shooting as a response to an “invasion of Texas” by Hispanic immigrants.

The manifesto also leveled charges at corporations, calling them the engines that drive illegal immigration, and blaming them for the “destruction of our environment by shamelessly overharvesting resources.”

A new analysis by the anti-extremism think tank Institute for Strategic Dialogue found 1.5 million tweets referencing the “great replacement” theory in the past seven years. Such tweets nearly tripled to 330,000 in 2018 from 120,000 in 2014, according to the study.

Kathleen Blee, a University of Pittsburgh sociologist who has written several books on racist groups, said the fear of being replaced dates to at least the Jim Crow era, when white plantation owners in the South worried they would be outnumbered by freed slaves and Northerners who went south after the Civil War.

The notion has only strengthened in recent years. Said Ms. Blee: “Christchurch, Charlottesville, Pittsburgh. It’s all the same pattern.”

https://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-highlight-law-enforcement-challenges-to-combating-domestic-terror-11564947769

 

So many bodies’: Over 20 victims shot when gunman opens fire at El Paso Walmart

 

  • Wire Services

This story is being updated continuously.

Several people were shot, some of them fatally, Saturday when a gunman opened fire at a Walmart in El Paso.

A suspect, reportedly a 21-year-old man armed with a rifle, was detained after the shooting, police said Saturday afternoon.  He has not yet been identified.

“There are so many victims, so many bodies inside Walmart,” one person inside the store after the shooting said. “Hard to describe.”

Police have yet to confirm how many victims were shot, only that multiple people are dead.

Confirmed Photo of the shooter as he entered the Cielo Vista Walmart store. http://bit.ly/2OD2pDz 

View image on Twitter

KTSM-TV, the NBC station in El Paso, reported 18 people were shot, at least three fatally, at a Walmart in the area near Ceilo Vista Mall.

Police were called to the area around 10 a.m. after there were reports of shots fired at Cielo Vista Mall and the nearby Walmart, police spokesman Robert Gomez said.

Gomez said police “ruled out” that multiple people were involved after there were initial reports of multiple shooters.

mark lambie

@LambieMark

Law enforcement interviewing witnesses. Looking for shooter’s description. @elpasotimes

View image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on TwitterView image on Twitter

A University Medical Center of El Paso spokesman said multiple victims have been taken to different hospitals.

The hospital got 13 victims, two of them children, spokesman Ryan Mielke told NBC News. The children were transferred to El Paso Children’s Hospital.

“This is a terrible tragedy and we are doing everything possible to treat and care for the victims and assist their families,” hospital CEO Jacob Cintron told KTSM-TV.

An official from another hospital, Del Sol Medical Center, told CBS News 11 victims were taken to the medical facility.

Police set up a spot for families to reunite in the aftermath of the shooting at MacArthur Elementary-Intermediate School.

El Paso police pleaded with the public to donate blood for the victims, and El Pasoans lined up to meet the need.

Alfredo Corchado@ajcorchado

El Pasoans line up to donate blood, overwhelming centers in heartbroken, resilient city.

Embedded video

At the latest media briefing, the police spokesman didn’t update the status of the victims or say how many people were killed in the shooting.

Agents from the FBI, Customs and Border Protection and state troopers were all at the scene, in addition to scores of El Paso police officers.

Julian Aguilar

@nachoaguilar

FBI, CBP, EP Police, fire Border Patrol, DPS all on scene near Wal Mart in El Paso.

View image on Twitter

Former U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, a Democratic presidential candidate who represented El Paso in Congress, said the shooting was “truly heartbreaking.”

O’Rourke said he’d return immediately to his hometown, canceling campaign events in Nevada and California.

David Siders

@davidsiders

. @BetoORourke chokes back tears, cutting campaign trip short and heading back to El Paso after shooting. Full statement ….

Embedded video

In a statement, Gov. Greg Abbott called the shooting a “heinous act” and said the state will do “everything it can to ensure justice is delivered.”

“While no words can provide the solace needed for those impacted by this event, I ask that all Texans join Cecilia and me in offering our prayers for the victims and their families,” Abbott said in his statement.

The mall complex is near Interstate 10 on El Paso’s east side.

Two witnesses told a photographer for the Texas Tribune that they ran out of the Walmart where the shooting took place. The man and woman, identified only as Lorenzo and Gabriela, said once they heard shots they became anxious to run away.

“We thought it was a fire. Then we heard gunshots and that’s when we began to walk out more rapidly,” Gabriela said. “We heard the shots close, so we decided to almost run.”

She said they didn’t see any dead bodies as they ran out. Once outside, Lorenzo said police took 15 minutes to arrive.

In a statement, Walmart’s corporate office said the company is working with law enforcement in the investigation.

“We are in shock over the tragic events at the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso,” the company said in its statement. “We’re praying for the victims, the community and our associates, as well as the first responders who are on the scene.”

Staff writers Alfredo Corchado, María Méndez and Emma Ruby and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texas/2019/08/03/police-warn-active-shooter-el-paso-mall

 

PICTURED: Gunman, 21, who opened fire with an AK47 at an El Paso Walmart ‘killing at least 18 and injuring 21’, sending terrified shoppers fleeing before SWAT dramatically swooped and arrested him

  • El Paso mayor’s office confirms multiple fatalities in a mass-shooting inside a local Walmart on Saturday 
  • Texas Lt. Governor Dan Patrick says the suspect, a 21-year-old male, has been taken into custody alive
  • Law enforcement sources said the suspect is Patrick Crusius, 21, of Dallas, Texas
  • Surveillance footage shows an image of the gunman walking through front entrance of Walmart on Saturday 
  • The shooting took place at the Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso, Texas on Saturday
  • A local NBC affiliate is reporting that at least 18 people were killed and nearly two dozen were wounded
  • A number of local businesses, shops, and restaurants were in lock down during the shooting
  • Witnesses posted video on social media showing panicked shoppers fleeing during the shooting 

 

At least 18 people were reportedly killed and at least 22 others, including a four-month-old baby, were wounded on Saturday after a gunman reportedly opened fire inside a Walmart in El Paso.

One suspect is in custody. He has been identified in press reports as Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old man from Dallas.

Crusius is allegedly the man seen in surveillance footage walking in through the front entrance of the Walmart with an AK-47 assault rifle.

The gunman is seen wearing what appears to be either headphones or ear defenders.

El Paso Mayor Dee Margo confirmed that there were multiple fatalities.

One suspect in Saturday's mass shooting in El Paso is in custody. He has been identified in press reports as Patrick Crusius, a 21-year-old man from Dallas. Crusius is allegedly the man seen in surveillance footage walking in through the front entrance of the Walmart with an AK-47 assault rifle

The gunman is seen wearing what appears to be either headphones or ear defenders during the shooting on Saturday

Panicked shoppers flee the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday after a gunman opened fire inside a nearby Walmart

Panicked shoppers flee the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday after a gunman opened fire inside a nearby Walmart

Local reports indicate that at least 22 people were killed in the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

Local reports indicate that at least 22 people were killed in the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

Kendall Long (left) comforts Kianna Long (right) who was in the freezer section of a Walmart during the shooting

Kendall Long (left) comforts Kianna Long (right) who was in the freezer section of a Walmart during the shooting

Hawkins and Gateway are two streets that flank the Walmart. El Paso police later confirmed that the active shooter was inside a Walmart, according to USA Today.

At least three other businesses in the area were also on lock down, including a Red Lobster franchise and a Hooter’s location.

One witness said he saw at least one person inside the store with a fatal head wound, and he saw shoppers in bloodied clothes.

Video posted on Twitter showed customers at one department store being evacuated with their hands up.

‘Hands in the air!’ an officer can be heard shouting in the footage.

‘We heard shots and saw smoke,’ said Victor Gamboa, 18, who works at the McDonald’s inside the Walmart store where the shooting took place.

‘I saw a man on the floor full of blood. He appeared to be dead. It happened very quickly.’

Gamboa said employees sheltered customers who huddled on the ground during the shooting rampage.

They were on the ground for some 15 minutes until officers arrived and led the survivors to a Sam’s Club across the street.

A family of three was one of a dozen waiting outside a local bus station, trying to get back to their car, in blocked-off Walmart parking lot.

‘I heard the shots but I thought they were hits, like roof construction,’ said Adriana Quezada, 39, who was in Walmart with in the women’s clothing section with her two children.

She said she saw four men, dressed in black, wearing shirts, moved together firing guns indiscriminately.

‘I saw four men, shooting everywhere,’ Quezada said.

‘I told my son, those are gunshots.’

Her daughter, 19, and son, 16, threw themselves on the ground, then ran out of the Walmart through an emergency exit.

They were unhurt.

Evan McMorris-Santoro, a reporter for the Vice news site, tweeted that he was at a town hall event for House Rep. Veronica Escobar when it was shut down due to the situation nearby.

Morris-Santoro clarified that the scene was ‘not close to us.’

Beto O’Rourke, the Democratic presidential candidate and former U.S. congressman who represented El Paso, tweeted: ‘Truly heartbreaking. Stay safe, El Paso.

‘Please follow all directions of emergency personnel as we continue to get more updates.’

After his tweet, O’Rourke said he was distraught by the news of the mass-shooting in his hometown.

An emotional O’Rourke told reporters on Saturday in Las Vegas that he had spoken by phone to El Paso Mayor Dee Margo, the city’s sheriff and U.S. Rep. Veronica Escobar.

He says they were still learning details about the attack at or near the Cielo Vista Mall, in which police say multiple people were killed and a suspect was taken into custody.

O’Rourke said he planned to return home immediately to be with his family.

He asked ‘for everyone’s strength for El Paso right now. Everyone’s resolve to make sure that this does not continue to happen in this country.’

O’Rourke’s successor, House Rep. Veronica Escobar, tweeted: ‘Utterly heartbroken by the developing news in El Paso.

‘Monitoring the situation and in communication with our law enforcement. Please stay safe.’

Texas Governor Greg Abbott tweeted: ‘In El Paso, the Texas Dept. of Public Safety is assisting local law enforcement & federal authorities to bring this tragedy to the swiftest & safest possible conclusion.

‘We thank all First Responders for their courageous response & urge all area residents to remain safe.’

The White House says President Trump has been briefed on the shooting and has spoken to Attorney General William Barr and Abbott.

Trump tweeted: ‘Terrible shootings in ElPaso, Texas. Reports are very bad, many killed. Working with State and Local authorities, and Law Enforcement.

‘Spoke to Governor to pledge total support of Federal Government. God be with you all!’

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives announced that it has dispatched federal agents to the scene to assist local law enforcement.

‘Please stay away from the area and refrain from posting first responder activity on social media,’ the ATF’s Dallas bureau tweeted on Saturday.

A family that was shopping near Walmart during the shooting sought cover in nearby Landry’s Seafood, hostess Sofia Cervantes told USA TODAY.

‘They are in shock right now,’ Cervantes said. ‘They were barely able to talk to us.’

An employee of a nearby Olive Garden told The New York Times that the restaurant has also been placed in lock down.

At least 10 people ran into the restaurant seeking cover, the employee said.

‘We don’t have any information, just that there’s an active shooter at the Walmart in the same parking lot as we are,’ the employee said.

‘We’re just on lock down right now.

‘The SWAT team just came in and told us that they had cleared the building and told us lock the doors.’

An assistant manager at a Men’s Wearhouse in the Cielo Vista Mall said at least 15 people came into the store when the shooting started.

Susana Franco said police officers, military and the SWAT team could be seen from her store’s front windows.

‘They’re not letting people in the parking lot,’ she said. ‘They’re trying to evacuate all of the mall.’

El Paso is located on the border separating the United States and Mexico

Heavily armed police are seen next to an FBI armored vehicle next to the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday

Heavily armed police are seen next to an FBI armored vehicle next to the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday

Police stand at attention during an active shooter at a Walmart in El Paso on Saturday

Police stand at attention during an active shooter at a Walmart in El Paso on Saturday

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms dispatched agents to aid local law enforcement

A local police officer is seen directing passersby near the scene of the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

A local police officer is seen directing passersby near the scene of the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

Heavily armed police are seen outside the Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday

Heavily armed police are seen outside the Walmart near the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday

Police said there were no more threats to the area after a suspect was apprehended

Police said there were no more threats to the area after a suspect was apprehended

Law enforcement officials are seen in front of a Hooters restaurant, which was placed on lock down during the shooting

Law enforcement officials are seen in front of a Hooters restaurant, which was placed on lock down during the shooting

A police officer armed with an assault rifle and wearing a bulletproof vest is seen at the scene of the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

A police officer armed with an assault rifle and wearing a bulletproof vest is seen at the scene of the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

A heavy police presence was observed on the roadways near the mall in El Paso

A heavy police presence was observed on the roadways near the mall in El Paso

The suspect was taken into custody alive after the shooting in El Paso on Saturday

A local police officer is seen near the Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso on Saturday

Walmart issued a statement on its Twitter account which read: ‘We’re in shock over the tragic events at Cielo Vista Mall in El Paso, where store 2201 & club 6502 are located.

‘We’re praying for the victims, the community & our associates, as well as the first responders.

‘We’re working closely with law enforcement & will update as appropriate.’

El Paso, which has about 680,000 residents, is in West Texas sits across the border from Juarez, Mexico.

Red flag law

Minority Report (2002) Official Trailer #1 – Tom Cruise Sci-Fi Action Movie

Psychiatrists and the pharma industry are to blame for the current ‘epidemic’ of mental disorders

Former NYPD commissioner blasts New Jersey gun laws

Jersey Matters – Gun Laws in New Jersey

NJ Attempts Confiscation Of My Friend’s Guns!!! Red Flag Law Gone Wrong!!!

FBI launches study on psychology of mass shooters

Former FBI profiler analyzes Florida shooting suspect

Former FBI agent on warning signs before deadly mass shooting

How the Las Vegas Gunman Planned a Massacre, in 7 Days of Video | NYT – Visual Investigations

Haunted by Columbine | Retro Report Documentary | The New York Times

Steyn reacts to chaos at Democratic Socialist convention

Minority Report – Final Scene

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

 States with red flag laws

In the United States, a red flag law is a gun violence prevention law that permits police or family members to petition a state court to order the temporary removal of firearms from a person who may present a danger to others or themselves. A judge makes the determination to issue the order based on statements and actions made by the gun owner in question.[1] Refusal to comply with the order is punishable as a criminal offense.[2][3] After a set time, the guns are returned to the person from whom they were seized unless another court hearing extends the period of confiscation.[4][5]

Such orders are known by various names, including “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO) (in OregonWashingtonMaryland, and Vermont); “Risk Protection Orders” (in Florida); “Gun Violence Restraining Orders” (in California); “risk warrants” (in Connecticut); and “Proceedings for the Seizure and Retention of a Firearm” (in Indiana).[6] As of August 2019, 17 states and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red-flag law. The specifics of the laws, and the degree to which they are enforced, vary from state to state.[7]

Contents

History and adoption

In 1999, Connecticut was the first to enact a red flag law,[8] following a rampage shooting at the Connecticut Lottery.[9] It was followed by Indiana (2005), California (2014), Washington (2016), and Oregon (2017).[8]California was the first state to pass a red flag law allowing family members to petition courts to take weapons from persons deemed a threat, after Elliot Rodger committed a mass shooting in Isla Vista, California; the California law also permits law enforcement officials to petition for an order for the removal of guns from an individual for up to twelve months.[9]

Before 2018, five states had some version of red flag laws.[10] After the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, that number more than doubled, as more states enacted such laws:[11][12] Florida,[13] Vermont,[14] Maryland,[15] Rhode Island,[16] New Jersey,[17] Delaware,[18] Massachusetts,[19] Illinois,[20] and the District of Columbia.[21] In 2019, New York enacted a red-flag law as part of a broader package of gun-control legislation that overwhelmingly passed the state legislature.[22][23] In addition to allowing police and family members to petition for entry of an extreme risk protection order,[22][23] the law also allows teachers and school administrations to file such petitions, making New York the first state to include such a provision.[24] Three other states also enacted red-flag laws in 2019: Colorado,[25] Nevada,[26] and Hawaii.[27][28]

Pending legislation

Other state legislatures considered similar legislation.[29][5][30][31] In 2019, legislatures in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and North Carolina are considering such legislation.[7]

A red-flag bill previously died in the Arizona Legislature, but in 2019, Governor Doug Ducey renewed pressure on legislative Republicans to pass the law in the wake of the shootings in El Paso, Texas and Dayton, Ohio.[32] A red-flag bill has been introduced in the Tennessee Legislature, but in 2019 the Republican-controlled has legislature declined to take up the bill, and Governor Bill Lee has not committed to support it.[33]

Provisions

The specific provisions of red-flag laws differ from state-to-state, on issues such as who may petition for a risk protection order.[34] For example, in Indiana, only law enforcement may petition for an order.[34] In contrast, in Oregon, any person living with the person of concern may file a petition.[34] The California Legislature passed a measure in 2016 to allow high school and college employees, co-workers and mental health professionals to file such petitions, but this legislation was vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown.[9]

Effects

A 2016 study published in the journal Law and Contemporary Problems analyzed data from the 762 gun removals under Connecticut’s “risk warrant” law from October 1999 through June 2013 and determined that there was “one averted suicide for every ten to eleven gun seizure cases.”[35] The researchers concluded that “enacting and implementing laws like Connecticut’s civil risk warrant statute in other states could significantly mitigate the risk posed by that small proportion of legal gun owners who, at times, may pose a significant danger to themselves or others.”[35]

A 2018 study published in the journal Psychiatric Services utilized CDC data from all suicides in all 50 states from 1981-2015 to “examine the effects of Connecticut and Indiana’s risk-based firearm seizure law on state-level firearm suicide rates.”[36] The researchers concluded that “Indiana’s firearm seizure law was associated with a 7.5% reduction in firearm suicides in the ten years following its enactment, an effect specific to suicides with firearms and larger than that seen in any comparison state by chance alone. Enactment of Connecticut’s law was associated with a 1.6% reduction in firearm suicides immediately after its passage and a 13.7% reduction in firearm suicides in the post–Virginia Tech period, when enforcement of the law substantially increased.” The study also found that “Whereas Indiana demonstrated an aggregate decrease in suicides, Connecticut’s estimated reduction in firearm suicides was offset by increased nonfirearm suicides.”[36]

Usage

In the first four months after Florida’s risk protection law took effect, a total of 467 risk protection cases were filed in Florida. Slightly over one-fourth of the cases involved holders of concealed-carry firearm licenses; when an order is granted against a license-holder, the license-holder’s license is temporarily suspended.[37]

In California in 2016 and 2017, 189 petitions for gun violence restraining orders were granted. Of these, 12 petitions were filed by family members, while the rest were filed by law enforcement.[38][39]

In Maryland, the courts reviewed 302 petitions for a gun removal order in the first three months of the state’s law; the petition was granted in 148 cases (about half the time). About 60% of petitions were filed by family or household members, one petition was filed by a healthcare worker, and the rest were filed by police.[40] In November 2018, a Maryland man was killed by Anne Arundel County police officers serving a removal order after refusing to surrender his firearms; police said that there was a struggle over the gun and a shot was fired before officers fatally shot the man.[41]

In Marion County, Indiana (which contains Indianapolis, and the most of the uses of Indiana’s ERPO law), a 2015 study published in the journal Behavioral Sciences & the Law found that seizure petitions were filed in court 404 times between 2006 and 2013, from persons identified at being a risk of suicide (68%), violence (21%), or psychosis (16%). The study found that 28% of firearm-seizure cases involved a domestic dispute and 26% involved intoxication. The study found that “The seized firearms were retained by the court at the initial hearing in 63% of cases; this retention was closely linked to the defendant’s failure to appear at the hearing. The court dismissed 29% of cases at the initial hearing, closely linked to the defendant’s presence at the hearing. In subsequent hearings of cases not dismissed, the court ordered the destruction of the firearms in 72% of cases, all when the individual did not appear in court, and dismissed 24% of the cases, all when the individual was present at the hearing.”[42]

In Connecticut, some 764 “imminent risk” gun seizures were served between October 1999 and July 2013, according to a 2014 study in the Connecticut Law Review.[43] Of gun seizure orders served, 91.5% were directed at men and 8.5% were directed to women, and the average age of the individuals was 47.4 years old.[43] Police reports associated with the Connecticut gun seizures in 1999 to 2013 indicated that at the time of confiscation, about 30% of the subject gun owners “showed evidence of alcohol consumption” and about 10% “indicated using prescribed pain medications.”[43] At the time the warrants were served, the majority of gun owners (60% of men and 80% of women) were sent to a local hospital emergency department for an emergency evaluation; a minority (20%) were arrested.[43] The study noted that “In over 70% of the cases, the outcome of the hearings was unknown. For the cases with outcomes reported, the judges ruled that the weapons needed to be held by the state 68% of the time. Weapons were returned in only twenty of the reported cases. In fifteen other cases, guns were given to a family member; in thirty cases, the guns were destroyed.”[43]

Federal legislative proposals

Senator Dianne FeinsteinDemocrat of California, introduced a bill, the Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow allow states to use grants to develop red flag laws. The legislation is supported by 25 Democratic senators and two Democratic-aligned independent senators.[44][45] Senator Marco RubioRepublican of Florida, introduced a separate bipartisan bill that would use grants to encourage the passage of state red-flag laws.[44] Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, said in 2010 that he also planned to introduce legislation to encourage states to pass red flag laws.[34]

Support and opposition

An April 2018 poll found that 85% of registered voters support laws that would “allow the police to take guns away from people who have been found by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others” (71% “strongly supported” while 14% “somewhat supported” such laws).[46][47] State-level polling in Colorado and Michigan has shown similar levels of support.[48][49]

Democrats and some Republicans are receptive to this law.[1] Such laws are supported by groups that support gun control, such as Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety. The latter group conducted a nationwide study showing that the perpetrators of mass shootings showed warning signs before the event 42% of the time.[12]

Opponents of red flag laws argue that such legislation infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms and the right to due process of law, and object to ex parte hearings.[50][51][52] The National Rifle Association (NRA) had previously argued that red flag laws unnecessarily hamper the right to due process of individuals who are restrained by them,[29] and worked to defeat such legislation in Utah and Maryland.[53] In a March 2018 policy reversal, the NRA suggested that it might support such laws, but conditioned any openness to such laws on an extensive list of conditions,[30][53] including a judicial finding by “clear and convincing evidence” that the person poses a significant risk of danger.[53] The NRA did not identify any federal or state red flag laws that it supported,[53] and even after its March 2018 announcement continued to work to defeat or weaken red flag bills introduced in state legislatures.[54] In summer 2018, the NRA mobilized to defeat red-flag legislation proposed in Pennsylvania because it objected to allowing initial hearings ex parte.[54] In Arizona in 2019, the NRA ghostwrote an opinion piece for sheriffs to submit to the local press stating their opposition to the legislation.[55] A 2019 study by gun rights advocate John Lott found red flag laws have no significant effect on murder, suicide, the number of people killed in mass public shootings, robbery, aggravated assault, or burglary.[56]

Some counties and cities have adopted “Second Amendment sanctuary” resolutions in opposition to red flag laws.[55][57][58] As of 2019, some 75 jurisdictions have declared themselves sanctuaries that oppose emergency protection orders and enforcement of gun background checks, at times with assistance from the NRA.[55]

In the wake of the El Paso, Texas shooting and Dayton, Ohio shooting of August 4 and 5, 2019, President Donald Trump called on states to implement red flag laws to help remove guns and improve public safety.[34]

See also

References…

External links

 

Mass shootings in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Total deaths in US mass shootings.[1]

Locations of US mass shootings in 2015, according to Shooting Tracker.

Mass shootings are incidents involving multiple victims of firearm-related violence. The precise inclusion criteria are disputed, and there is no broadly accepted definition.[2][3][4] One definition is an act of public firearm violence—excluding gang killings, domestic violence, or terrorist acts sponsored by an organization—in which a shooter kills at least four victims. Using this definition, one study found that nearly one-third of the world’s public mass shootings between 1966 and 2012 (90 of 292 incidents) occurred in the United States.[5][6] Using a similar definition, The Washington Post records 163 mass shootings in the United States between 1967 and June 2019.[7]

Gun Violence Archive, frequently cited by the press, defines a mass shooting as firearm violence resulting in at least four people being shot at roughly the same time and location, excluding the perpetrator.[8][9] Using this definition, there have been 2,128 mass shootings since 2013, roughly one per day.[8][10]

The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country.[11][5][12][13][14] Shooters generally either die by suicide afterwards or are restrained or killed by law enforcement officers or civilians.[15]

Definitions

There is no fixed definition of a mass shooting in the United States.[4] The Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, signed into law in January 2013, defines a “mass killing” as one resulting in at least 3 victims, excluding the perpetrator.[16][4][17][18] In 2015, the Congressional Research Service defined a mass shooting — for the purposes of its report entitled “Mass Murder with Firearms” — as “a multiple homicide incident in which four or more victims are murdered with firearms, within one event, and in one or more locations in close proximity”.[19] A broader definition, as used by the Gun Violence Archive, is that of “4 or more shot or killed, not including the shooter”.[20] This definition, of four people shot regardless of whether or not that results in injury or death, is often used by the press and non-profit organizations.[21][22][23][24][25]

Frequency

Memorial at the Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas sign following the 2017 Las Vegas shooting, which resulted in 59 deaths and 851 non-fatal injuries.

Studies indicate that the rate at which public mass shootings occur has tripled since 2011. Between 1982 and 2011, a mass shooting occurred roughly once every 200 days. However, between 2011 and 2014, that rate has accelerated greatly with at least one mass shooting occurring every 64 days in the United States.[26] According to the non-profit Gun Violence Archive, there were 251 mass shootings between January 1 and August 4, 2019—the 216th day of the year.[27]

In recent years, the number of public mass shootings has increased substantially, although there has been an approximately 50% decrease in firearm homicides in the nation overall since 1993. The decrease in firearm homicides has been attributed to better policing, a better economy and environmental factors such as the removal of lead from gasoline.[28]

Differing sources

A comprehensive report by USA Today tracked all mass killings from 2006 through 2017 in which the perpetrator willfully killed 4 or more people. For mass killings by firearm for instance, it found 271 incidents with a total of 1,358 victims.[29] Mother Jones listed seven mass shootings, defined as indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed,[30] in the U.S. for 2015.[31] An analysis by Michael Bloomberg’s gun violence prevention group, Everytown for Gun Safety, identified 110 mass shootings, defined as shootings in which at least four people were murdered with a firearm, between January 2009 and July 2014; at least 57% were related to domestic or family violence.[32][33]

Other media outlets have reported that hundreds of mass shootings take place in the United States in a single calendar year, citing a crowd-funded website known as Shooting Tracker which defines a mass shooting as having four or more people injured or killed.[23] In December 2015, The Washington Post reported that there had been 355 mass shootings in the United States so far that year.[34] In August 2015, The Washington Post reported that the United States was averaging one mass shooting per day.[35] An earlier report had indicated that in 2015 alone, there had been 294 mass shootings that killed or injured 1,464 people.[36] Shooting Tracker and Mass Shooting Tracker, the two sites that the media have been citing, have been criticized for using a broader criteria – counting four victims injured as a mass shooting – thus producing much higher figures.[37][38]

Demographics

The majority of perpetrators are white males who act alone.[39] According to most analyses and studies however, the proportion of mass shooters in the United States who are white and male is not considerably greater than the proportion of white males in the general population of the US.[40]

Contributing factors

Several possible factors may work together to create a fertile environment for mass murder in the United States.[41] Most commonly suggested include:

  1. Higher accessibility and ownership of guns.[41][5][13] The US has the highest per-capita gun ownership in the world with 120.5 firearms per 100 people; the second highest is Yemen with 52.8 firearms per 100 people.[41]
  2. Mental illness[42] and its treatment (or the lack thereof) with psychiatric drugs.[43] This is controversial.[44][45] Many of the mass shooters in the U.S. suffered from mental illness, but the estimated number of mental illness cases has not increased as significantly as the number of mass shootings.[5] Under 5% of violent behaviors in the U.S. are committed by persons with mental health diagnoses.[46]
  3. The desire to seek revenge for a long history of being bullied at school. In recent years, citizens calling themselves “targeted individual” have cited adult bullying campaigns as a reason for their deadly violence.[47]
  4. The widespread chronic gap between people’s expectations for themselves and their actual achievement,[41] and individualistic culture.[48] Some analysts and commentators place the blame on contemporary capitalism and neoliberalism.[49][50][51]
  5. Desire for fame and notoriety.[41][5] Also, mass shooters learn from one another through “media contagion,” that is, “the mass media coverage of them and the proliferation of social media sites that tend to glorify the shooters and downplay the victims.”[52][53]
  6. The copycat phenomenon.[5]
  7. Failure of government background checks due to incomplete databases and/or staff shortages.[54][55]

Weapons used

Several types of guns have been used in mass shootings in the United States. A 2014 study of 142 shootings by Dr. James Fox found 88 (62%) were committed with handguns of all types; 68 (48%) with semi-automatic handguns, 20 (14%) with revolvers), 35 (25%) with semi-automatic rifles, and 19 (13%) with shotguns.[56][57][58] The study was conducted using the Mother Jones database of mass shootings from 1982–2018.[59] High capacity magazines were used in approximately half of mass shootings.[60] Semi-automatic rifles have been used in six of the ten deadliest mass shooting events.[61][62]

Deadliest mass shootings since 1949

The following mass shootings are the deadliest to have occurred in modern U.S. history (1949 to present). Only incidents with ten or more victim fatalities are included.[63]

dagger Was previously the deadliest mass shooting
Incident Year Deaths Injuries Type of firearm(s) used Ref(s)
1 Las Vegas shooting 2017 58 (plus 1 perp.) 851 (422 from gunfire) Semi-automatic rifles and revolver [64][65]
2 Orlando nightclub shooting dagger 2016 49 (plus 1 perp.) 53 Semi-automatic rifle and pistol [64][65]
3 Virginia Tech shooting dagger 2007 32 (plus 1 perp.) 23 (17 from gunfire) Semi-automatic pistols [64]
4 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012 27 (plus 1 perp.) 2 Semi-automatic rifle and pistol [64]
5 Sutherland Springs church shooting 2017 26 (plus 1 perp.)[fn 1] 20 Semi-automatic rifle [66][65]
6 Luby’s shooting dagger 1991 23 (plus 1 perp.) 27 Semi-automatic pistols [64]
7 El Paso shooting 2019 22 24 Semi-automatic rifle [67][68]
8 San Ysidro McDonald’s massacre dagger 1984 21 (plus 1 perp.) 19 Semi-automatic carbine, pistols, and shotgun [64]
9 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting 2018 17 17 Semi-automatic rifle [69]
10 University of Texas tower shooting dagger 1966 16 (plus 1 perp. plus 1 victim who died in 2001[fn 1] 31 Rifles, revolver, pistols, and shotgun [64]
11 Edmond post office shooting 1986 14 (plus 1 perp.) 6 Semi-automatic pistols [64]
San Bernardino attack 2015 14 (plus 2 perps.) 24 Semi-automatic rifles [64][65]
Fort Hood shooting 2009 14[fn 1] 32 (plus 1 perp.) Semi-automatic pistol and revolver [70][71]
14 Camden shootings dagger 1949 13 3 Semi-automatic pistol [72][73]
Wilkes-Barre shootings 1982 13 1 Semi-automatic rifle [74][75][76]
Wah Mee massacre 1983 13 1 Semi-automatic pistol(s) and/or revolver(s)[fn 2] [77]
Columbine High School massacre 1999 13 (plus 2 perps.) 24 (21 from gunfire) Semi-automatic carbine, semi-automatic pistol, shotguns [78]
Binghamton shootings 2009 13 (plus 1 perp.) 4 Semi-automatic pistols [79]
19 Aurora theater shooting 2012 12 70 Semi-automatic rifle, pistol, and shotgun [80][65][81]
Washington Navy Yard shooting 2013 12 (plus 1 perp.) 8 Semi-automatic pistol and shotgun [82][83]
Thousand Oaks shooting 2018 12 (plus 1 perp.) 25 Semi-automatic pistol [84][85]
Virginia Beach shooting 2019 12 (plus 1 perp.) 5 Semi-automatic pistols [86]
23 Easter Sunday massacre 1975 11 0 Semi-automatic pistols and revolver [87]
Pittsburgh synagogue shooting 2018 11 (plus 1 perp.) Semi-automatic rifle, semi-automatic pistols [88]
25 Palm Sunday massacre 1984 10 0 Semi-automatic pistols [89]
Geneva County massacre 2009 10 (plus 1 perp.) 6 Semi-automatic rifles, revolver, and shotgun [90][91]
Santa Fe High School shooting 2018 10 14 Shotgun and revolver [92]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up to:a b c The fatality total includes an unborn child.
  2. ^ During the massacre, the perpetrators used three .22 caliber handguns of an unknown type which were never recovered by the authorities.

References…

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download  Shows 1300-1301

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1291-1299

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1282-1290

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1276-1281

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1267-1275

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1266

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1256-1265

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1246-1255

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1236-1245

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1229-1235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1218-1128

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1210-1217

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1202-1209

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1197-1201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1190-1196

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1182-1189

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1181

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 858, Part 2 — Story 1: House Freedom Caucus Is Right: First Complete Clean Repeal and Then Replace Obamacare — No Three Phases/Prongs Bull — Change Your Rules or American People Will Replace You — Restore Free Market Competition In Health Insurance Sector So That Companies and Consumers Are Free of Government Mandates and Dictates Thereby Lowering Premiums and Deductibles — Freedom Works — Repeal and Replace Obamacare Now! — Videos

Posted on March 22, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Elections, Employment, Exercise, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, History, House of Representatives, Human, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Media, Medicare, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 848: February 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 847: February 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Part 2 — Story 1: House Freedom Caucus Is Right: First Complete Clean Repeal and Then Replace Obamacare — No Three Phases/Prongs Bull — Change Your Rules or American People Will Replace You — Restore Free Market Competition In Health Insurance Sector So That Companies and Consumers Are Free of Government Mandates and Dictates Thereby Lowering Premiums and Deductibles  — Freedom Works — Repeal and Replace Obamacare Now! — Videos

 

Image result for repeal and replace obamacare root and branchImage result for ludwig von mises quotes on consumer sovereignty

 Image result for repeal and replace obamacare root and branchImage result for ludwig von mises quotes on consumer sovereigntyImage result for branco cartoons repeal and replace obamacare

Image result for repeal and replace obamacare
Image result for repeal and replace obamacareImage result for repeal and replace obamacareImage result for repeal and replace obamacareImage result for branco cartoons repeal and replace obamacare

Image result for members of House freedom caucusImage result for repeal and replace obamacareImage result for repeal and replace obamacareImage result for repeal and replace obamacare
Image result for repeal and replace obamacare Image result for repeal and replace obamacare root and branchImage result for branco cartoons repeal and replace obamacare

Image result for ludwig von mises quotes on consumer sovereignty
Image result for ludwig von mises quotes on consumer sovereigntyImage result for repeal and replace obamacare

What Is Budget Reconciliation?

Video Transcript:

Led by President Donald Trump, Republicans have promised to repeal the Affordable Care Act. They have control of both houses of Congress and the White House, but they still have one big obstacle in that effort.

In the Senate, opponents could stage a filibuster — the right of the minority to try to talk a bill to death and keep senators from voting. It takes 60 votes to stop a filibuster. Republicans have a majority but only 52 seats. And Democrats say they won’t help take apart the health law they voted to pass seven years ago.

Instead, Republicans are vowing to use a budget procedure called “reconciliation.” It comes from a 1974 law called the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. Lots of major health laws have been passed using reconciliation, including those guaranteeing the right to emergency room care, creating the Children’s Health Insurance Plan, and allowing private plans as an alternative to traditional Medicare coverage.

Here’s how reconciliation would work. First, Congress has to pass a budget resolution.

That budget document has to be agreed on by the House and Senate, but it doesn’t go to the president for his signature.

The budget resolution does two main things. First, it sets spending targets for federal programs Congress funds every year. Those are known as appropriations.

But there are also programs funded by the federal government that don’t need annual approvals from Congress. These include tax cuts or increases and so-called entitlement programs like Medicare and Medicaid.

So the budget resolution also instructs the congressional committees in charge of those programs to propose changes in the law that would “reconcile” how much those programs cost with the targets set by the budget. This is what Republicans would use to order changes to the Affordable Care Act.

When the committees report back their proposed changes, they are assembled into a budget reconciliation bill.

In the Senate, budget reconciliation has its own special rules that make it easier to pass. Debate is strictly limited, and the bill only needs a simple majority to pass.

But there are limits, too. Budget reconciliation bills can only change things that directly impact the federal budget — either adding to or reducing federal spending.

For the Affordable Care Act, that means Congress could use budget reconciliation to eliminate spending, like the help people get to pay their premiums or funding to states to expand the Medicaid program for the poor. It can also repeal the taxes that help pay for those benefits, including the tax penalties for individuals who fail to have insurance.

But Congress can’t use reconciliation to change parts of the health law like provisions requiring insurance companies to provide certain benefits or sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. Those don’t directly affect federal spending.

That has led insurance companies to complain that they will go broke if they still have to sell to sick people, but healthy people won’t have any incentive to get covered. In that case, they say, only sick people will buy insurance, and premiums will skyrocket.

And the new Republican Congress seems set on using the technique to take apart the health law. Whether that’s a good idea may depend on whether you favor or oppose the Affordable Care Act.

Sen. Mitch McConnell: ‘If’ The House Passes Repeal/Replace Bill, ‘I’ll Bring It Up’

Rand Paul Doesn’t Want the GOP to Fail at Obamacare Replacement Plan

Paul Ryan’s Obamacare Lite Plan with Skyrocket Prices | Rand Paul

Let’s Stop Kissing the Boots of Insurance Companies | Rand Paul

How Trump is trying to sell Republicans on the health care bill

FreedomWorks Day of Action Obamacare Repeal Rally

Watch House Freedom Caucus members speak out on health care bill

Reps. Gohmert, Meadows detail the new ObamaCare proposal

Trump makes final push for health care bill

Paul Ryan: President Trump ‘Knocked The Ball Out Of The Park’ With Capitol Visit | NBC News

Speaker Ryan on President Trump’s Visit: “We Are All-In To End This Obamacare Nightmare”

FNN: Paul Ryan’s FULL PowerPoint Presentation on American Health Care Act (Obamacare Replacement)

AWESOME!! PRESIDENT TRUMP KEEPING HIS PROMISE ON OBAMACARE REPEAL AND REPLACE

House Freedom Caucus Throws Support Behind Paul Health Care Plan

Rand Paul Unveils His Brilliant Replacement Plan for Obamacare

CSPAN | Rand Paul Answers Tough Questions on His Healthcare Plan

Rand Paul and Mark Sanford Unveil Obamacare / Affordable Care Act Replacement Bill

Rand Paul on Why He Walked Out of Obamacare Meeting

Reconciliation in Congress

Exclusive — Rand Paul: ‘Easily 35 No Votes’ Against Paul Ryan’s Obamacare 2.0, ‘I Would Predict They Pull Bill, Start Over’

by MATTHEW BOYLE

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Breitbart News exclusively on Tuesday afternoon that he expects House Speaker Paul Ryan will be forced to pull the American Health Care Act (AHCA) before a scheduled Thursday vote because Ryan will not get the votes to pass the legislation.

The AHCA has been dubbed “Obamacare Lite” by Paul — a leading conservative critic of the plan — and by other conservatives as “RyanCare,” “RINO-Care,” and “Obamacare 2.0,” since the bill does not actually fully repeal Obamacare and keeps many of the main structures that the now-former President Barack Obama installed in the healthcare system. It has come under intense scrutiny from both sides of the Republican Party — moderates and conservatives are lining up against the bill — and Ryan, despite publicly projecting confidence, cannot find the necessary 216 votes to pass the legislation.

Paul, one of the leading senators out of more than a dozen Republicans in the upper chamber criticizing the bill there, told Breitbart News in this exclusive interview he believes there are at least 35 House Republicans ready to vote against the bill in its current form. And he predicted that, unless some major changes come to the legislation between now and the scheduled vote on Thursday, Ryan will need to withdraw the bill and Republicans will have to start from scratch with a new bill and a new strategy on Obamacare.

Paul said in the in-person interview at his U.S. Senate office in the Russell Senate Office Building:

I think there’s easily 35 no votes right now so unless something happens in the next 24 hours, I would predict they pull the bill and start over. I think if conservatives stick together, they will have earned a seat at the table where real negotiation to make this bill an acceptable bill will happen. But it’s interesting what conservatives are doing to change the debate. We went from keeping the Obamacare taxes for a year—hundreds of billions of dollars—but they’re coming towards us because we’re standing firm. So we have to stick together, and if we do stick together there will be a real negotiation on this. The main goal I have is not to pass something that does not fix the situation. If a year from now, insurance rates and premiums are still going through the roof and it’s now a Republican plan it will be a disservice to the president and all of us if we pass something that doesn’t work.

.@RandPaul to @mboyle1: Obamacare Lite will hurt us in the next election. This bill will either get stopped or pulled in the next 48 hrs.

There is plenty of reason to believe that Paul is correct in predicting Ryan does not have the votes to pass this legislation and will need to pull the bill to start over. Despite overtures from President Donald Trump, the House Freedom Caucus members — and particularly its chairman Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) — remain steadfastly opposed to the bill.

 NBC News has confirmed at least 26 Republicans who are opposed:

NBC News has now ID’ed 26 House GOPers who are opposed/leaning strongly against House health-care bill, per @AlexNBCNews & @LACaldwellDC

But Breitbart News can confirm several more than that are definitely opposed to the legislation. To kill the bill, Republicans need just 21 Republicans opposed—and some are talking about holding a press conference on Wednesday or Thursday with the necessary number of House Republicans to crush RyanCare, appearing arm-in-arm in public opposition before a vote.

House GOP leadership made some last minute changes, too, which Paul — in his interview with Breitbart News — flatly said “no,” were not enough to get the bill passed. Regarding those changed, Paul said:

If you keep all the insurance mandates, and you keep subsidizing insurance, basically it’s Obamacare Lite. So I think it’s still Obamacare Lite. The modifications, some are going in the right direction, but they actually expanded some of the subsidies. So one of the new things about it is it’s actually $75 billion more in subsidies. So, I think they’re stuck trying to split the baby. They’re trying to give conservatives a few token changes. And they’re trying to give the moderates more subsidies.

Paul added that Ryan would not have dragged President Trump into this awful position if he had been more open and inclusive in the process from the beginning. In effect, Paul argued as he has done before, that Ryan is hurting President Trump by doing this the way he is doing it. Paul said:

I’m still unclear as to why they completely ignored conservatives early on in the process and then they had the audacity to look at conservatives and say ‘this is what you all campaigned on.’ That just, frankly, was never true. I was elected in 2010 in the big Tea Party wave that was for repealing Obamacare root and branch, rip the whole thing out. We were for repealing it. I still think that our grassroots conservative supporters are for repealing it. But somewhere along the line, Paul Ryan decided that it wasn’t so much about repealing it but about replacing it with Obamacare Lite. And I think that was a tactical error on their part to think ‘oh, we’ll just be for this and everybody will be for this’ when in reality no conservatives are really for the Ryan plan.

Paul would not say if Ryan will lose the confidence necessary to run the House of Representatives if this bill fails, as some have suggested. When asked if Ryan can still run the House if the bill goes down, Paul told Breitbart News that instead he thinks the bill going down would lead to real negotiations on healthcare reform. He said:

I think what it will be is the real negotiations will begin the moment his bill fails, and when his bill fails conservatives will have a seat at the table. As long as conservatives stay unified and don’t start negotiating one person at a time — what’s a really bad part of negotiations is if everybody starts saying individually ‘oh if you give me this, give me this, give me this’ because then you won’t really fix the main thrust of the bill and the main outcome is that insurance premiums continue to rise and we continue to bail out insurance companies that’s not repeal of Obamacare—that’s Obamacare Lite.

More from Sen. Rand Paul’s latest exclusive interview with Breitbart News is forthcoming.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/21/exclusive-rand-paul-easily-35-no-votes-paul-ryans-obamacare-2-0-predict-pull-bill-start/

Conservative Review

Member Name Party State Liberty Score Years in DC Next Election

 Track Gary Palmer

Rep.

Gary Palmer R AL-6 A 100% 2 2018

David Brat

Rep.

Dave Brat R VA-7 A 100% 2 2018

Sen.

Mike Lee R UT A 100% 6 2022

Rep.

Louie Gohmert R TX-1 A 98% 12 2018

Sen.

Ted Cruz R TX A 97% 4 2018

Rep.

Jim Bridenstine R OK-1 A 97% 4 2018

Rep.

Justin Amash R MI-3 A 96% 6 2018

Rep.

Jeff Duncan R SC-3 A 96% 6 2018

Rep.

Jim Jordan R OH-4 A 96% 10 2018

Rep.

Thomas Massie R KY-4 A 94% 4 2018

Benjamin Sasse

Sen.

Benjamin Sasse R NE A 94% 2 2020

Rep.

Mark Meadows R NC-11 A 94% 4 2018

Ken Buck

Rep.

Ken Buck R CO-4 A 94% 2 2018

Rep.

Raul Labrador R ID-1 A 93% 6 2018

Sen.

Rand Paul R KY A 92% 6 2022

Trent Franks

Rep.

Trent Franks R AZ-8 A 90% 14 2018

Rep.

David Schweikert R AZ-6 A 90% 6 2018

Rep.

Mark Sanford R SC-1 A 90% 3 2018

Sen.

Tim Scott R SC B 89% 4 2022

Rep.

Ron DeSantis R FL-6 B 87% 4 2018

Rep.

Tom McClintock R CA-4 B 86% 8 2018

Rep.

Scott DesJarlais R TN-4 B 85% 6 2018

Rep.

Trey Gowdy R SC-4 B 85% 6 2018

Rep.

Doug Lamborn R CO-5 B 85% 10 2018

Rep.

Randy Weber R TX-14 B 84% 4 2018

Rep.

Paul Gosar R AZ-4 B 84% 6 2018

Rep.

Mo Brooks R AL-5 B 84% 6 2018

Rep.

Kenny Marchant R TX-24 B 84% 12 2018

Rep.

Sam Johnson R TX-3 B 82% 25 2018

Rep.

Steve King R IA-4 B 81% 14 2018

John Ratcliffe

Rep.

John Ratcliffe R TX-4 B 81% 2 2018

Jody Hice

Rep.

Jody Hice R GA-10 B 81% 2 2018

Rep.

Dana Rohrabacher R CA-48 B 80% 28 2018

Rep.

Andy Harris R MD-1 B 80% 6 2018

Rep.

Bill Posey R FL-8 B 80% 8 2018

Rep.

John J. Duncan Jr. R TN-2 B 80% 28 2018

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.RyaYlHY1.dpuf

Freedom Caucus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the U.S. Congressional organization. For the Democratic political action organization, see Democratic Freedom Caucus.
House Freedom Caucus
Chairman Mark Meadows (NC)
Founded January 26, 2015; 2 years ago
Split from Republican Study Committee
Ideology Conservatism
Fiscal conservatism
Social conservatism[1]
Political position Right-wing to Far-right[2][3][4][5][6]
National affiliation Republican Party
Seats in the House

29 / 435

The Freedom Caucus, also known as the House Freedom Caucus, is a congressional caucus consisting of conservative Republican members of the United States House of Representatives.[7] It was formed in 2015 by a group of Congressmen as what member Jim Jordan called a “smaller, more cohesive, more agile and more active” group of conservatives.[8]

Many members are also part of the Republican Study Committee, another conservative House group.[8][9] The caucus is sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.[10] According to its mission statement, it “gives a voice to countless Americans who feel that Washington does not represent them. We support open, accountable and limited government, the Constitution and the rule of law, and policies that promote the liberty, safety and prosperity of all Americans.”[11]

History

The origins of the caucus lie at the mid-January 2015 Republican congressional retreat in Hershey, Pennsylvania. Nine conservative active Republican members of the House began planning a new Congressional caucus separate from the Republican Study Committee and apart from the House Republican Conference. The group ultimately became the nine founding members and the first board of directors for the new caucus consisting of Republican Representatives Scott Garrett of New Jersey, Jim Jordan of Ohio, John Fleming of Louisiana, Matt Salmon of Arizona, Justin Amash of Michigan, Raúl Labrador of Idaho, Mick Mulvaney of South Carolina, Ron DeSantis of Florida and Mark Meadows of North Carolina.[12] The group debated over a name for their new caucus eventually settling on “House Freedom Caucus” (HFC) because, according to founding member Mick Mulvaney, “it was so generic and universally awful that we had no reason to be against it.” The group of nine founding members in Hershey set as a criterion for new members that they had to be willing to vote against Speaker of the United States House of Representatives John Boehner on legislation that the group opposed.[13]

During the crisis over the funding of the Department of Homeland Security in early 2015, the Caucus offered four plans for resolution, but all were rejected by the Republican leadership. One of the caucus leaders, Labrador of Idaho, said the Caucus will offer an alternative that the most conservative Republican members could support.[14][needs update]

The House Freedom Caucus was involved in the resignation of Boehner on September 25, 2015, and the ensuing leadership battle for the new Speaker.[15] Members of the Caucus who had voted against Boehner for Speaker felt unfairly punished, accusing him of cutting them off from positions in the Republican Study Committee and depriving them of key committee assignments.[not in citation given] Boehner found it increasingly difficult to manage House Republicans with the fierce opposition of the Freedom Caucus, and he sparred with House Republican members (who later created and became members of the Freedom Caucus when it was created in 2015) in 2013 over their willingness to shut down the government in order to accomplish goals such as repealing the Affordable Care Act.[13][16][not in citation given]

Initially, Kevin McCarthy, the House Majority Leader, was the lead contender, but the Freedom Caucus withheld its support.[17] However, McCarthy withdrew from the race on September 28, 2015.[18] On the same day as McCarthy’s withdrawal, Reid Ribble resigned from the Freedom Caucus saying he had joined to promote certain policies and could not support the role that it was playing in the leadership race.[19]

On October 20, 2015, Paul Ryan announced that his bid for the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives was contingent on an official endorsement by the Freedom Caucus.[20] While the group could not reach the 80% approval that was needed to give an official endorsement, on October 21, 2015, it announced that it had reached a supermajority support for Ryan.[21] On October 29, 2015, Ryan succeeded John Boehner as the Speaker of the House.[22]

On November 17, 2015, Jim Jordan was re-elected as Chairman of the caucus.[citation needed]

The group has faced backlash from the Republican Party establishment during the 2016 election cycle.[23] One of its members, Congressman Tim Huelskamp, a Tea Party Republican representing Kansas’s First District, was defeated during a primary election on August 2, 2016, by Roger Marshall.[24] GOP Establishment PACs, many of whom also opposed Donald Trump, spent nearly $2 million to defeat Huelskamp.[25]

Membership

Congressional District map for Freedom Caucus membership of the 114th Congress. Former members in light color.

Members of the House Freedom Caucus as of March 2017 include:

Former members

See also

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

It’s Rand Paul vs Paul Ryan in the battle over Obamacare — and the future of the GOP

Brandon Morse

It’s Rand Paul vs Paul Ryan in the battle over Obamacare — and the future of the GOP

A protester wears a Repeal Obamacare button on his jacket during a Freedom Works rally Wednesday against the proposed GOP health care plan across from the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

The in-house Republican battle over the repeal of Obamacare is about to boil over as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) are engaged in an increasingly sharp war over words over their disagreements on how to proceed forward with the promised repeal and replace of former President Obama’s signature legislation.

Paul has been waging a war against the House GOP Obamacare repeal and replace plan since before it was given to the public. Calling it “Obamacare Lite,” Paul has lambasted not only the bill, but his fellow Republicans for their less-than-diligent attempts at getting rid of the unpopular health care law. This time, he turned his attention toward Ryan, who has been the bill’s primary spokesman.

“I think that Paul Ryan’s selling [Donald Trump] a bill of goods that he didn’t explain to the president, and the grassroots doesn’t want what Paul Ryan is selling,” Paul told CNN.

Paul Ryan, during an segment on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper,” fired back at the Kentucky senator, claiming that his remarks were a jab at President Donald Trump.

“Frankly, I think that’s kind of an insulting remark to the president — as if he doesn’t know what he’s doing,” Ryan said.

“We think this is a smarter way to go,” Ryan said to Tapper. “The alternative is the status quo, and the status quo is in the middle of a collapse.”

Ryan has made the case that this version of the Obamacare repeal bill is the “closest we will ever get” to repealing it.

Paul, however, believes that Trump is open to changing his mind on the health care bill, despite his prior statements of broad approval, and that it’s Republican leadership who have “dug in their heels.”

“They are not going to compromise. So the only way that we are going to get to a compromise where they listen to the grassroots that wants complete repeal, the only way we got to that compromise is that we have to demonstrate to the House leadership that we have the votes to stop them.”

Other Republicans in Congress have joined Paul in his efforts to push a more conservative version of a repeal bill, which focuses solely on repeal, and repeal alone. Rep. Jim Jordan and Paul have both submitted versions of the bill in the Senate and the House, and has the support of conservative legislators such as Rep. Justin Amash, Sen. Mike LeeRep. Jeff Duncan, and Sen. Tom Cotton. This list of allies now also includes a group of moderate Republicans rattled by the recent Congressional Budget Office report.

As the battle continues between the conservatives and GOP leadership, the faith of the voters hangs in the balance, according to the conservatives. Paul believes that should the GOP pass “Obamacare Lite,” Republicans will pay for it come election time. Duncan wrote in the Daily Signal that should the bill pass, voters “will feel betrayed.”

If that is true, then winner of the struggle between Paul and Ryan may determine the GOP’s future momentum.

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/03/17/its-rand-paul-vs-paul-ryan-in-the-battle-over-obamacare-and-the-future-of-the-gop/

Rand Paul Unveils His Brilliant Obamacare Replacement Plan

WASHINGTON (AP) — Time for talk running out, President Donald Trump on Tuesday warned wavering House Republicans that their jobs were on the line in next year’s elections if they failed to back a GOP bill that would overhaul Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

The countdown quickened toward an expected vote Thursday on legislation undoing much of the law that provided health coverage to some 20 million Americans. Trump huddled behind closed doors with rank-and-file Republicans just hours after GOP leaders unveiled changes intended to pick up votes by doling out concessions to centrists and hardliners alike.

“If we fail to get it done, fail to (meet) the promises made by all of us, including the president, then it could have a very detrimental effect to Republicans in ’18 who are running for re-election,” said Rep. Mike Conaway, R-Texas. “If it fails, then there will be a lot of people looking for work in 2018.”

Trump’s message to Republicans: “If you don’t pass the bill there could be political costs,” said Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C.

The outlook for House passage remains dicey even with the revisions.

The GOP bill would scale back the role of government in the private health insurance market, and limit future federal financing for Medicaid. It would also repeal tax cuts on the wealthy that Democrats used to pay for Obama’s coverage expansion. Fines enforcing the Obama-era requirement that virtually all Americans have coverage would be eliminated.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 24 million fewer people will have health insurance in 2026 under the GOP bill.

Trump warned House Republicans they’d seal their political doom if they waver, with the party potentially losing majority control of the House. Still, several conservatives were steadfast in their opposition even after the session with Trump and the leadership’s changes.

“The president wouldn’t have been here this morning if they have the votes,” said Rep. Rod Blum, R-Iowa, a member of the Freedom Caucus who complained that the GOP bill leaves too much government regulation in place.

Rep. Don Bacon, R-Neb., said he was convinced to back the bill in part by Trump’s urging and the changes.

“I think a vote ‘no’ is a vote for Obamacare,” Bacon said. “We can vote for this, and continue to make it better. I intend to vote ‘yes’ Thursday.”

Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., told reporters that if Republicans pass the legislation, “people will reward us. If we don’t keep our promise, it will be very hard to manage this.”

If the bill advances, prospects are uncertain in the Senate, where Republicans hold a slim majority. Six GOP senators have expressed deep misgivings including Tom Cotton of Arkansas, who said Tuesday he cannot support the House bill.

In an Associated Press interview, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., signaled he’d use Trump’s clout to pressure unhappy Republicans in his chamber. McConnell said he’s optimistic that in the end no Republican senator will want to be held responsible for “Obamacare’s” survival.

“I would hate to be a Republican whose vote prevented us from keeping the commitment we’ve made to the American people for almost 10 years now,” McConnell said.

The House GOP bill would dismantle Obama’s requirements that most people buy policies and that larger companies cover workers. Federal subsidies based on peoples’ incomes and the cost of insurance would end, and a Medicaid expansion to 11 million more low-income people would disappear.

Instead, the bill would provide tax credits based chiefly on age to help people pay premiums. Open-ended federal payments to help states cover Medicaid costs would be cut. Insurers could charge older consumers five times the premiums they charge younger people instead of Obama’s 3-1 limit, and would boost premiums 30 percent for those who let coverage lapse.

The latest changes to the bill by GOP leaders were largely aimed at addressing dissent that the measure would leave many older people with higher costs.

Included was an unusual approach: language paving the way for the Senate, if it chooses, to make the bill’s tax credit more generous for people age 50-64. Republicans said the plan sets aside $85 billion over 10 years for that purpose. The income tax threshold for deducting medical expenses would be lowered to 5.8 percent, from the current 10 percent.

The leaders’ proposals would accelerate the repeal of tax increases Obama imposed on higher earners, the medical industry and others.

On Medicaid, the changes would provide higher federal payments to help states care for older and disabled beneficiaries. States would be able to impose work requirements for able-bodied adults. But the bill would still limit future federal financing for Medicaid, seen by many state officials as a cost shift. Obama’s Medicaid expansion would be repealed.

In a bid to cement support from upstate New Yorkers, the revisions would also stop that state from passing on over $2 billion a year in Medicaid costs to upstate counties, though it exempts Democratic-run New York City from that protection. Local officials have complained the practice overburdens their budgets.

Democrats remain solidly opposed to the GOP repeal effort.

Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., said Trump told Republicans he would campaign for them if they backed the bill.

Associated Press reporters Matthew Daly, Kevin Freking, Richard Lardner, Stephen Ohlemacher in Washington and Thomas Beaumont in Iowa contributed to this report.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CONGRESS_HEALTH_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-21-03-20-21

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-858

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 831, February 3, 2017, Story 1: When Will Trump Propose A Single Federal Broad-based Consumption Tax or Fair Tax Less To Replace All Federal Taxes — Fair Tax Less Now! — Videos — Story 2: Obama’s Last Job’s Report: U-3 Unemployment Rate 4.8%, U-6 Unemployment Rate 9.4%, Labor Participation Rate 62.9% and Number of Unemployed Americans 7,635,000 — Videos

Posted on February 6, 2017. Filed under: Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, House of Representatives, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Senate, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, 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 831: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10,  2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Story 1: When Will Trump Propose A Single Federal Broad-based Consumption Tax or Fair Tax Less To Replace All Federal Taxes — Fair Tax Less Now! — Videos — 

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

Image result for fairtax

 

Image result for fairtax

Sen. Mike Lee: Congress needs to get Trump tax reform bill sooner

Rep. Kevin Brady: Confident We’ll Get Tax Reform This Year | Squawk Box | CNBC

When to expect Trump’s tax reform package

Do Republicans risk running out the clock on tax cuts?

Rep. Blackburn: Expect complete tax reform by end of 2017

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Introducing the FairTax in the 114th Congress

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

Congressman King Speaks in Favor of FairTax

Ways and Means 5/12 Hearing on Tax Reform

Rep. Woodall Testifies on FairTax During Tax Reform Hearing

Rep. Woodall Testifies on the FairTax at Ways and Means Hearing

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax on House Floor

FairTax

Published on Feb 6, 2017

FairTax
The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States It would replace all federal income taxes including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes, payroll taxes including Social Security and Medicare taxes, gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales The Fair Tax Act HR 25/S 155 would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all family households of lawful US residents as an advance rebate, or “prebate”, of tax on purchases up to the poverty level12 First introduced into the United States Congress in 1999, a number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the bill; however, it has not moved from committee and has yet to have any effect on the tax system In recent years, a tax reform movement has formed behind the FairTax proposal3 Attention increased after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2 FairTax
Click for more; http://www.turkaramamotoru.com/en/fai…
There are excerpts from wikipedia on this article and video

Pence on the Fair Tax

The Fair Tax – It’s Time

Summary: H.R.25 — 115th Congress (2017-2018)All Bill Information (Except Text)

There is one summary for H.R.25. Bill summaries are authored by CRS.

Shown Here:
Introduced in House (01/03/2017)

FairTax Act of 2017

This bill is a tax reform proposal that imposes a national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services in lieu of the current income and corporate income tax, employment and self-employment taxes, and estate and gift taxes. The rate of the sales tax will be 23% in 2019, with adjustments to the rate in subsequent years. There are exemptions from the tax for used and intangible property, for property or services purchased for business, export, or investment purposes, and for state government functions.

Under the bill, family members who are lawful U.S. residents receive a monthly sales tax rebate (Family Consumption Allowance) based upon criteria related to family size and poverty guidelines.

The states have the responsibility for administering, collecting, and remitting the sales tax to the Treasury.

Tax revenues are to be allocated among: (1) the general revenue, (2) the old-age and survivors insurance trust fund, (3) the disability insurance trust fund, (4) the hospital insurance trust fund, and (5) the federal supplementary medical insurance trust fund.

No funding is authorized for the operations of the Internal Revenue Service after FY2021.

Finally, the bill terminates the national sales tax if the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution (authorizing an income tax) is not repealed within seven years after the enactment of this bill.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/25?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22H.R.25%22%5D%7D&r=1

FairTax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The FairTax is a proposal to reform the federal tax code of the United States. It would replace all federal income taxes (including the alternative minimum tax, corporate income taxes, and capital gains taxes), payroll taxes (including Social Security and Medicare taxes), gift taxes, and estate taxes with a single broad national consumption tax on retail sales. The Fair Tax Act (H.R. 25/S. 155) would apply a tax, once, at the point of purchase on all new goods and services for personal consumption. The proposal also calls for a monthly payment to all familyhouseholds of lawful U.S. residents as an advance rebate, or “prebate”, of tax on purchases up to the poverty level.[1][2] First introduced into the United States Congress in 1999, a number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the bill; however, it has not moved from committee and has yet to have any effect on the tax system. In recent years, a tax reform movement has formed behind the FairTax proposal.[3] Attention increased after talk radio personality Neal Boortz and Georgia Congressman John Linder published The FairTax Book in 2005 and additional visibility was gained in the 2008 presidential campaign.

As defined in the proposed legislation, the tax rate is 23% for the first year. This percentage is based on the total amount paid including the tax ($23 out of every $100 spent in total). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total).[4] The rate would automatically adjust annually based on federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.[5] With the rebate taken into consideration, the FairTax would be progressive on consumption,[2] but would also be regressive on income at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[6][7] Opponents argue this would accordingly decrease the tax burden on high-income earners and increase it on the middle class.[4][8] Supporters contend that the plan would effectively tax wealth, increase purchasing power[9][10] and decrease tax burdens by broadening the tax base.

The plan’s supporters state that a consumption tax would increase savings and investment, ease tax compliance and increase economic growth, increase incentives for international business to locate in the US and increase US competitiveness in international trade.[11][12][13] The plan is intended to increase cost transparency for funding the federal government. Supporters believe it would increase civil liberties, benefit the environment and effectively tax illegal activity and undocumented immigrants.[11][14] Opponents contend that a consumption tax of this size would be extremely difficult to collect, and would lead to pervasive tax evasion.[4][6] They also argue that the proposed sales tax rate would raise less revenue than the current tax system, leading to an increased budget deficit.[4][15] Other concerns include the proposed repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment, removal of tax deduction incentives, transition effects on after-tax savings, incentives on credit use and the loss of tax advantages to state and local bonds.

Legislative overview and history

Rep John Linder holding the 133 page Fair Tax Act of 2007 in contrast to the then-current U.S. tax code and IRS regulations.

The legislation would remove the Internal Revenue Service (after three years), and establish Excise Tax and Sales Tax bureaus in the Department of the Treasury.[16] The states are granted the primary authority for the collection of sales tax revenues and the remittance of such revenues to the Treasury. The plan was created by Americans For Fair Taxation, an advocacy group formed to change the tax system. The group states that, together with economists, it developed the plan and the name “Fair Tax”, based on interviews, polls, and focus groups of the general public.[4] The FairTax legislation has been introduced in the House by Georgia RepublicansJohn Linder (1999–2010) and Rob Woodall (2011–2014),[17] while being introduced in the Senate by Georgia Republican Saxby Chambliss (2003–2014).

Linder first introduced the Fair Tax Act (H.R. 2525) on July 14, 1999, to the 106th United States Congress and a substantially similar bill has been reintroduced in each subsequent session of Congress. The bill attracted a total of 56 House and Senate cosponsors in the 108th Congress,[18][19] 61 in the 109th,[20][21] 76 in the 110th,[22][23] 70 in the 111th,[24][25] 78 in the 112th,[26][27]83 in the 113th (H.R. 25/S. 122), and 81 in the 114th (H.R. 25/S. 155). Former Speaker of the HouseDennis Hastert (Republican) had cosponsored the bill in the 109th–110th Congress, but it has not received support from the Democratic leadership.[21][22][28] Democratic Representative Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Democratic Senator Zell Miller of Georgia cosponsored and introduced the bill in the 108th Congress, but Peterson is no longer cosponsoring the bill and Miller has left the Senate.[18][19] In the 109th–111th Congress, Representative Dan Boren has been the only Democrat to cosponsor the bill.[20][22] A number of congressional committees have heard testimony on the FairTax, but it has not moved from committee since its introduction in 1999. The legislation was also discussed with President George W. Bush and his Secretary of the TreasuryHenry M. Paulson.[29]

To become law, the bill will need to be included in a final version of tax legislation from the U.S. House Committee on Ways and Means, pass both the House and the Senate, and finally be signed by the President. In 2005, President Bush established an advisory panel on tax reform that examined several national sales tax variants including aspects of the FairTax and noted several concerns. These included uncertainties as to the revenue that would be generated, and difficulties of enforcement and administration, which made this type of tax undesirable to recommend in their final report.[8] The panel did not examine the FairTax as proposed in the legislation. The FairTax received visibility in the 2008 presidential election on the issue of taxes and the IRS, with several candidates supporting the bill.[30][31] A poll in 2009 by Rasmussen Reports found that 43% of Americans would support a national sales tax replacement, with 38% opposed to the idea; the sales tax was viewed as fairer by 52% of Republicans, 44% of Democrats, and 49% of unaffiliateds.[32] President Barack Obama does not support the bill,[33]arguing for more progressive changes to the income and payroll tax systems.

Tax rate

The sales tax rate, as defined in the legislation for the first year, is 23% of the total payment including the tax ($23 of every $100 spent in total—calculated similar to income taxes). This would be equivalent to a 30% traditional U.S. sales tax ($23 on top of every $77 spent—$100 total, or $30 on top of every $100 spent—$130 total).[4] After the first year of implementation, this rate is automatically adjusted annually using a predefined formula reflecting actual federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.

The effective tax rate for any household would be variable due to the fixed monthly tax rebate that are used to rebate taxes paid on purchases up to the poverty level.[2] The tax would be levied on all U.S. retail sales for personal consumption on new goods and services. Critics argue that the sales tax rate defined in the legislation would not be revenue neutral (that is, it would collect less for the government than the current tax system), and thus would increase the budget deficit, unless government spending were equally reduced.[4]

Sales tax rate

During the first year of implementation, the FairTax legislation would apply a 23% federal retail sales tax on the total transaction value of a purchase; in other words, consumers pay to the government 23 cents of every dollar spent in total (sometimes called tax-inclusive, and presented this way to provide a direct comparison with individual income and employment taxes which reduce a person’s available money before they can make purchases). The equivalent assessed tax rate is 30% if the FairTax is applied to the pre-tax price of a good like traditional U.S. state sales taxes (sometimes called tax-exclusive; this rate is not directly comparable with existing income and employment taxes).[4] After the first year of implementation, this tax rate would be automatically adjusted annually using a formula specified in the legislation that reflects actual federal receipts in the previous fiscal year.[5]

Effective tax rate

For more details on this topic, see Distribution of the FairTax burden.

A household’s effective tax rate on consumption would vary with the annual expenditures on taxable items and the fixed monthly tax rebate. The rebate would have the greatest effect at low spending levels, where they could lower a household’s effective rate to zero or below.[34] The lowest effective tax rate under the FairTax could be negative due to the rebate for households with annual spending amounts below poverty level spending for a specified household size. At higher spending levels, the rebate has less impact, and a household’s effective tax rate would approach 23% of total spending. A person spending at the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 0%, whereas someone spending at four times the poverty level would have an effective tax rate of 17.2%.[34] Buying or otherwise receiving items and services not subject to federal taxation (such as a used home or car) can contribute towards a lower effective tax rate. The total amount of spending and the proportion of spending allocated to taxable items would determine a household’s effective tax rate on consumption.[34] If a rate is calculated on income, instead of the tax base, the percentage could exceed the statutory tax rate in a given year.

Monthly tax rebate

Proposed 2015 FairTax Prebate Schedule[35]
One adult household Two adult household
Family
Size
Annual
Consumption
Allowance
Annual
Prebate
Monthly
Prebate
Family
Size
Annual
Consumption
Allowance
Annual
Prebate
Monthly
Prebate
1 person $11,770 $2,707 $226 couple $23,540 $5,414 $451
and 1 child $15,930 $3,664 $305 and 1 child $27,700 $6,371 $531
and 2 children $20,090 $4,621 $385 and 2 children $31,860 $7,328 $611
and 3 children $24,250 $5,578 $465 and 3 children $36,020 $8,285 $690
and 4 children $28,410 $6,534 $545 and 4 children $40,180 $9,241 $770
and 5 children $32,570 $7,491 $624 and 5 children $44,340 $10,198 $850
and 6 children $36,490 $8,393 $699 and 6 children $48,500 $11,155 $930
and 7 children $40,890 $9,405 $784 and 7 children $52,660 $12,112 $1,009
The annual consumption allowance is based on the 2015 DHHS Poverty Guidelines as published in the Federal Register, January 22, 2015. There is no marriage penalty as the couple amount is twice the amount that a single adult receives. For families/households with more than 8 persons, add $4,160 to the annual consumption allowance for each additional person. The annual consumption allowance is the amount of spending that is “untaxed” under the FairTax.

Under the FairTax, familyhouseholds of lawful U.S. residents would be eligible to receive a “Family Consumption Allowance” (FCA) based on family size (regardless of income) that is equal to the estimated total FairTax paid on poverty level spending according to the poverty guidelines published by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.[1] The FCA is a tax rebate (known as a “prebate” as it would be an advance) paid in twelve monthly installments, adjusted for inflation. The rebate is meant to eliminate the taxation of household necessities and make the plan progressive.[4] Households would register once a year with their sales tax administering authority, providing the names and social security numbers of each household member.[1] The Social Security Administration would disburse the monthly rebate payments in the form of a paper check via U.S. Mail, an electronic funds transfer to a bank account, or a “smartcard” that can be used like a debit card.[1]

Opponents of the plan criticize this tax rebate due to its costs. Economists at the Beacon Hill Institute estimated the overall rebate cost to be $489 billion (assuming 100% participation).[36] In addition, economist Bruce Bartlett has argued that the rebate would create a large opportunity for fraud,[37] treats children disparately, and would constitute a welfare payment regardless of need.[38]

The President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform cited the rebate as one of their chief concerns when analyzing their national sales tax, stating that it would be the largest entitlement program in American history, and contending that it would “make most American families dependent on monthly checks from the federal government”.[8][39] Estimated by the advisory panel at approximately $600 billion, “the Prebate program would cost more than all budgeted spending in 2006 on the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Education, Energy, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Interior combined.”[8] Proponents point out that income tax deductions, tax preferences, loopholes, credits, etc. under the current system was estimated at $945 billion by the Joint Committee on Taxation.[36] They argue this is $456 billion more than the FairTax “entitlement” (tax refund) would spend to cover each person’s tax expenses up to the poverty level. In addition, it was estimated for 2005 that the Internal Revenue Service was already sending out $270 billion in refund checks.[36]

Presentation of tax rate[edit]

Mathematically, a 23% tax out of $100 yields approximately the same as a 30% tax on $77.

Sales and income taxes behave differently due to differing definitions of tax base, which can make comparisons between the two confusing. Under the existing individual income plus employment (Social Security; Medicare; Medicaid) tax formula, taxes to be paid are included in the base on which the tax rate is imposed (known as tax-inclusive). If an individual’s gross income is $100 and the sum of their income plus employment tax rate is 23%, taxes owed equals $23. Traditional state sales taxes are imposed on a tax base equal to the pre-tax portion of a good’s price (known as tax-exclusive). A good priced at $77 with a 30% sales tax rate yields $23 in taxes owed. To adjust an inclusive rate to an exclusive rate, divide the given rate by one minus that rate (i.e. {\displaystyle .23/(1-.23)=.23/.77=.30}{\displaystyle .23/(1-.23)=.23/.77=.30}).

The FairTax statutory rate, unlike most U.S. state-level sales taxes, is presented on a tax base that includes the amount of FairTax paid. For example, a final after-tax price of $100 includes $23 of taxes. Although no such requirement is included in the text of the legislation, Congressman John Linder has stated that the FairTax would be implemented as an inclusive tax, which would include the tax in the retail price, not added on at checkout—an item on the shelf for five dollars would be five dollars total.[29][40] The legislation requires the receipt to display the tax as 23% of the total.[41] Linder states the FairTax is presented as a 23% tax rate for easy comparison to income and employment tax rates (the taxes it would be replacing). The plan’s opponents call the semantics deceptive. FactCheck called the presentation misleading, saying that it hides the real truth of the tax rate.[42]Bruce Bartlett stated that polls show tax reform support is extremely sensitive to the proposed rate,[38] and called the presentation confusing and deceptive based on the conventional method of calculating sales taxes.[43] Proponents believe it is both inaccurate and misleading to say that an income tax is 23% and the FairTax is 30% as it implies that the sales tax burden is higher.

Revenue neutrality

A key question surrounding the FairTax is whether the tax has the ability to be revenue-neutral; that is, whether the tax would result in an increase or reduction in overall federal tax revenues. Economists, advisory groups, and political advocacy groups disagree about the tax rate required for the FairTax to be truly revenue-neutral. Various analysts use different assumptions, time-frames, and methods resulting in dramatically different tax rates making direct comparison among the studies difficult. The choice between static or dynamic scoring further complicates any estimate of revenue-neutral rates.[44]

A 2006 study published in Tax Notes by the Beacon Hill Institute at Suffolk University and Dr. Laurence Kotlikoff estimated the FairTax would be revenue-neutral for the tax year 2007 at a rate of 23.82% (31.27% tax-exclusive).[45]The study states that purchasing power is transferred to state and local taxpayers from state and local governments. To recapture the lost revenue, state and local governments would have to raise tax rates or otherwise change tax laws in order to continue collecting the same real revenues from their taxpayers.[39][45] The Argus Group and Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics each published an analysis that defended the 23% rate.[46][47][48] While proponents of the FairTax concede that the above studies did not explicitly account for tax evasion, they also claim that the studies did not altogether ignore tax evasion under the FairTax. These studies presumably incorporated some degree of tax evasion in their calculations by using National Income and Product Account based figures, which is argued to understate total household consumption.[45] The studies also did not account for capital gains that may be realized by the U.S. government if consumer prices were allowed to rise, which would reduce the real value of nominal U.S. government debt.[45] Nor did these studies account for any increased economic growth that many economists researching the plan believe would occur.[45][48][49][50]

In contrast to the above studies, William G. Gale of the Brookings Institution published a study in Tax Notes that estimated a rate of 28.2% (39.3% tax-exclusive) for 2007 assuming full taxpayer compliance and an average rate of 31% (44% tax-exclusive) from 2006 to 2015 (assumes that the Bush tax cuts expire on schedule and accounts for the replacement of an additional $3 trillion collected through the Alternative Minimum Tax).[4][15][51] The study also concluded that if the tax base were eroded by 10% due to tax evasion, tax avoidance, and/or legislative adjustments, the average rate would be 34% (53% tax-exclusive) for the 10-year period. A dynamic analysis in 2008 by the Baker Institute For Public Policy concluded that a 28% (38.9% tax-exclusive) rate would be revenue neutral for 2006.[52] The President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform performed a 2006 analysis to replace the individual and corporate income tax with a retail sales tax and estimated the rate to be 25% (34% tax-exclusive) assuming 15% tax evasion, and 33% (49% tax-exclusive) with 30% tax evasion.[8] The rate would need to be substantially higher to replace the additional taxes replaced by the FairTax (payroll, estate, and gift taxes). Several economists criticized the President’s Advisory Panel’s study as having allegedly altered the terms of the FairTax, using unsound methodology, and/or failing to fully explain their calculations.[36][45][53]

Taxable items and exemptions

The tax would be levied once at the final retail sale for personal consumption on new goods and services. Purchases of used items, exports and all business transactions would not be taxed. Also excluded are investments, such as purchases of stock, corporate mergers and acquisitions and capital investments. Savings and education tuition expenses would be exempt as they would be considered an investment (rather than final consumption).[54]

A good would be considered “used” and not taxable if a consumer already owns it before the FairTax takes effect or if the FairTax has been paid previously on the good, which may be different from the item being sold previously. Personal services such as health care, legal services, financial services, and auto repairs would be subject to the FairTax, as would renting apartments and other real property.[4] Food, clothing, prescription drugs and medical services would be taxed. (State sales taxes generally exempt these types of basic-need items in an effort to reduce the tax burden on low-income families. The FairTax would use a monthly rebate system instead of the common state exclusions.) Internet purchases would be taxed, as would retail international purchases (such as a boat or car) that are imported to the United States (collected by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection).[54]

Distribution of tax burden

Boston University study of the FairTax. Lower rates claimed on workers from a larger tax base, replacing regressive taxes, and wealth taxation.

President’s Advisory Panel’s analysis of a hybrid National Sales Tax. Higher rates claimed on the middle-class for an income tax replacement (excludes payroll, estate, and gift taxes replaced under the FairTax).

The FairTax’s effect on the distribution of taxation or tax incidence (the effect on the distribution of economic welfare) is a point of dispute. The plan’s supporters argue that the tax would broaden the tax base, that it would be progressive, and that it would decrease tax burdens and start taxing wealth (reducing the economic gap).[9][55] Opponents argue that a national sales tax would be inherently regressive and would decrease tax burdens paid by high-income individuals.[4][56] A person earning $2 million a year could live well spending $1 million, and as a result pay a mere 11% of that year’s income in taxes.[4] Households at the lower end of the income scale spend almost all their income, while households at the higher end are more likely to devote a portion of income to saving. Therefore, according to economist William G. Gale, the percentage of income taxed is regressive at higher income levels (as consumption falls as a percentage of income).[6]

Income earned and saved would not be taxed until spent under the proposal. Households at the extreme high end of consumption often finance their purchases out of savings, not income.[6][38] Economist Laurence Kotlikoff states that the FairTax could make the tax system much more progressive and generationally equitable,[2] and argues that taxing consumption is effectively the same as taxing wages plus taxing wealth.[2] A household of three persons (this example will use two adults plus one child; the rebate does not consider marital status) spending $30,000 a year on taxable items would devote about 3.4% of total spending ([$6,900 tax minus $5,888 rebate]/$30,000 spending) to the FairTax after the rebate. The same household spending $125,000 on taxable items would spend around 18.3% ([$28,750 tax minus $5,888 rebate]/$125,000 spending) on the FairTax. At higher spending levels, the rebate has less impact and the rate approaches 23% of total spending. Thus, according to economist Laurence Kotlikoff, the effective tax rate is progressive on consumption.[2]

Studies by Kotlikoff and David Rapson state that the FairTax would significantly reduce marginal taxes on work and saving, lowering overall average remaining lifetime tax burdens on current and future workers.[9][57] A study by Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch concluded that the long-term effects of the FairTax would reward low-income households with 26.3% more purchasing power, middle-income households with 12.4% more purchasing power, and high-income households with 5% more purchasing power.[10] The Beacon Hill Institute reported that the FairTax would make the federal tax system more progressive and would benefit the average individual in almost all expenditures deciles.[7] In another study, they state the FairTax would offer the broadest tax base (an increase of over $2 trillion), which allows the FairTax to have a lower tax rate than current tax law.[58]

Gale analyzed a national sales tax (though different from the FairTax in several aspects[7][46]) and reported that the overall tax burden on middle-income Americans would increase while the tax burden on the top 1% would drop.[6] A study by the Beacon Hill Institute reported that the FairTax may have a negative effect on the well-being of mid-income earners for several years after implementation.[50] According to the President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform report, which compared the individual and corporate income tax (excluding other taxes the FairTax replaces) to a sales tax with rebate,[8][36] the percentage of federal taxes paid by those earning from $15,000–$50,000 would rise from 3.6% to 6.7%, while the burden on those earning more than $200,000 would fall from 53.5% to 45.9%.[8] The report states that the top 5% of earners would see their burden decrease from 58.6% to 37.4%.[8][59] FairTax supporters argue that replacing the regressive payroll tax (a 15.3% total tax not included in the Tax Panel study;[8] payroll taxes include a 12.4% Social Security tax on wages up to $97,500 and a 2.9% Medicare tax, a 15.3% total tax that is often split between employee and employer) greatly changes the tax distribution, and that the FairTax would relieve the tax burden on middle-class workers.[2][53]

Predicted effects

The predicted effects of the FairTax are a source of disagreement among economists and other analysts.[42][43][56] According to Money magazine, while many economists and tax experts support the idea of a consumption tax, many of them view the FairTax proposal as having serious problems with evasion and revenue neutrality.[4] Some economists argue that a consumption tax (the FairTax is one such tax) would have a positive effect on economic growth, incentives for international business to locate in the U.S., and increased U.S. international competitiveness (border tax adjustment in global trade).[11][12][13] The FairTax would be tax-free on mortgage interest (up to a basic interest rate) and donations, but some lawmakers have concerns about losing tax incentives on home ownership and charitable contributions.[60] There is also concern about the effect on the income tax industry and the difficulty of repealing the Sixteenth Amendment (to prevent Congress from re-introducing an income tax).[61]

Economic

For more details on this topic, see Predicted effects of the FairTax § Economic effects.

Americans For Fair Taxation states the FairTax would boost the United States economy and offers a letter signed by eighty economists, including Nobel LaureateVernon L. Smith, that have endorsed the plan.[12] The Beacon Hill Institute estimated that within five years real GDP would increase 10.7% over the current system, domestic investment by 86.3%, capital stock by 9.3%, employment by 9.9%, real wages by 10.2%, and consumption by 1.8%.[50]Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics projected the economy as measured by GDP would be 2.4% higher in the first year and 11.3% higher by the 10th year than it would otherwise be.[48] Economists Laurence Kotlikoff and Sabine Jokisch reported the incentive to work and save would increase; by 2030, the economy’s capital stock would increase by 43.7% over the current system, output by 9.4%, and real wages by 11.5%.[10] Economist John Golob estimates a consumption tax, like the FairTax, would bring long-term interest rates down by 25–35%.[62] An analysis in 2008 by the Baker Institute For Public Policy indicated that the plan would generate significant overall macroeconomic improvement in both the short and long-term, but warned of transitional issues.[52]

FairTax proponents argue that the proposal would provide tax burden visibility and reduce compliance and efficiency costs by 90%, returning a large share of money to the productive economy.[2] The Beacon Hill Institute concluded that the FairTax would save $346.51 billion in administrative costs and would be a much more efficient taxation system.[63]Bill Archer, former head of the House Ways and Means Committee, asked Princeton University Econometrics to survey 500 European and Asian companies regarding the effect on their business decisions if the United States enacted the FairTax. 400 of those companies stated they would build their next plant in the United States, and 100 companies said they would move their corporate headquarters to the United States.[64] Supporters argue that the U.S. has the highest combined statutory corporate income tax rate among OECD countries along with being the only country with no border adjustment element in its tax system.[65][66] Proponents state that because the FairTax eliminates corporate income taxes and is automatically border adjustable, the competitive tax advantage of foreign producers would be eliminated, immediately boosting U.S. competitiveness overseas and at home.[67]

Opponents point to a study commissioned by the National Retail Federation in 2000 that found a national sales tax bill filed by Billy Tauzin, the Individual Tax Freedom Act (H.R. 2717), would bring a three-year decline in the economy, a four-year decline in employment and an eight-year decline in consumer spending.[68]Wall Street Journal columnist James Taranto states the FairTax is unsuited to take advantage of supply-side effects and would create a powerful disincentive to spend money.[56] John Linder states an estimated $11 trillion is held in foreign accounts (largely for tax purposes), which he states would be repatriated back to U.S. banks if the FairTax were enacted, becoming available to U.S. capital markets, bringing down interest rates, and otherwise promoting economic growth in the United States.[11] Attorney Allen Buckley states that a tremendous amount of wealth was already repatriated under law changes in 2004 and 2005.[69] Buckley also argues that if the tax rate was significantly higher, the FairTax would discourage the consumption of new goods and hurt economic growth.[69]

Transition

For more details on this topic, see Predicted effects of the FairTax § Transition effects.

Stability of the Tax Base: A comparison of Personal Consumption Expenditures and Adjusted Gross Income.

During the transition, many or most of the employees of the IRS (105,978 in 2005)[70] would face loss of employment.[45] The Beacon Hill Institute estimate is that the federal government would be able to cut $8 billion from the IRS budget of $11.01 billion (in 2007), reducing the size of federal tax administration by 73%.[45] In addition, income tax preparers (many seasonal), tax lawyers, tax compliance staff in medium-to-large businesses, and software companies which sell tax preparation software could face significant drops, changes, or loss of employment. The bill would maintain the IRS for three years after implementation before completely decommissioning the agency, providing employees time to find other employment.[16]

In the period before the FairTax is implemented, there could be a strong incentive for individuals to buy goods without the sales tax using credit. After the FairTax is in effect, the credit could be paid off using untaxed payroll. If credit incentives do not change, opponents of the FairTax worry it could exacerbate an existing consumer debt problem.[71] Proponents of the FairTax state that this effect could also allow individuals to pay off their existing (pre-FairTax) debt more quickly,[11] and studies suggest lower interest rates after FairTax passage.[62]

Individuals under the current system who accumulated savings from ordinary income (by choosing not to spend their money when the income was earned) paid taxes on that income before it was placed in savings (such as a Roth IRA or CD). When individuals spend above the poverty level with money saved under the current system, that spending would be subject to the FairTax. People living through the transition may find both their earnings and their spending taxed.[72] Critics have stated that the FairTax would result in unfair double taxation for savers and suggest it does not address the transition effect on some taxpayers who have accumulated significant savings from after-tax dollars, especially retirees who have finished their careers and switched to spending down their life savings.[39][72] Supporters of the plan argue that the current system is no different, since compliance costs and “hidden taxes” embedded in the prices of goods and services cause savings to be “taxed” a second time already when spent.[72] The rebate would supplement accrued savings, covering taxes up to the poverty level. The income taxes on capital gains, estates, social security and pension benefits would be eliminated under FairTax. In addition, the FairTax legislation adjusts Social Security benefits for changes in the price level, so a percentage increase in prices would result in an equal percentage increase to Social Security income.[16] Supporters suggest these changes would offset paying the FairTax under transition conditions.[11]

Other indirect effects

The FairTax would be tax free on mortgage interest up to the federal borrowing rate for like-term instruments as determined by the Treasury,[73] but since savings, education, and other investments would be tax free under the plan, the FairTax could decrease the incentive to spend more on homes. An analysis in 2008 by the Baker Institute For Public Policy concluded that the FairTax would have significant transitional issues for the housing sector since the investment would no longer be tax-favored.[52] In a 2007 study, the Beacon Hill Institute concluded that total charitable giving would increase under the FairTax, although increases in giving would not be distributed proportionately amongst the various types of charitable organizations.[74] The FairTax may also affect state and local government debt as the federal income tax system provides tax advantages to municipal bonds.[75]Proponents believe environmental benefits would result from the FairTax through environmental economics and the re-use and re-sale of used goods.[76] Former Senator Mike Gravel states the significant reduction of paperwork for IRS compliance and tax forms is estimated to save about 300,000 trees each year.[76] Advocates argue the FairTax would provide an incentive for illegal immigrants to legalize as they would otherwise not receive the rebate.[1][11] Proponents also believe that the FairTax would have positive effects on civil liberties that are sometimes charged against the income tax system, such as social inequality, economic inequality, financial privacy, self-incrimination, unreasonable search and seizure, burden of proof, and due process.[14][77]

If the FairTax bill were passed, permanent elimination of income taxation would not be guaranteed; the FairTax bill would repeal much of the existing tax code, but the Sixteenth Amendment would remain in place. Preventing new legislation from reintroducing income taxation would require a repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution with a separate provision expressly prohibiting a federal income tax.[61] This is referred to as an “aggressive repeal”. Separate income taxes enforced by individual states would be unaffected by the federal repeal. Passing the FairTax would require only a simple majority in each house of the United States Congress along with the signature of the President, whereas enactment of a constitutional amendment must be approved by two thirds of each house of the Congress, and three-quarters of the individual U.S. states. It is therefore possible that passage of the FairTax bill would simply add another taxation system. If a new income tax bill were passed after the FairTax passage, a hybrid system could develop; albeit, there is nothing preventing a bill for a hybrid system today. To address this issue and preclude that possibility, in the 111th Congress John Linder introduced a contingent sunset provision in H.R. 25. It would require the repeal of the Sixteenth Amendment within 8 years after the implementation of the FairTax or, failing that, the FairTax would expire.[78] Critics have also argued that a tax on state government consumption could be unconstitutional.[69]

Changes in the retail economy

Since the FairTax would not tax used goods, the value would be determined by the supply and demand in relation to new goods.[79] The price differential/margins between used and new goods would stay consistent, as the cost and value of used goods are in direct relationship to the cost and value of the new goods. Because the U.S. tax system has a hidden effect on prices, it is expected that moving to the FairTax would decrease production costs from the removal of business taxes and compliance costs, which is predicted to offset a portion of the FairTax effect on prices.[11]

Value of used goods

Since the FairTax would not tax used goods, some critics have argued that this would create a differential between the price of new and used goods, which may take years to equalize.[38] Such a differential would certainly influence the sale of new goods like vehicles and homes. Similarly, some supporters have claimed that this would create an incentive to buy used goods, creating environmental benefits of re-use and re-sale.[76] Conversely, it is argued that like the income tax system that contains embedded tax cost (see Theories of retail pricing),[80] used goods would contain the embedded FairTax cost.[72] While the FairTax would not be applied to the retail sales of used goods, the inherent value of a used good includes the taxes paid when the good was sold at retail. The value is determined by the supply and demand in relation to new goods.[79] The price differential / margins between used and new goods should stay consistent, as the cost and value of used goods are in direct relationship to the cost and value of the new goods.

Theories of retail pricing

A supply and demand diagram illustrating taxes’ effect on prices.

Based on a study conducted by Dale Jorgenson, proponents state that production cost of domestic goods and services could decrease by approximately 22% on average after embedded tax costs are removed, leaving the sale nearly the same after taxes. The study concludes that producer prices would drop between 15% and 26% (depending on the type of good/service).[81] Jorgenson’s research included all income and payroll taxes in the embedded tax estimation, which assumes employee take-home pay (net income) remains unchanged from pre-FairTax levels.[4][82] Price and wage changes after the FairTax would largely depend on the response of the Federal Reserve monetary authorities.[29][38][83] Non-accommodation of the money supply would suggest retail prices and take home pay stay the same—embedded taxes are replaced by the FairTax. Full accommodation would suggest prices and incomes rise by the exclusive rate (i.e., 30%)—embedded taxes become windfall gains. Partial accommodation would suggest a varying degree in-between.[29][83]

If businesses provided employees with gross pay (including income tax withholding and the employee share of payroll taxes),[45]Arduin, Laffer & Moore Econometrics estimated production costs could decrease by a minimum of 11.55% (partial accommodation).[48] This reduction would be from the removal of the remaining embedded costs, including corporate taxes, compliance costs, and the employer share of payroll taxes. This decrease would offset a portion of the FairTax amount reflected in retail prices, which proponents suggest as the most likely scenario.[29] Bruce Bartlett states that it is unlikely that nominal wages would be reduced, which he believes would result in a recession, but that the Federal Reserve would likely increase the money supply to accommodate price increases.[38] David Tuerck states “The monetary authorities would have to consider how the degree of accommodation, varying from none to full, would affect the overall economy and how it would affect the well-being of various groups such as retirees.”[83]

Social Security benefits would be adjusted for any price changes due to FairTax implementation.[16] The Beacon Hill Institute states that it would not matter, apart from transition issues, whether prices fall or rise—the relative tax burden and tax rate remains the same.[45] Decreases in production cost would not fully apply to imported products; so according to proponents, it would provide tax advantages for domestic production and increase U.S. competitiveness in global trade (see Border adjustability). To ease the transition, U.S. retailers will receive a tax credit equal to the FairTax on their inventory to allow for quick cost reduction. Retailers would also receive an administrative fee equal to the greater of $200 or 0.25% of the remitted tax as compensation for compliance costs,[84] which amounts to around $5 billion.

Effects on tax code compliance

One avenue for non-compliance is the black market. FairTax supporters state that the black market is largely untaxed under the current tax system. Economists estimate the underground economy in the United States to be between one and three trillion dollars annually.[85][86] By imposing a sales tax, supporters argue that black market activity would be taxed when proceeds from such activity are spent on legal consumption.[87] For example, the sale of illegal narcotics would remain untaxed (instead of being guilty of income tax evasion, drug dealers would be guilty of failing to submit sales tax), but they would face taxation when they used drug proceeds to buy consumer goods such as food, clothing, and cars. By taxing this previously untaxed money, FairTax supporters argue that non-filers would be paying part of their share of what would otherwise be uncollected income and payroll taxes.[11][88]

Other economists and analysts have argued that the underground economy would continue to bear the same tax burden as before.[13][87][88][89] They state that replacing the current tax system with a consumption tax would not change the tax revenue generated from the underground economy—while illicit income is not taxed directly, spending of income from illicit activity results in business income and wages that are taxed.[13][87][88]

Tax compliance and evasion

“No, No! Not That Way”—Political cartoon from 1933 commenting on a general sales tax over an income tax.

Proponents state the FairTax would reduce the number of tax filers by about 86% (from 100 million to 14 million) and reduce the filing complexity to a simplified state sales tax form.[53] The Government Accountability Office (GAO), among others, have specifically identified the negative relationship between compliance costs and the number of focal points for collection.[90]Under the FairTax, the federal government would be able to concentrate tax enforcement efforts on a single tax. Retailers would receive an administrative fee equal to the greater of $200 or 0.25% of the remitted tax as compensation for compliance costs.[84] In addition, supporters state that the overwhelming majority of purchases occur in major retail outlets, which are very unlikely to evade the FairTax and risk losing their business licenses.[45] Economic Census figures for 2002 show that 48.5% of merchandise sales are made by just 688 businesses (“Big-Box” retailers). 85.7% of all retail sales are made by 92,334 businesses, which is 3.6% of American companies. In the service sector, approximately 80% of sales are made by 1.2% of U.S. businesses.[29]

The FairTax is a national tax, but can be administered by the states rather than a federal agency,[91] which may have a bearing on compliance as the states’ own agencies could monitor and audit businesses within that state. The 0.25% retained by the states amounts to $5 billion the states would have available for enforcement and administration. For example, California should receive over $500 million for enforcement and administration, which is more than the $327 million budget for the state’s sales and excise taxes.[92] Because the federal money paid to the states would be a percentage of the total revenue collected, John Linder claims the states would have an incentive to maximize collections.[11] Proponents believe that states that choose to conform to the federal tax base would have advantages in enforcement, information sharing, and clear interstate revenue allocation rules.[90][91] A study by the Beacon Hill Institute concluded that, on average, states could more than halve their sales tax rates and that state economies would benefit greatly from adopting a state-level FairTax.[90]

FairTax opponents state that compliance decreases when taxes are not automatically withheld from citizens, and that massive tax evasion could result by collecting at just one point in the economic system.[38] Compliance rates can also fall when taxed entities, rather than a third party, self-report their tax liability. For example, ordinary personal income taxes can be automatically withheld and are reported to the government by a third party. Taxes without withholding and with self-reporting, such as the FairTax, can see higher evasion rates. Economist Jane Gravelle of the Congressional Research Service found studies showing that evasion rates of sales taxes are often above 10%, even when the sales tax rate is in the single digits.[88] Tax publications by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), IMF, and Brookings Institution have suggested that the upper limit for a sales tax is about 10% before incentives for evasion become too great to control.[38] According to the GAO, 80% of state tax officials opposed a national sales tax as an intrusion on their tax base.[38] Opponents also raise concerns of legal tax avoidance by spending and consuming outside of the U.S. (imported goods would be subject to collection by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection).[93]

Economists from the University of Tennessee concluded that while there would be many desirable macroeconomic effects, adoption of a national retail sales tax would also have serious effects on state and local government finances.[94] Economist Bruce Bartlett stated that if the states did not conform to the FairTax, they would have massive confusion and complication as to what is taxed by the state and what is taxed by the federal government.[38]In addition, sales taxes have long exempted all but a few services because of the enormous difficulty in taxing intangibles—Bartlett suggests that the state may not have sufficient incentive to enforce the tax.[43]University of Michigan economist Joel Slemrod argues that states would face significant issues in enforcing the tax. “Even at an average rate of around five percent, state sales taxes are difficult to administer.”[95] University of Virginia School of Law professor George Yin states that the FairTax could have evasion issues with export and import transactions.[39] The President’s Advisory Panel for Federal Tax Reform reported that if the federal government were to cease taxing income, states might choose to shift their revenue-raising to income.[8] Absent the Internal Revenue Service, it would be more difficult for the states to maintain viable income tax systems.[8][94]

Underground economy

Opponents of the FairTax argue that imposing a national retail sales tax would drive transactions underground and create a vast underground economy.[4] Under a retail sales tax system, the purchase of intermediate goods and services that are factors of production are not taxed, since those goods would produce a final retail good that would be taxed. Individuals and businesses may be able to manipulate the tax system by claiming that purchases are for intermediate goods, when in fact they are final purchases that should be taxed. Proponents point out that a business is required to have a registered seller’s certificate on file, and must keep complete records of all transactions for six years. Businesses must also record all taxable goods bought for seven years. They are required to report these sales every month (see Personal vs. business purchases).[41] The government could also stipulate that all retail sellers provide buyers with a written receipt, regardless of transaction type (cash, credit, etc.), which would create a paper trail for evasion with risk of having the buyer turn them in (the FairTax authorizes a reward for reporting tax cheats).[53]

While many economists and tax experts support a consumption tax, problems could arise with using a retail sales tax rather than a value added tax (VAT).[4][38] A VAT imposes a tax on the value added at every intermediate step of production, so the goods reach the final consumer with much of the tax already in the price.[96] The retail seller has little incentive to conceal retail sales, since he has already paid much of the good’s tax. Retailers are unlikely to subsidize the consumer’s tax evasion by concealing sales. In contrast, a retailer has paid no tax on goods under a sales tax system. This provides an incentive for retailers to conceal sales and engage in “tax arbitrage” by sharing some of the illicit tax savings with the final consumer. Citing evasion, Tim Worstall wrote in Forbes that Europe’s 20-25% consumption taxes simply would not work if they were a sales tax: that’s why they’re all a VAT.[96]Laurence Kotlikoff has stated that the government could compel firms to report, via 1099-type forms, their sales to other firms, which would provide the same records that arise under a VAT.[53] In the United States, a general sales tax is imposed in 45 states plus the District of Columbia (accounting for over 97% of both population and economic output), which proponents argue provides a large infrastructure for taxing sales that many countries do not have.

Personal versus business purchases

Businesses would be required to submit monthly or quarterly reports (depending on sales volume) of taxable sales and sales tax collected on their monthly sales tax return. During audits, the business would have to produce invoices for the “business purchases” that they did not pay sales tax on, and would have to be able to show that they were genuine business expenses.[41] Advocates state the significant 86% reduction in collection points would greatly increase the likelihood of business audits, making tax evasion behavior much more risky.[53] Additionally, the FairTax legislation has several fines and penalties for non-compliance, and authorizes a mechanism for reporting tax cheats to obtain a reward.[41] To prevent businesses from purchasing everything for their employees, in a family business for example, goods and services bought by the business for the employees that are not strictly for business use would be taxable.[41] Health insurance or medical expenses would be an example where the business would have to pay the FairTax on these purchases. Taxable property and services purchased by a qualified non-profit or religious organization “for business purposes” would not be taxable.[97]

FairTax movement

A FairTax rally in Orlando, Florida on July 28, 2006.

The creation of the FairTax began with a group of businessmen from Houston, Texas, who initially financed what has become the political advocacy group Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT), which has grown into a large tax reform movement.[3][29] This organization, founded in 1994, claims to have spent over $20 million in research, marketing, lobbying, and organizing efforts over a ten-year period and is seeking to raise over $100 million more to promote the plan.[98] AFFT includes a staff in Houston and a large group of volunteers who are working to get the FairTax enacted.

In 2007 Bruce Bartlett said the FairTax was devised by the Church of Scientology in the early 1990s,[43] drawing comparisons between the tax policy and religious doctrine from the faith, whose creation myth holds that an evil alien ruler known as Xenu “used phony tax inspections as a guise for destroying his enemies.”[99] Representative John Linder told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution that Bartlett confused the FairTax movement with the Scientology-affiliated Citizens for an Alternative Tax System,[100] which also seeks to abolish the federal income tax and replace it with a national retail sales tax. Leo Linbeck, AFFT Chairman and CEO, stated “As a founder of Americans For Fair Taxation, I can state categorically, however, that Scientology played no role in the founding, research or crafting of the legislation giving expression to the FairTax.”[98]

Much support has been achieved by talk radio personality Neal Boortz.[101] Boortz’s book (co-authored by Georgia Congressman John Linder) entitled The FairTax Book, explains the proposal and spent time atop the New York Times Best Seller list. Boortz stated that he donates his share of the proceeds to charity to promote the book.[101] In addition, Boortz and Linder have organized several FairTax rallies to publicize support for the plan. Other media personalities have also assisted in growing grassroots support including former radio and TV talk show host Larry Elder, radio host and former candidate for the 2012 GOP Presidential Nomination Herman Cain, Fox News and radio host Sean Hannity, and Fox Business Host John Stossel.[102] The FairTax received additional visibility as one of the issues in the 2008 presidential election. At a debate on June 30, 2007, several Republican candidates were asked about their position on the FairTax and many responded that they would sign the bill into law if elected.[30] The most vocal promoters of the FairTax during the 2008 primary elections were Republican candidate Mike Huckabee and Democratic candidate Mike Gravel. The Internet, blogosphere, and electronic mailing lists have contributed to promoting, organizing, and gaining support for the FairTax. In the 2012 Republican presidential primary, and his ensuing Libertarian Party presidential run, former Governor of New Mexico and businessman Gary Johnson actively campaigned for the FairTax.[103] Former CEO of Godfather’s PizzaHerman Cain has been promoting the FairTax as a final step in a multiple-phase tax reform.[104] Outside of the United States, the Christian Heritage Party of Canada adopted a FairTax proposal as part of their 2011 election platform[105] but won no seats in that election.

Supporters in Congress

Congressional FairTax Supporters as of June 2016 – click arrows to sort
Branch State District Party First Last Since Notes
Senate Texas Republican Ted Cruz [106][107]
Senate Oklahoma Republican James Inhofe 2015 [106][107]
Senate Georgia Republican Johnny Isakson 2015 [106][107]
Senate Oklahoma Republican James Lankford 2015 [106][107]
Senate Kansas Republican Jerry Moran 2015 [106][107]
Senate Georgia Republican David Perdue 2015 [106][107]
Senate Kansas Republican Pat Roberts 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 12 Republican Gus Bilirakis 2015 [106][107]
House Utah 1 Republican Rob Bishop 2015 [106][107]
House Tennessee 7 Republican Marsha Blackburn 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 8 Republican Kevin Brady 2015 [106][107]
House Virginia 7 Republican Dave Brat 2015 [106][107]
House Oklahoma 1 Republican Jim Bridenstine 2015 [106][107]
House Alabama 5 Republican Mo Brooks 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 1 Republican Earl Carter 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 31 Republican John Carter 2015 [106][107]
House Ohio 1 Republican Steve Chabot 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 9 Republican Doug Collins 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 11 Republican Michael Conaway 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 4 Republican Ander Crenshaw 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 7 Republican John Culberson 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 6 Republican Ron DeSantis 2015 [106][107]
House Tennessee 4 Republican Scott DesJarlais 2015 [106][107]
House South Carolina 3 Republican Jeff Duncan 2015 [106][107]
House Tennessee 2 Republican John Duncan 2015 [106][107]
House Minnesota 6 Republican Tom Emmer 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 27 Republican Blake Farenthold 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 17 Republican Bill Flores 2015 [106][107]
House North Carolina 5 Republican Virginia Foxx 2015 [106][107]
House Arizona 8 Republican Trent Franks 2015 [106][107]
House New Jersey 5 Republican Scott Garrett 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 12 Republican Kay Granger 2015 [106][107]
House Missouri 6 Republican Sam Graves 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 14 Republican Tom Graves 2015 [106][107]
House Nevada 4 Republican Cresent Hardy 2015 [106][107]
House Maryland 1 Republican Andy Harris 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 5 Republican Jeb Hensarling 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 10 Republican Jody Hice 2015 [106][107]
House Kansas 1 Republican Tim Huelskamp 2015 [106][107]
House California 49 Republican Darrell Issa 2015 [106][107]
House Kansas 2 Republican Lynn Jenkins 2015 [106][107]
House Iowa 4 Republican Steve King 2015 [106][107]
House Minnesota 2 Republican John Kline 2015 [106][107]
House Missouri 7 Republican Billy Long 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 11 Republican Barry Loudermilk 2015 [106][107]
House Oklahoma 3 Republican Frank Lucas 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 24 Republican Kenny Marchant 2015 [106][107]
House Kentucky 4 Republican Thomas Massie 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 10 Republican Michael McCaul 2015 [106][107]
House California 4 Republican Tom McClintock 2015 [106][107]
House North Carolina 11 Republican Mark Meadows 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 7 Republican John Mica 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 1 Republican Jeff Miller 2015 [106][107]
House Oklahoma 2 Republican Markwayne Mullin 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 19 Republican Randy Neugebauer 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 11 Republican Richard Nugent 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 22 Republican Pete Olson 2015 [106][107]
House Alabama 6 Republican Gary Palmer 2015 [106][107]
House New Mexico 2 Republican Stevan Pearce 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 2 Republican Ted Poe 2015 [106][107]
House Kansas 4 Republican Mike Pompeo 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 8 Republican Bill Posey 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 6 Republican Tom Price 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 4 Republican John Ratcliffe 2015 [106][107]
House Virginia 2 Republican Scott Rigell 2015 [106][107]
House Tennessee 1 Republican David Roe 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 17 Republican Thomas Rooney 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 15 Republican Dennis Ross 2015 [106][107]
House Oklahoma 5 Republican Steve Russell 2015 [106][107]
House Arizona 5 Republican Matt Salmon 2015 [106][107]
House South Carolina 1 Republican Mark Sanford 2015 [106][107]
House Missouri 8 Republican Jason Smith 2015 [106][107]
House Indiana 3 Republican Marlin Stutzman 2015 [106][107]
House Texas 13 Republican Mac Thornberry 2015 [106][107]
House Michigan 7 Republican Tim Walberg 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 3 Republican Lynn Westmoreland 2015 [106][107]
House Virginia 1 Republican Robert Wittman 2015 [106][107]
House Kansas 3 Republican Kevin Yoder 2015 [106][107]
House Florida 3 Republican Ted Yoho 2015 [106][107]
House Alaska Republican Don Young 2015 [106][107]
House Georgia 7 Republican Rob Woodall [107][108]

See also

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

Story 2: Obama’s Last Job’s Report: U-3 Unemployment Rate 4.8%, U-6 Unemployment Rate 9.4%, Labor Participation Rate 62.9% and Number of Unemployed Americans 7,635,000  — Videos

Civilian Labor Force Level

159,716,000

 

Series Id:           LNS11000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Civilian Labor Force Level
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154210(1) 154538 154133 154509 154747 154716 154502 154307 153827 153784 153878 153111
2010 153484(1) 153694 153954 154622 154091 153616 153691 154086 153975 153635 154125 153650
2011 153263(1) 153214 153376 153543 153479 153346 153288 153760 154131 153961 154128 153995
2012 154381(1) 154671 154749 154545 154866 155083 154948 154763 155160 155554 155338 155628
2013 155695(1) 155268 154990 155356 155514 155747 155669 155587 155731 154709 155328 155151
2014 155295(1) 155485 156115 155378 155559 155682 156098 156117 156100 156389 156421 156238
2015 157022(1) 156771 156781 157043 157447 156993 157125 157109 156809 157123 157358 157957
2016 158362(1) 158888 159278 158938 158510 158889 159295 159508 159830 159643 159456 159640
2017 159716(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Participation Rate

62.9%

Series Id:           LNS11300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
Labor force status:  Civilian labor force participation rate
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.2 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.1 64.2 64.2 64.1 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.7
2013 63.6 63.4 63.3 63.4 63.4 63.4 63.3 63.3 63.3 62.8 63.0 62.9
2014 62.9 62.9 63.1 62.8 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.8 62.9 62.9 62.7
2015 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.6 62.6 62.6 62.4 62.5 62.5 62.7
2016 62.7 62.9 63.0 62.8 62.6 62.7 62.8 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.6 62.7
2017 62.9

Employment Level

152,081,000

 

Series Id:           LNS12000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Employment Level
Labor force status:  Employed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142152(1) 141640 140707 140656 140248 140009 139901 139492 138818 138432 138659 138013
2010 138438(1) 138581 138751 139297 139241 139141 139179 139438 139396 139119 139044 139301
2011 139250(1) 139394 139639 139586 139624 139384 139524 139942 140183 140368 140826 140902
2012 141584(1) 141858 142036 141899 142206 142391 142292 142291 143044 143431 143333 143330
2013 143225(1) 143315 143319 143603 143856 144006 144318 144304 144466 143577 144536 144741
2014 145055(1) 145102 145715 145673 145819 146222 146461 146501 146845 147426 147361 147521
2015 148061(1) 148108 148244 148522 148792 148742 148890 149092 148932 149255 149419 150030
2016 150533(1) 151043 151301 151028 151058 151090 151546 151655 151926 151902 152048 152111
2017 152081(1)
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.
Series Id:           LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status:  Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data:        Percent or rate
Age:                 16 years and over
Percent/rates:       Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.2 15.8 15.9 16.5 16.5 16.4 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.1 17.1 16.6 16.4 16.4 16.5 16.8 16.6 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.9 16.1 15.8 16.1 15.9 16.1 16.4 15.8 15.5 15.2
2012 15.2 15.0 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8 14.8 14.6 14.8 14.4 14.4 14.4
2013 14.5 14.4 13.8 14.0 13.8 14.2 13.8 13.6 13.7 13.6 13.1 13.1
2014 12.7 12.6 12.6 12.3 12.1 12.0 12.2 12.0 11.8 11.5 11.4 11.2
2015 11.3 11.0 10.9 10.8 10.7 10.5 10.3 10.2 10.0 9.8 9.9 9.9
2016 9.9 9.8 9.8 9.7 9.7 9.6 9.7 9.7 9.7 9.5 9.3 9.2
2017 9.4

Unemployment Level

7,635,000

Series Id:           LNS13000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title:        (Seas) Unemployment Level
Labor force status:  Unemployed
Type of data:        Number in thousands
Age:                 16 years and over

Download:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12058 12898 13426 13853 14499 14707 14601 14814 15009 15352 15219 15098
2010 15046 15113 15202 15325 14849 14474 14512 14648 14579 14516 15081 14348
2011 14013 13820 13737 13957 13855 13962 13763 13818 13948 13594 13302 13093
2012 12797 12813 12713 12646 12660 12692 12656 12471 12115 12124 12005 12298
2013 12470 11954 11672 11752 11657 11741 11350 11284 11264 11133 10792 10410
2014 10240 10383 10400 9705 9740 9460 9637 9616 9255 8964 9060 8718
2015 8962 8663 8538 8521 8655 8251 8235 8017 7877 7869 7939 7927
2016 7829 7845 7977 7910 7451 7799 7749 7853 7904 7740 7409 7529
2017 7635

Employment Situation Summary Table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted
[Numbers in thousands]
Category Jan.
2016
Nov.
2016
Dec.
2016
Jan.
2017
Change from:
Dec.
2016-
Jan.
2017

Employment status

Civilian noninstitutional population

252,397 254,540 254,742 254,082

Civilian labor force

158,362 159,456 159,640 159,716

Participation rate

62.7 62.6 62.7 62.9

Employed

150,533 152,048 152,111 152,081

Employment-population ratio

59.6 59.7 59.7 59.9

Unemployed

7,829 7,409 7,529 7,635

Unemployment rate

4.9 4.6 4.7 4.8

Not in labor force

94,036 95,084 95,102 94,366

Unemployment rates

Total, 16 years and over

4.9 4.6 4.7 4.8

Adult men (20 years and over)

4.5 4.3 4.4 4.4

Adult women (20 years and over)

4.6 4.2 4.3 4.4

Teenagers (16 to 19 years)

16.0 15.2 14.7 15.0

White

4.3 4.2 4.3 4.3

Black or African American

8.8 8.0 7.8 7.7

Asian

3.7 3.0 2.6 3.7

Hispanic or Latino ethnicity

5.9 5.7 5.9 5.9

Total, 25 years and over

4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9

Less than a high school diploma

7.4 7.9 7.9 7.7

High school graduates, no college

5.3 4.9 5.1 5.3

Some college or associate degree

4.2 3.9 3.8 3.8

Bachelor’s degree and higher

2.5 2.3 2.5 2.5

Reason for unemployment

Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs

3,686 3,542 3,639 3,713

Job leavers

768 934 905 862

Reentrants

2,458 2,266 2,219 2,170

New entrants

834 728 783 813

Duration of unemployment

Less than 5 weeks

2,257 2,415 2,379 2,468

5 to 14 weeks

2,287 2,133 2,156 2,089

15 to 26 weeks

1,140 1,073 1,199 1,192

27 weeks and over

2,094 1,856 1,831 1,850

Employed persons at work part time

Part time for economic reasons

6,035 5,659 5,598 5,840

Slack work or business conditions

3,582 3,485 3,401 3,583

Could only find part-time work

2,133 1,902 1,873 1,944

Part time for noneconomic reasons

20,301 21,059 21,251 20,487

Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)

Marginally attached to the labor force

2,089 1,932 1,684 1,752

Discouraged workers

623 591 426 532

– December – January changes in household data are not shown due to the introduction of updated population controls.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.

 

Employment Situation Summary Table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted

ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Jan.
2016
Nov.
2016
Dec.
2016(p)
Jan.
2017(p)

EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

126 164 157 227

Total private

110 178 165 237

Goods-producing

24 35 15 45

Mining and logging

-15 7 2 4

Construction

11 28 2 36

Manufacturing

28 0 11 5

Durable goods(1)

18 3 12 6

Motor vehicles and parts

8.4 1.4 3.1 3.3

Nondurable goods

10 -3 -1 -1

Private service-providing

86 143 150 192

Wholesale trade

3.0 5.6 1.2 3.0

Retail trade

40.4 -12.9 33.5 45.9

Transportation and warehousing

-13.9 21.8 19.3 -4.0

Utilities

-0.7 0.3 0.4 -0.6

Information

1 -12 -4 3

Financial activities

19 12 23 32

Professional and business services(1)

-5 46 32 39

Temporary help services

-43.2 25.5 -12.8 14.8

Education and health services(1)

16 31 45 24

Health care and social assistance

32.7 28.2 44.1 32.1

Leisure and hospitality

30 44 17 34

Other services

-4 7 -17 16

Government

16 -14 -8 -10

(3-month average change, in thousands)

Total nonfarm

212 179 148 183

Total private

196 178 158 193

WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES(2)

Total nonfarm women employees

49.4 49.6 49.6 49.5

Total private women employees

48.0 48.2 48.2 48.1

Total private production and nonsupervisory employees

82.4 82.3 82.4 82.4

HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES

Total private

Average weekly hours

34.6 34.3 34.4 34.4

Average hourly earnings

$25.37 $25.91 $25.97 $26.00

Average weekly earnings

$877.80 $888.71 $893.37 $894.40

Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3)

105.2 105.8 106.2 106.4

Over-the-month percent change

0.4 -0.1 0.4 0.2

Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4)

127.5 131.0 131.9 132.3

Over-the-month percent change

0.8 -0.2 0.7 0.3

DIFFUSION INDEX
(Over 1-month span)(5)

Total private (261 industries)

58.8 51.5 61.5 58.8

Manufacturing (78 industries)

60.3 48.7 55.1 48.1

Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary

NOTE: Data have been revised to reflect March 2016 benchmark levels and updated seasonal adjustment factors.

Employment Situation Summary

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                  USDL-17-0141
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, February 3, 2017

Technical information:
 Household data:       (202) 691-6378  *  cpsinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/cps
 Establishment data:   (202) 691-6555  *  cesinfo@bls.gov  *  www.bls.gov/ces

Media contact:         (202) 691-5902  *  PressOffice@bls.gov


                      THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- JANUARY 2017


Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 227,000 in January, and the unemployment
rate was little changed at 4.8 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported
today. Job gains occurred in retail trade, construction, and financial activities. 

    _____________________________________________________________________
   |                                                                     |
   |             Changes to The Employment Situation Data                |
   |                                                                     |
   |Establishment survey data have been revised as a result of the annual|
   |benchmarking process and the updating of seasonal adjustment factors |
   |using an improved methodology to select models. Also, household      |
   |survey data for January 2017 reflect updated population estimates.   |
   |See the notes at the end of this news release for more information   |
   |about these changes.                                                 |
   |_____________________________________________________________________|


Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 7.6 million, and the unemployment rate, at
4.8 percent, were little changed in January. (See table A-1. For information about
annual population adjustments to the household survey estimates, see the notes at
the end of this news release and tables B and C.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rate for Asians (3.7 percent) increased
in January. The jobless rates for adult men (4.4 percent), adult women (4.4 percent),
teenagers (15.0 percent), Whites (4.3 percent), Blacks (7.7 percent), and Hispanics 
(5.9 percent) showed little or no change over the month. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

In January, the number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more)
was essentially unchanged at 1.9 million and accounted for 24.4 percent of the
unemployed. Over the year, the number of long-term unemployed has declined by 244,000.
(See table A-12.)

After accounting for the annual adjustments to the population controls, the civilian
labor force increased by 584,000 in January, and the labor force participation rate
rose by 0.2 percentage point to 62.9 percent. Total employment, as measured by the
household survey, was up by 457,000 over the month, and the employment-population
ratio edged up to 59.9 percent. (See table A-1. For additional information about the
effects of the population adjustments, see table C.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) was little changed in January at 5.8 million. These
individuals, who would have preferred full-time employment, were working part time
because their hours had been cut back or because they were unable to find full-time
jobs. (See table A-8.)

In January, 1.8 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
337,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 532,000 discouraged workers in January, little
changed from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.2 million persons marginally attached to the labor force in
January had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 227,000 in January. Employment increased in
retail trade, construction, and financial activities. (See table B-1. For information
about the annual benchmark process, see the notes at the end of this news release and
table A.)

Retail trade employment increased by 46,000 over the month and by 229,000 over the
year. Three industries added jobs in January--clothing and clothing accessories
stores (+18,000), electronics and appliance stores (+8,000), and furniture and home
furnishings stores (+6,000).

Employment in construction rose by 36,000 in January, following little change in
December. Residential building added 9,000 jobs over the month, and employment
continued to trend up among residential specialty trade contractors (+11,000). Over
the past 12 months, construction has added 170,000 jobs.

Financial activities added 32,000 jobs in January, with gains in real estate (+10,000),
insurance carriers and related activities (+9,000), and credit intermediation and
related activities (+9,000). Financial activities added an average of 15,000 jobs per
month in 2016.

In January, employment in professional and technical services rose by 23,000, about in
line with the average monthly gain in 2016. Over the month, job gains occurred in
computer systems design and related services (+13,000).

Employment in food services and drinking places continued to trend up in January
(+30,000). This industry added 286,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

Employment in health care also continued to trend up in January (+18,000), following a
gain of 41,000 in December. The industry has added 374,000 jobs over the past 12 months.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, manufacturing,
wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, information, and government, showed
little change over the month.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was unchanged at
34.4 hours in January. In manufacturing, the workweek edged up by 0.1 hour to 40.8
hours, while overtime edged down by 0.1 hour to 3.2 hours. The average workweek for
production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls was 33.6 hours
for the sixth consecutive month. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In January, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 3 cents to $26.00, following a 6-cent increase in December. Over the year, average
hourly earnings have risen by 2.5 percent. In January, average hourly earnings of
private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 4 cents to $21.84.
(See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for November was revised down from
+204,000 to +164,000, and the change for December was revised up from +156,000 to
+157,000. With these revisions, employment gains in November and December combined
were 39,000 lower than previously reported. Monthly revisions result from additional
reports received from businesses since the last published estimates and from the
recalculation of seasonal factors. The annual benchmark process also contributed to
the November and December revisions. Over the past 3 months, job gains have averaged
183,000 per month.

_____________
The Employment Situation for February is scheduled to be released on Friday,
March 10, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).


                          Revisions to Establishment Survey Data

In accordance with annual practice, the establishment survey data released today have
been benchmarked to reflect comprehensive counts of payroll jobs for March 2016. These
counts are derived principally from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW),
which counts jobs covered by the Unemployment Insurance (UI) tax system. The benchmark
process results in revisions to not seasonally adjusted data from April 2015 forward. 
Seasonally adjusted data from January 2012 forward are subject to revision. In addition,
data for some series prior to 2012, both seasonally adjusted and unadjusted, incorporate
other revisions.

The total nonfarm employment level for March 2016 was revised downward by 60,000
(-81,000 on a not seasonally adjusted basis, or -0.1 percent). On a not seasonally
adjusted basis, the absolute average benchmark revision over the past 10 years is
0.3 percent.

The effect of these revisions on the underlying trend in nonfarm payroll employment
was minor. For example, the over-the-year change in total nonfarm employment for 2016
was revised from 2,157,000 to 2,242,000 (seasonally adjusted). Table A presents
revised total nonfarm employment data on a seasonally adjusted basis from January to
December 2016.

All revised historical establishment survey data are available on the BLS website
at www.bls.gov/ces/data.htm. In addition, an article that discusses the benchmark
and post-benchmark revisions and other technical issues is available at
www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.


Table A. Revisions in total nonfarm employment, January-December 2016, seasonally
adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
________________________________________________________________________________________
                  |                                    |                                
                  |                Level               |      Over-the-month change     
                  |---------------------------------------------------------------------
  Year and month  |    As     |           |            |    As    |         |           
                  |previously |    As     | Difference |previously|   As    | Difference
                  |published  |  revised  |            |published | revised |           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  |           |           |            |          |         |           
          2016    |           |           |            |          |         |           
                  |           |           |            |          |         |           
 January..........|  143,314  |  143,211  |    -103    |    168   |    126  |     -42   
 February.........|  143,547  |  143,448  |     -99    |    233   |    237  |       4   
 March............|  143,733  |  143,673  |     -60    |    186   |    225  |      39   
 April............|  143,877  |  143,826  |     -51    |    144   |    153  |       9   
 May..............|  143,901  |  143,869  |     -32    |     24   |     43  |      19   
 June.............|  144,172  |  144,166  |      -6    |    271   |    297  |      26   
 July.............|  144,424  |  144,457  |      33    |    252   |    291  |      39   
 August...........|  144,600  |  144,633  |      33    |    176   |    176  |       0   
 September........|  144,808  |  144,882  |      74    |    208   |    249  |      41   
 October..........|  144,943  |  145,006  |      63    |    135   |    124  |     -11   
 November.........|  145,147  |  145,170  |      23    |    204   |    164  |     -40   
 December (p).....|  145,303  |  145,327  |      24    |    156   |    157  |       1   
________________________________________________________________________________________

    p = preliminary.


                Adjustments to Population Estimates for the Household Survey

Effective with data for January 2017, updated population estimates were incorported into
the household survey. Population estimates for the household survey are developed by the
U.S. Census Bureau. Each year, the Census Bureau updates the estimates to reflect new
information and assumptions about the growth of the population since the previous
decennial census. The change in population reflected in the new estimates results from
adjustments for net international migration, updated vital statistics, and estimation
methodology improvements.

In accordance with usual practice, BLS will not revise the official household survey
estimates for December 2016 and earlier months. To show the impact of the population
adjustments, however, differences in selected December 2016 labor force series based on
the old and new population estimates are shown in table B.

The adjustments decreased the estimated size of December's civilian noninstitutional
population by 831,000, the civilian labor force by 508,000, employment by 487,000, and
unemployment by 21,000. The number of persons not in the labor force was lowered
by 323,000. The unemployment rate, employment-population ratio, and labor force
participation rate were unaffected.

Data users are cautioned that these annual population adjustments can affect the
comparability of household data series over time. Table C shows the effect of the
introduction of new population estimates on the comparison of selected labor force
measures between December 2016 and January 2017. Additional information on the
population adjustments and their effect on national labor force estimates is
available at www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cps-pop-control-adjustments.pdf.


Table B. Effect of the updated population controls on December 2016 estimates by sex,
race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity, not seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________________
                              |      |     |      |       |        |      |           
                              |      |     |      |       |  Black |      |           
                              |      |     |      |       |    or  |      |  Hispanic 
            Category          |Total | Men | Women| White | African| Asian| or Latino 
                              |      |     |      |       |American|      | ethnicity 
                              |      |     |      |       |        |      |           
______________________________|______|_____|______|_______|________|______|___________
                              |      |     |      |       |        |      |           
  Civilian noninstitutional   |      |     |      |       |        |      |           
   population.................| -831 |-403 | -428 | -469  |  -76   | -258 |    -352   
    Civilian labor force......| -508 |-272 | -236 | -277  |  -44   | -168 |    -244   
      Participation rate......|  0.0 | 0.0 |  0.0 |  0.0  |  0.0   |  0.0 |     0.0   
     Employed.................| -487 |-260 | -227 | -264  |  -41   | -164 |    -230   
      Employment-population   |      |     |      |       |        |      |           
       ratio..................|  0.0 | 0.0 |  0.0 |  0.0  |  0.0   | -0.1 |     0.0   
     Unemployed...............|  -21 | -12 |   -9 |  -13  |   -3   |   -4 |     -14   
      Unemployment rate.......|  0.0 | 0.0 |  0.0 |  0.0  |  0.0   |  0.0 |     0.0   
    Not in labor force........| -323 |-131 | -192 | -192  |  -34   |  -90 |    -109   
______________________________________________________________________________________

   NOTE:  Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding. Estimates for the above
race groups (White, Black or African American, and Asian) do not sum to totals because
data are not presented for all races. Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic
or Latino may be of any race.


Table C. December 2016-January 2017 changes in selected labor force measures,
with adjustments for population control effects
(Numbers in thousands)
______________________________________________________________________________
                                       |           |            |             
                                       |           |            |  Dec.-Jan.  
                                       | Dec.-Jan. |    2017    |   change,   
                                       |  change,  | population |   after     
                Category               |    as     |   control  | removing the
                                       | published |   effect   |  population 
                                       |           |            |   control   
                                       |           |            |  effect (1) 
_______________________________________|___________|____________|_____________
                                       |           |            |             
  Civilian noninstitutional population.|   -660    |   -831     |      171    
    Civilian labor force...............|     76    |   -508     |      584    
      Participation rate...............|    0.2    |    0.0     |      0.2    
     Employed..........................|    -30    |   -487     |      457    
      Employment-population ratio......|    0.2    |    0.0     |      0.2    
     Unemployed........................|    106    |    -21     |      127    
      Unemployment rate................|    0.1    |    0.0     |      0.1    
    Not in labor force.................|   -736    |   -323     |     -413    
______________________________________________________________________________
                                                                              
   1 This Dec.-Jan. change is calculated by subtracting the population 
control effect from the over-the-month change in the published seasonally
adjusted estimates.
   NOTE: Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.



 

The PDF version of the news release

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-831

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 825, January 26, 2017, Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver — Videos — Story 2: United Kingdom Prime Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos — Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Financial Leverage Long Overdue! –Videos

Posted on January 26, 2017. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Budgetary Policy, Communications, Congress, Consitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Prime Minister, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Tax Policy, Trade Policy, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

 Story 1: Trump’s Impossible Dream — What Good is Dreaming It If You Don’t Actually Do It! — Approval Numbers Rising To 59% — President Trump Addresses Republicans in Philadelphia — We Must Deliver! — Videos —

Image result for president trump a in philadelphiaImage result for president trump addresses republicans in philadelphia t

 “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”

~President Donald J. Trump Inauguration Speech

72 percent agreed

17 percent disagreed

11 percent were not sure

Rasmussen Reports

 

Jim Nabors – Impossible Dream

WATCH: President Trump Departs On Air Force One For The First Time

LIVE: Trump Addresses Congressional Republicans in Philadelphia

What do people think of President Trump so far?

Limbaugh Explains Trump’s Historically Low Approval Rating: ‘FAKE NEWS, FAKE POLLS’

Honda – The Impossible Dream (TV Commercial)

President Trump’s job approval rating hits 59 percent

Voters also agree with key statements in his inaugural address

President Donald Trump talks with reporters in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Jan. 24, 2017, before signing an executive order on the Keystone XL pipeline. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
– The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

Things appear very promising for the new White House: A new Rasmussen Reports survey released Thursday says President Trump has a 59 percent job approval rating among likely voters.

In separate findings, the pollster also isolated key passages in Mr. Trump’s inaugural speech and asked respondents if they agreed with the ideas he presented.

Voters like Mr. Trump’s populist standing: 72 percent agreed with his statement that “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” 17 percent disagreed, 11 percent were not sure.

A majority of the respondents — 52 percent — also agreed with this statement: “From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it’s going to be only America first.” Thirty-seven percent disagreed, 11 percent were undecided.

In addition, Rasmussen also reveals that 54 percent of voters favor a proposal that would cut spending up to 10 percent and cut staffing up to 20 percent. in some federal government agencies. Twenty-seven percent oppose such cuts, while 19 percent are undecided.

The results are based on tracking polls of 1,500 likely U.S. voters conducted Sunday through Wednesday.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/president-trumps-approval-rating-rises-57-percent/

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Thursday, January 26, 2017

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters approve of President Trump’s job performance. Forty-one percent (41%) disapprove.

The latest figures include 44% who Strongly Approve of the way Trump is performing and 31% who Strongly Disapprove. This gives him a Presidential Approval Index rating of +13 (see trends).

Regular updates are posted Monday through Friday at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update).

In the latest of this week’s executive orders, Trump has begun a crackdown on illegal immigration, adding thousands of Border Patrol agents, starting the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and cutting federal funds to so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to enforce immigration law. He also has imposed a temporary ban on refugees from and visas for citizens of several Middle Eastern countries until the U.S. government can do a better job screening out possible terrorists.

Stopping illegal immigration has long been voters’ number one immigration priority.

Most also support Trump’s plan for temporarily restricting immigration from countries with a history of terrorism and for testing to screen out newcomers who don’t share America’s values.

The new president has pulled the United States out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership mega-trade deal and promises to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. We’ll tell what voters think at 10:30 a.m. EST.

Trump this week also told business leaders that he hopes to cut regulations on corporations by 75% or more because current regulations “make it impossible to get anything built.” Few voters defend the current level of government regulation.

 

Most voters support the president’s plan for major spending and staffing cuts in the federal government, but many still worry he won’t shrink the government enough.

Many of Trump’s Cabinet nominees still have not been confirmed by the U.S. Senate, due largely to delaying efforts by Democrats. Voters are closely divided over the impact of these delays.

A sizable number of voters believe last Saturday’s Women’s March on Washington made its point and will champion women’s rights worldwide.

 

Some readers wonder how we come up with our job approval ratings for the president since they often don’t show as dramatic a change as some other pollsters do. It depends on how you ask the question and whom you ask.

To get a sense of longer-term job approval trends for the president, Rasmussen Reports compiles our tracking data on a full month-by-month basis.

Rasmussen Reports has been a pioneer in the use of automated telephone polling techniques, but many other firms still utilize their own operator-assisted technology (see methodology).

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 500 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. To reach those who have abandoned traditional landline telephones, Rasmussen Reports uses an online survey tool to interview randomly selected participants from a demographically diverse panel. The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 1,500 Likely Voters is +/- 2.5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for full-week results are available for Platinum Members.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/prez_track_jan26

 

 Story 2: United Kingdom Prime  Minister Theresa May Addresses Republicans — Videos —

 

Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017 Image result for prime minister may addresses republican in philadelphia January 26, 2017

Nigel Farage praises Prime Minister May’s speech

Watch British Prime Minister Theresa May address GOP retreat

Theresa May UK Prime Minister Speech at Congressional Institute Philadelphia

Theresa May’s speech to Republicans in Philadelphia: full text

I defy any person to travel to this great country at any time and not to be inspired by its promise and its example.  For more than two centuries, the very idea of America – drawn from history and given written form in a small hall not far from here – has lit up the world.

That idea – that all are created equal and that all are born free – has never been surpassed in the long history of political thought.  And it is here – on the streets and in the halls of this great city of Philadelphia – that the founding fathers first set it down, that the textbook of freedom was written, and that this great nation that grew “from sea to shining sea” was born.

Since that day, it has been America’s destiny to bear the leadership of the free world and to carry that heavy responsibility on its shoulders. But my country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has been proud to share that burden and to walk alongside you at every stage.

For the past century, Britain and America – and the unique and special relationship that exists between us – have taken the idea conceived by those “fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens”, as President Reagan called them, forward. And because we have done so, time and again it is the relationship between us that has defined the modern world.

One hundred years ago this April, it was your intervention in the First World War that helped Britain, France, our friends in the Commonwealth and other allies to maintain freedom in Europe.  A little more than seventy-five years ago, you responded to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour by joining Britain in the Second World War and defeating fascism not just in the Pacific but in Africa and Europe too.

And later, in the aftermath of these wars, our two countries led the West through the Cold War, confronting communism and ultimately defeating it not just through military might, but by winning the war of ideas. And by proving that open, liberal, democratic societies will always defeat those that are closed, coercive and cruel.

But the leadership provided by our two countries through the Special Relationship has done more than win wars and overcome adversity. It made the modern world.

The institutions upon which that world relies were so often conceived or inspired by our two nations working together.
The United Nations – in need of reform, but vital still – has its foundations in the Special Relationship, from the original Declaration of St James’ Palace to the Declaration by United Nations, signed in Washington, and drafted themselves by Winston Churchill and President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The World Bank and International Monetary Fund, born in the post-war world at Bretton Woods, were conceived by our two nations working together.

And NATO – the cornerstone of the West’s defence – was established on the bonds of trust and mutual interests that exist between us.  Some of these organisations are in need of reform and renewal to make them relevant to our needs today. But we should be proud of the role our two nations – working in partnership – played in bringing them into being, and in bringing peace and prosperity to billions of people as a result.

Because it is through our actions over many years, working together to defeat evil or to open up the world, that we have been able to fulfil the promise of those who first spoke of the special nature of the relationship between us. The promise of freedom, liberty and the rights of man.

“We must never cease”, Churchill said, “to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law, find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence”.

So it is my honour and my privilege to stand before you today in this great city of Philadelphia to proclaim them again, to join hands as we pick up that mantle of leadership once more, to renew our Special Relationship and to recommit ourselves to the responsibility of leadership in the modern world.

And it is my honour and privilege to do so at this time, as dawn breaks on a new era of American renewal.  For I speak to you not just as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, but as a fellow Conservative who believes in the same principles that underpin the agenda of your Party. The value of liberty. The dignity of work. The principles of nationhood, family, economic prudence, patriotism – and putting power in the hands of the people.

Principles instilled in me from a young age. Principles that my parents taught me in the vicarage in Southern England in which I was raised.  I know that it is these principles that you have put at the heart of your plan for government.

And your victory in these elections gives you the opportunity to put them at the heart of this new era of American renewal too.

President Trump’s victory – achieved in defiance of all the pundits and the polls – and rooted not in the corridors of Washington, but in the hopes and aspirations of working men and women across this land. Your Party’s victory in both the Congress and the Senate where you swept all before you, secured with great effort, and achieved with an important message of national renewal.

And because of this – because of what you have done together, because of that great victory you have won – America can be stronger, greater, and more confident in the years ahead.

And a newly emboldened, confident America is good for the world.  An America that is strong and prosperous at home is a nation that can lead abroad. But you cannot – and should not – do so alone. You have said that it is time for others to step up. And I agree.

Sovereign countries cannot outsource their security and prosperity to America. And they should not undermine the alliances that keep us strong by failing to step up and play their part.

This is something Britain has always understood. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 – other than yours – to meet its commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence, and to invest 20% of that in upgrading equipment. It is why Britain is the only country in the G20 to spend 0.7% of gross national income on overseas development. It is why my first act as Prime Minister last year was to lead the debate in Parliament that ensured the renewal of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent. And it is why the Government I lead will increase spending on defence in every year of this Parliament.

It is why Britain is a leading member – alongside the United States – of the coalition working successfully to defeat Daesh; why we have agreed to send 800 troops to Estonia and Poland as part of NATO’s forward presence in eastern Europe; why we are increasing our troop contribution to NATO’s Resolute Support mission that defends the Afghan government from terrorism; and it is why we are reinforcing our commitment to peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, South Sudan and Somalia.

And it is why Britain is leading the way in pioneering international efforts to crack down on modern slavery – one of the great scourges of our world – wherever it is found. I hope you will join us in that cause – and I commend Senator Corker in particular for his work in this field. It is good to see him here today.

As Americans know, the United Kingdom is by instinct and history a great, global nation that recognises its responsibilities to the world.

And as we end our membership of the European Union – as the British people voted with determination and quiet resolve to do last year – we have the opportunity to reassert our belief in a confident, sovereign and Global Britain, ready to build relationships with old friends and new allies alike.

We will build a new partnership with our friends in Europe. We are not turning our back on them, or on the interests and the values that we share. It remains overwhelmingly in our interests – and in those of the wider world – that the EU should succeed. And for as long as we remain members we will continue to play our full part, just as we will continue to cooperate on security, foreign policy and trade once we have left.

But we have chosen a different future for our country.  A future that sees us restore our parliamentary sovereignty and national self-determination, and to become even more global and internationalist in action and in spirit.

A future that sees us take back control of the things that matter to us – things like our national borders and immigration policy, and the way we decide and interpret our own laws – so that we are able to shape a better, more prosperous future for the working men and women of Britain.  A future that sees us step up with confidence to a new, even more internationalist role, where we meet our responsibilities to our friends and allies, champion the international cooperation and partnerships that project our values around the world, and continue to act as one of the strongest and most forceful advocates for business, free markets and free trade anywhere around the globe.

This is a vision of a future that my country can unite around – and that I hope your country, as our closest friend and ally, can welcome and support.

So as we rediscover our confidence together – as you renew your nation just as we renew ours – we have the opportunity – indeed the responsibility – to renew the Special Relationship for this new age. We have the opportunity to lead, together, again.

Because the world is passing through a period of change – and in response to that change we can either be passive bystanders, or we can take the opportunity once more to lead. And to lead together.  I believe it is in our national interest to do so. Because the world is increasingly marked by instability and threats that threaten to undermine our way of life and the very things that we hold dear.

The end of the Cold War did not give rise to a New World Order. It did not herald the End of History. It did not lead to a new age of peace, prosperity and predictability in world affairs.

For some – the citizens of Central and Eastern Europe in particular – it brought new freedom.  But across the world, ancient ethnic, religious and national rivalries – rivalries that had been frozen through the decades of the Cold War – returned. New enemies of the West and our values – in particular in the form of Radical Islamists – have emerged.  And countries with little tradition of democracy, liberty and human rights – notably China and Russia – have grown more assertive in world affairs.

The rise of the Asian economies – China yes, but democratic allies like India too – is hugely welcome. Billions are being lifted out of poverty and new markets for our industries are opening up.  But these events – coming as they have at the same time as the financial crisis and its fall out, as well as a loss of confidence in the West following 9/11, the military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic terrorist attacks – have led many to fear that, in this century, we will experience the eclipse of the West.

But there is nothing inevitable about that. Other countries may grow stronger. Big, populous countries may grow richer. And as they do so, they may start to embrace more fully our values of democracy and liberty.

But even if they do not, our interests will remain. Our values will endure. And the need to defend them and project them will be as important as ever.  So we – our two countries together – have a joint responsibility to lead. Because when others step up as we step back, it is bad for America, for Britain and the world.

It is in our interests – those of Britain and America together – to stand strong together to defend our values, our interests and the very ideas in which we believe.  This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over. But nor can we afford to stand idly by when the threat is real and when it is in our own interests to intervene. We must be strong, smart and hard-headed. And we must demonstrate the resolve necessary to stand up for our interests.

And whether it is the security of Israel in the Middle East or Estonia in the Baltic states, we must always stand up for our friends and allies in democratic countries that find themselves in tough neighbourhoods too.

We each have different political traditions. We will sometimes pursue different domestic policies. And there may be occasions on which we disagree. But the common values and interests that bring us together are hugely powerful.

And – as your foremost friend and ally – we support many of the priorities your government has laid out for America’s engagement with the world.  It is why I join you in your determination to take on and defeat Daesh and the ideology of Islamic extremism that inspires them and many others terrorist groups in the world today. It is in both of our national interests to do so. This will require us to use the intelligence provided by the finest security agencies in the world. And it will require the use of military might.

But it also demands a wider effort. Because one of the lessons of fighting terrorism in the last 15 years or so is yes, killing terrorists can save innocent lives. But until we kill the idea that drives them, the ideology, we will always have to live with this threat.

And as they are defeated on the ground, the terrorists are exploiting the internet and social media to spread this ideology that is preying on vulnerable citizens in our own countries, inspiring them to commit acts of terror in our own cities.

That is why the UK has led the world in developing a strategy for preventing violent extremism, and why the British and American governments are working together to take on and defeat the ideology of Islamist Extremism. I look forward to working with the President and his Administration to step up our efforts still further in order to defeat this evil ideology.

But of course, we should always be careful to distinguish between this extreme and hateful ideology, and the peaceful religion of Islam and the hundreds of millions of its adherents – including millions of our own citizens and those further afield who are so often the first victims of this ideology’s terror. And nor is it enough merely to focus on violent extremism. We need to address the whole spectrum of extremism, starting with the bigotry and hatred that can so often turn to violence.

Yet ultimately to defeat Daesh, we must employ all of the diplomatic means at our disposal. That means working internationally to secure a political solution in Syria and challenging the alliance between the Syrian regime and its backers in Tehran.

When it comes to Russia, as so often it is wise to turn to the example of President Reagan who – during negotiations with his opposite number Mikhail Gorbachev – used to abide by the adage “trust but verify”. With President Putin, my advice is to “engage but beware”.

There is nothing inevitable about conflict between Russia and the West. And nothing unavoidable about retreating to the days of the Cold War. But we should engage with Russia from a position of strength. And we should build the relationships, systems and processes that make cooperation more likely than conflict – and that, particularly after the illegal annexation of Crimea, give assurance to Russia’s neighbouring states that their security is not in question. We should not jeopardise the freedoms that President Reagan and Mrs Thatcher brought to Eastern Europe by accepting President Putin’s claim that it is now in his sphere of influence.

And progress on this issue would also help to secure another of this nation’s priorities – to reduce Iran’s malign influence in the Middle East.
This is a priority for the UK too as we support our allies in the Gulf States to push back against Iran’s aggressive efforts to build an arc of influence from Tehran through to the Mediterranean.

The nuclear deal with Iran was controversial. But it has neutralised the possibility of the Iranians acquiring nuclear weapons for more than a decade. It has seen Iran remove 13,000 centrifuges together with associated infrastructure and eliminate its stock of 20% enriched uranium. That was vitally important for regional security. But the agreement must now be very carefully and rigorously policed – and any breaches should be dealt with firmly and immediately.

To deal with the threats of the modern world, we need to rebuild confidence in the institutions upon which we all rely.  In part that means multinational institutions. Because we know that so many of the threats we face today – global terrorism, climate change, and unprecedented mass movements of people – do not respect national borders. So we must turn towards those multinational institutions like the UN and NATO that encourage international cooperation and partnership.

But those multinational institutions need to work for the countries that formed them, and to serve the needs and interests of the people of those nations. They have no democratic mandate of their own. So I share your reform agenda and believe that, by working together, we can make those institutions more relevant and purposeful than they are today.

I call on others, therefore, to join us in that effort and to ensure they step up and contribute as they should. That is why I have encouraged Antonio Guterres, the new UN Secretary General, to pursue an ambitious reform programme, focusing the United Nations on its core functions of peacekeeping, conflict prevention and resolution. And it is why I have already raised with my fellow European leaders the need to deliver on their commitments to spend 2pc of their GDP on defence – and 20pc of their defence budgets on equipment.

It is also why I have already raised with Jens Stoltenberg – the Secretary General of NATO – the need to make sure the Alliance is as equipped to fight terrorism and cyber warfare, as it is to fight more conventional forms of war.

America’s leadership role in NATO – supported by Britain – must be the central element around which the Alliance is built. But alongside this continued commitment, I am also clear that EU nations must similarly step up to ensure this institution that provides the cornerstone of the West’s defence continues to be as effective as it can be.

Yet the most important institution is – and should always be – the nation state. Strong nations form strong institutions. And they form the basis of the international partnerships and cooperation that bring stability to our world.

Nations, accountable to their populations – “deriving” as the Declaration of Independence puts it “their just powers from the consent of the governed” – can choose to join international organisations, or not. They can choose to cooperate with others, or not. Choose to trade with others, or not.

Which is why if the countries of the European Union wish to integrate further, my view is that they should be free to do so. Because that is what they choose.

But Britain – as a sovereign nation with the same values but a different political and cultural history – has chosen to take a different path.  Because our history and culture is profoundly internationalist.

We are a European country – and proud of our shared European heritage – but we are also a country that has always looked beyond Europe to the wider world. We have ties of family, kinship and history to countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and countries across Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean.

And of course, we have ties of kinship, language and culture to these United States too. As Churchill put it, we “speak the same language, kneel at the same altars and, to a very large extent, pursue the same ideals”.

And, today, increasingly we have strong economic, commercial, defence and political relationships as well.

So I am delighted that the new Administration has made a trade agreement between our countries one of its earliest priorities. A new trade deal between Britain and America must work for both sides and serve both of our national interests. It must help to grow our respective economies and to provide the high-skilled, high-paid jobs of the future for working people across America and across the UK.

And it must work for those who have too often felt left behind by the forces of globalisation. People, often those on modest incomes living in relatively rich countries like our own, who feel that the global system of free markets and free trade is simply not working for them in its current form.

Such a deal – allied to the reforms we are making to our own economy to ensure wealth and opportunity is spread across our land – can demonstrate to those who feel locked out and left behind that free markets, free economies and free trade can deliver the brighter future they need. And it can maintain – indeed it can build – support for the rules-based international system on which the stability of our world continues to rely.

The UK is already America’s fifth largest export destination, while your markets account for almost a fifth of global exports from our shores. Exports to the UK from this State of Pennsylvania alone account for more than $2 billion a year. The UK is the largest market in the EU – and the third largest market in the world – for exporters here.

America is the largest single destination for UK outward investment and the single largest investor in the UK. And your companies are investing or expanding in the UK at a rate of more than ten projects a week.

British companies employ people in every US state from Texas to Vermont. And the UK-US Defence relationship is the broadest, deepest and most advanced of any two countries, sharing military hardware and expertise. And of course, we have recently invested in the new F-35 strike aircraft for our new aircraft carriers that will secure our naval presence – and increase our ability to project our power around the world – for years to come.

Because of these strong economic and commercial links – and our shared history and the strength of our relationship – I look forward to pursuing talks with the new Administration about a new UK/US Free Trade Agreement in the coming months. It will take detailed work, but we welcome your openness to those discussions and hope we can make progress so that the new, Global Britain that emerges after Brexit is even better equipped to take its place confidently in the world.

Such an agreement would see us taking that next step in the special relationship that exists between us. Cementing and affirming one of the greatest forces for progress this world has ever known.

Seventy years ago in 1946, Churchill proposed a new phase in this relationship – to win a Cold War that many had not even realised had started. He described how an iron curtain had fallen from the Baltic to the Adriatic, covering all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe: Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Sofia and Bucharest.

Today those great cities – homes of great culture and heritage – live in freedom and peace. And they do so because of the leadership of Britain and America, and of Mrs Thatcher and President Reagan.

They do so – ultimately – because our ideas will always prevail. And they do so because, when the world demands leadership, it is this alliance of values and interests – this Special Relationship between two countries – that, to borrow the words of another great American statesman, enters the arena, with our faces marred by dust and sweat and blood, to strive valiantly and know the triumph of high achievement.

As we renew the promise of our nations to make them stronger at home – in the words of President Reagan as the “sleeping giant stirs” – so let us renew the relationship that can lead the world towards the promise of freedom and prosperity marked out in parchment by those ordinary citizens 240 years ago.

So that we may not be counted with the “cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat”, but with those who “strive to do the deeds” that will lead us to a better world.  That better future is within reach. Together, we can build it.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/01/theresa-mays-speech-republicans-philadelphia-full-text/

 

Story 3: President Trump Signs Two Executive Orders On Immigration — What is Next? — Cutting The $650 Billion in Federal Funding To All Sanctuary Jurisdictions (Cities, Counties and States) — Long Overdue! –Videos

Image result for sanctuary cities name and shame Image result for sanctuary cities list of

President Trump signs order to build U.S.-Mexico border wall

What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You

President Trump signs order to strip sanctuary cities of federal funding

US ‘sanctuary’ cities face funding cuts if migrant-tolerant policies continue

Published on Jan 26, 2017

Donald Trump’s new Mexican border policy looks something like this; hire 5000 new guards, close the frontier, and suffocate the cities offering sanctuary status to illegal migrants.

Sanctuary facilities began to be made available in several churches in the 1980s for
migrants fleeing central America’s savage conflicts who failed to obtain asylum. The large town of Cambridge in Massachusetts is one of these sanctuary cities. Local officials insist it will remain so. Cambridge to remain sanct…
READ MORE : http://www.euronews.com/2017/01/26/us…

Officials In Sanctuary Cities Blast President’s Trump’s Plan To Cut Federal Funds For Special Project

GOOD NEWS: Trump Can Immediately Crack Down on Sanctuary Cities & Illegal Immigration.

Jim Nabors’ Last “Back Home Again in Indiana” 2014

Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated

ONE LAST TIME-JIM NABORS

Trump eviscerates Obama’s immigration policy in two executive orders

– The Washington Times – Wednesday, January 25, 2017

With a couple of strokes of his pen, President Trump wiped out almost all of President Obama’s immigration policies on Wednesday, laying the groundwork for his signature wall along the Mexican border, unleashing immigration agents to enforce the law and punishing “sanctuary cities” that try to defy federal law and thwart his deportation surge.

Left untouched, for now, is Mr. Obama’s 2012 deportation amnesty that is shielding more than 750,000 Dreamers.

But most of Mr. Obama’s other policies, including his “priorities” list that protected almost all illegal immigrants from deportation, are now gone. In their place is a series of directives that would free border agents to enforce long-forgotten but punitive parts of the law beyond the border; encourage Mexico to take a more active role in discouraging illegal migration; and close the loopholes that illegal immigrants have learned to exploit to gain a foothold in the U.S.

“From here on out, I’m asking all of you to enforce the laws of the United States of America — they will be enforced, and enforced strongly,” Mr. Trump said Wednesday during a visit to the Homeland Security Department’s headquarters. “We do not need new laws. We will work within the existing system and framework.”

He called for adding 5,000 more U.S. Border Patrol agents and 10,000 more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to the payroll — his promised “deportation force” — and released his own set of priorities that put many more illegal immigrants in danger of being kicked out and give plenty of discretion to agents to decide how to handle the cases.

He also proposed a weekly name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities and the criminals they are releasing, saying communities deserve to see who is being let back onto their streets because their local leaders refuse to cooperate with immigration agents.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/25/trump-eviscerates-obamas-immigration-policy/

Sanctuary city

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Cities of Refuge.

In the United States and Canada, a sanctuary city is a city that has adopted a policy of protecting illegal immigrants by not prosecuting them for violating federal immigration laws in the country in which they are now living illegally. Such a policy can be set out expressly in a law (de jure) or observed only in practice (de facto). The term applies generally to cities that do not use municipal funds or resources to enforce national immigration laws, and usually forbid police or municipal employees to inquire about a person’s immigration status. The designation has no precise legal meaning.[1]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” is a place that is committed to welcoming refugees, asylum seekers and others who are seeking safety. The movement is spread across over 80 towns, cities and local areas in England, Wales, Ireland including Northern Ireland and the Republic, and Scotland. The emphasis is on building bridges of connection and understanding, which is done through awareness raising, befriending schemes and forming cultural connections in the arts, sport, health, education, faith groups and other sectors of society.[2] Glasgow, Sheffield and Swansea are noted Cities of Sanctuary.[3][4]

Terminology

The concept of a sanctuary city goes back thousands of years. It has been associated with Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Baha’i, Sikhism, and Hinduism.[5] In Western Civilization, sanctuary cities can be traced back to the Old Testament. The Book of Numbers names six cities of refuge in which the perpetrators of manslaughter could claim the right of asylum. Outside of these cities, blood vengeance against such perpetrators was allowed by law.[6] In 392 CE, Christian Roman emperor Theodosius I set up sanctuaries under church control. In 600 CE in medieval England, churches were given a general right of sanctuary, and some cities were set up as sanctuaries by Royal charter. The general right of sanctuary for churches in England was abolished in 1621 CE.[5]

In the United States

Local governments in certain cities in the United States began designating themselves as sanctuary cities during the 1980s.[7][8] Some have questioned the accuracy of the term “sanctuary city” as used in the USA.[9] The policy was first initiated in 1979 in Los Angeles, to prevent police from inquiring about the immigration status of arrestees. The internal policy, “Special Order 40“, states: “Officers shall not initiate police action with the objective of discovering the alien status of a person. Officers shall not arrest nor book persons for violation of title 8, section 1325 of the United States Immigration code (Illegal Entry).”[10] These cities have adopted “sanctuary” ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status.[11][12]

Electoral politics

This issue entered presidential politics in the race for the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2008. Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo ran on an anti-illegal immigration platform and specifically attacked sanctuary cities. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney accused former mayor Rudy Giuliani of running New York City as a sanctuary city.[13] Giuliani’s campaign responded saying that Romney ran a sanctuary Governor’s mansion, and that New York City is not a “haven” for undocumented immigrants.[13]

After the murder of a restaurant waitress in Albuquerque, New Mexico, in late June 2009 that was suspected to be perpetrated by three undocumented immigrants (one of whom was not deported despite being arrested for two prior DUI incidents), then mayoral candidate Richard J. Berry decried the city’s sanctuary city policy. He also vowed, if elected, to repeal the policy that has been continued by the incumbent mayor, Martin Chávez.[14]

Following the shooting death of Kathryn Steinle in San Francisco (a sanctuary city) by an undocumented immigrant, Hillary Clinton told CNN on 8 July 2015: “The city made a mistake, not to deport someone that the federal government strongly felt should be deported. I have absolutely no support for a city that ignores the strong evidence that should be acted on.”[15] The following day, her campaign stated: “Hillary Clinton believes that sanctuary cities can help further public safety, and she has defended those policies going back years.”[16]

Political action

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 addressed the relationship between the federal government and local governments. Minor crimes, such as shoplifting, became grounds for possible deportation.[17] Additionally, the legislation outlawed cities’ bans against municipal workers’ reporting persons’ immigration status to federal authorities.[18]

Section 287(g) makes it possible for state and local law enforcement personnel to enter into agreements with the federal government to be trained in immigration enforcement and, subsequent to such training, to enforce immigration law. However, it provides no general power for immigration enforcement by state and local authorities.[19] This provision was implemented by local and state authorities in five states, California, Arizona, Alabama, Florida and North Carolina by the end of 2006.[20] On June 16, 2007 the United States House of Representatives passed an amendment to a United States Department of Homeland Security spending bill that would withhold federal emergency services funds from sanctuary cities. Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-Colo.) was the sponsor of this amendment. 50 Democrats joined Republicans to support the amendment. The amendment would have to pass the United States Senate to become effective.[21]

In 2007, Republican representatives introduced legislation targeting sanctuary cities. Reps. Brian Bilbray, R-Calif., Ginny Brown-Waite, R-Fla., Thelma Drake, R-Va., Jeff Miller, R-Fla., and Tom Tancredo introduced the bill. The legislation would make undocumented immigrant status a felony, instead of a civil offense. Also, the bill targets sanctuary cities by withholding up to 50 percent of Department of Homeland Security funds from the cities.[22]

On September 5, 2007, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told a House committee that he certainly wouldn’t tolerate interference by sanctuary cities that would block his “Basic Pilot Program” that requires employers to validate the legal status of their workers. “We’re exploring our legal options. I intend to take as vigorous legal action as the law allows to prevent that from happening, prevent that kind of interference.”[23][24]On May 5, 2009, Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue signed a bill into law that prohibited sanctuary city policies in the state of Georgia.[25]

On June 5, 2009, the Tennessee state House passed a bill banning the implementation of sanctuary city policies within the state of Tennessee.[26]

In June 2011, Texas Governor Rick Perry proposed legislation to ban sanctuary cities, SB 9, to the Special Session agenda for the State Legislature.[27] Public hearings on the sanctuary cities legislation were held before the Texas Senate Transportation and Homeland Security Committee on June 13, 2011.[28]

On January 25, 2017 President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the Secretary of Homeland Security and Attorney General to defund sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to comply with federal immigration law.[29]He also ordered the Department of Homeland Security to begin issuing weekly public reports that include “a comprehensive list of criminal actions committed by aliens and any jurisdiction that ignored or otherwise failed to honor any detainers with respect to such aliens.”[29]

Effects

According to one study by Loren Collingwood, assistant professor of political science at University of California at Riverside, sanctuary policy itself has no statistically meaningful effect on crime.[30]

According to a study by Tom K. Wong, associate professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, and published by the Center for American Progress, “Crime is statistically significantly lower in sanctuary counties compared to nonsanctuary counties. Moreover, economies are stronger in sanctuary counties—from higher median household income, less poverty, and less reliance on public assistance to higher labor force participation, higher employment-to-population ratios, and lower unemployment.”[31] The study evaluated sanctuary and non-sanctuary cities “while controlling for differences in population, the foreign-born percentage of the population, and the percentage of the population that is Latino”.[31]

Laws by city

Arizona[edit]

  • Following the passage of SB 1070, a state law, few if any cities in Arizona are “sanctuary cities.” A provision of SB 1070 requires local authorities to “contact federal immigration authorities if they develop reasonable suspicion that a person they’ve detained or arrested is in the country illegally.”[32] The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates restrictive immigration policies, labels only one city in the state, South Tucson, a “sanctuary city”; the label is because South Tucson does not honor ICE detainers “unless ICE pays for cost of detention.”[32]

California

Colorado

Connecticut

  • In 2013, Connecticut passed a law that gives local law enforcement officers discretion to carry out immigration detainer requests, though only for suspected felons.[36]
  • New Haven, Connecticut became one of the first sanctuary cities in the US in 2007
  • Hartford, Connecticut became a sanctuary city in 2008[37]

Illinois

  • Chicago became a “de jure” sanctuary city in 2012 when Mayor Rahm Emanuel and the City Council passed the WELCOMING CITY ORDINANCE. [38][39] The ordinance protects residents’ rights to access city services regardless of immigration status. The ordinance states that Chicago police officers cannot arrest individuals on the basis of immigration status alone.[40] Chicago came under fire during the 2016 elections, prompting Mayor Rahm Emanuel to reaffirm Chicago as a sanctuary city. [41][42]
  • Urbana, Illinois [43]

Louisiana

Maine

  • In 2011, Maine governor Paul LePage rescinded a 2004 executive order that prohibited state officials from inquiring about immigration status of individual seeking public assistance stating “it is the intent of this administration to promote rather than hinder the enforcement of federal immigration law”. In 2015 Governor LePage accused the city of Portland, Maine of being a sanctuary city. Portland city officials, however, did not accept that characterization. Portland cooperates with federal authorities although “city employees are prohibited from asking about the immigration status of people seeking city services unless compelled by a court or law”[46]

Maryland

  • In 2008, Baltimore and Takoma Park are sometimes identified as sanctuary cities.[47] However, “[m]ost local governments in Maryland — including Baltimore — still share information with the federal government.”[48] In 2016, Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said that she did not consider Baltimore to be a “sanctuary city.”[49]

Massachusetts

  • Boston has an ordinance, enacted in 2014, that bars the Boston Police Department “from detaining anyone based on their immigration status unless they have a criminal warrant.”[50] Cambridge, Chelsea, Somerville, Orleans, Northampton, and Springfield have similar legislation.[50] In August 2016, Boston Police Commissioner, William B. Evans re-issued a memo stating ““all prisoners who are subject to ICE Detainers must receive equal access to bail commissioners, which includes notifying said prisoner of his or her right to seek bail.” Bail commissioners are informed of the person’s status on an ICE detainer list and may set bail accordingly.[51]

Michigan

  • Detroit and Ann Arbor are sometimes referred to as “sanctuary cities” because they “have anti-profiling ordinances that generally prohibit local police from asking about the immigration status of people who are not suspected of any crime.”[52] Unlike San Francisco’s ordinance, however, the Detroit and Ann Arbor policies do not bar local authorities from cooperating and assisting ICE and Customs and Border Protection, and both cities frequently do so.[52]

Minnesota

  • Minneapolis has an ordinance, adopted in 2003,[53] that directs local law enforcement officers “not to ‘take any law enforcement action’ for the sole purpose of finding undocumented immigrants, or ask an individual about his or her immigration status.”[54] The Minneapolis ordinance does not bar cooperation with federal authorities: “The city works cooperatively with the Homeland Security, as it does with all state and federal agencies, but the city does not operate its programs for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration laws. The Homeland Security has the legal authority to enforce immigration laws in the United States, in Minnesota and in the city.”[53]

New York

New Jersey

Oregon

  • State law passed in 1987: “Oregon Revised Statute 181.850, which prohibits law enforcement officers at the state, county or municipal level from enforcing federal immigration laws that target people based on their race or ethnic origin, when those individuals are not suspected of any criminal activities.[59][60]
  • Beaverton city council passed a resolution in January 2017 stating, in part, “The City of Beaverton is committed to living its values as a welcoming city for all individuals …regardless of a person’s … immigration status” and that they would abide by Oregon state law of not enforcing federal immigration laws.[61]
  • Corvallis[62]
  • Portland[63]

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia Pittsburgh

Texas

  • Austin[64]
  • Houston – Harris County Sheriff vows to ignore Federal laws, ending his county’s participation in an ICE program known as 287(g)[65]

Washington

In Canada

In Canada, Toronto and Hamilton, Ontario, have declared themselves sanctuary cities since 2014.[67][68]

In the United Kingdom and Ireland

In the United Kingdom and Ireland, a “City of Sanctuary” or “Places of Sanctuary”, is a city that provides services, such as housing, education, and cultural integration, to asylum seekers (i.e. persons fleeing one country and seeking protection in another).[2] The movement began in Sheffield in the north of England in 2005. It was motivated by a national policy adopted in 1999 to disperse asylum seekers to different towns and cities in the UK. In 2009, the city council of Sheffield drew up a manifesto outlining key areas of concern and 100 supporting organizations signed on.[69]

A “City of Sanctuary” is not necessarily a formal governmental designation. The organization “City of Sanctuary” encourages local grass roots groups throughout the UK and Ireland to build a culture of hospitality towards asylum seekers.[70]

Glasgow is a noted City of Sanctuary in Scotland. In 2000 the city council accepted their first asylum seekers relocated by the Home Office. The Home Office provided funding to support asylum seekers but would also forcibly deport them (“removal siezures”) if it was determined they could not stay in the UK. As of 2010 Glasgow had accepted 22,000 asylum seekers from 75 different nations. In 2007 local residents upset by the human impact of removal seizures, organized watches to warn asylum seekers when Home Office vans were in the neighborhood. They also organized protests and vigils which led to the ending of the removal seizures.[3][4]

See also

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

Center for Immigration Studies

Sanctuary Cities Continue to Obstruct Enforcement, Threaten Public Safety

By Jessica Vaughan
December 14, 2016

Sanctuary jurisdictions remain a significant public safety problem throughout the country. About 300 jurisdictions have been identified by ICE as having a policy that is non-cooperative and obstructs immigration enforcement (as of September 2015). The number of cities has remained relatively unchanged since our last update in August 2016, as some new sanctuary jurisdictions have been added and few jurisdictions have reversed their sanctuary policies.

Over the 19-month period from January 1, 2014, to September 30, 2015, more than 17,000 detainers were rejected by these jurisdictions. Of these, about 11,800 detainers, or 68 percent, were issued for individuals with a prior criminal history.

According to ICE statistics, since the Obama administration implemented the new Priority Enforcement Program in July 2015 restricting ICE use of detainers, the number of rejected detainers has declined. However, the number of detainers issued by ICE also has declined in 2016, so it is not clear if the new policies are a factor. It is apparent that most of the sanctuary policies remain in place, raising concerns that the Priority Enforcement Program has failed as a response to the sanctuary problem, and has simply resulted in fewer criminal aliens being deported.

The Department of Justice’s Inspector General recently found that some of the sanctuary jurisdictions appear to be violating federal law, and may face debarment from certain federal funding or other consequences.

The sanctuary jurisdictions are listed below. These cities, counties, and states have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from ICE — either by refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer acceptance, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between their personnel and federal immigration officers.

A detainer is the primary tool used by ICE to gain custody of criminal aliens for deportation. It is a notice to another law enforcement agency that ICE intends to assume custody of an alien and includes information on the alien’s previous criminal history, immigration violations, and potential threat to public safety or security.

The Center’s last map update reflected listings in an ICE report that was originally published by the Texas Tribune, with a few additions and changes resulting from the Center’s research.

States
California, Connecticut, New Mexico, Colorado

Cities and Counties

Arizona
South Tucson

California (in addition to all counties)
Alameda County
Berkley
Contra Costa County
Los Angeles County
Los Angeles
Monterey County
Napa County
Orange County
Riverside County
Sacramento County
San Bernardino County
San Diego County
San Francisco County
San Mateo County
Santa Ana (New)
Santa Clara County
Santa Cruz County
Sonoma County

Colorado (in addition to all counties)
Arapahoe County
Aurora Detention Center
Boulder County
Denver
Denver County
Fort Collins
Garfield County
Glenwood Springs
Grand County
Jefferson County
Larimer County
Mesa County
Pitkin County
Pueblo County
Routt County
San Miguel County

Connecticut (in addition to state LEAs)
Bridgeport
East Haven
Fairfield County
Hamden
Hartford County
Hartford
Manchester
Meriden
New Haven
New Haven County
New London County
Stamford
Stratford
Tolland County

Florida
Broward County
Hernando County
Hillsborough County
Miami-Dade County
Palm Beach County
Pasco County
Pinellas County

Georgia
Clayton County

Illinois
Champaign County
Chicago
Cook County
Des Plaines
Hanover Park
Hoffman Estates
Palatine

Iowa
Allamakee County
Benton County
Cass County
Clinton County
Delaware County
Dubuque County
Franklin County
Freemont County
Greene County
Ida County
Iowa County
Jefferson County
Johnson County
Linn County
Marion County
Monona County
Montgomery County
Polk County
Pottawattamie County
Sioux County
Story County
Wapello County
Winneshiek County

Kansas
Butler County
Finney County
Harvey County
Johnson County
Sedgwick County
Shawnee County

Kentucky
Campbell County
Franklin County
Scott County
Woodford County

Louisiana
New Orleans
Orleans Parish

Maine
Portland

Maryland
Baltimore City
Montgomery County
Prince George’s County

Massachusetts
Amherst
Boston
Cambridge
Hampden County
Holyoke
Lawrence
Northhampton
Somerville
Springfield

Minnesota
Bloomington
Brooklyn Park
Hennepin County
Ramsey County

Nebraska
Douglas County
Hall County
Lancaster County
Sarpy County

Nevada
Clark County
Washoe County

New Jersey
Linden
Middlesex County
Newark
Ocean County
Plainfield
Union County

New Mexico (in addition to all counties)
Bernalillo County
Dona Ana County
Luna County
Otero County
Rio Arriba County
San Miguel County
Santa Fe County
Taos County

New York
Franklin County
Nassau County
New York City
Onondaga County
Rensselaer County
Saratoga County
St. Lawrence County
Wayne County

North Dakota
North Dakota State Penitentiary
South West Multiple County Corrections Center

Oregon
Baker County
Clackamas County
Clatsop, Oregon
Coos County
Crook County
Curry County
Deschutes County
Douglas County
Gilliam County
Grant County
Hood River County
Jackson County
Jefferson County
Josephine County
Lincoln County
Linn County
Malheur County
Marion County
Multnomah County
Oregon State Correctional Institution
Polk County
Sherman County
Springfield Police Department
Tillamook County
Umatilla County
Union County
Wallowa County
Wasco County
Washington County
Wheeler County
Yamhill County

Pennsylvania
Abington
Bedford County (New)
Bradford County (New)
Bucks County (New)
Butler County (New)
Chester County
Clarion County (New)
Delaware County
Erie County (New)
Lebanon County (New)
Lehigh County
Lycoming County (New)
Montgomery County
Montour County (New)
Perry County (New)
Philadelphia
Philadelphia County
Pike County (New)
Westmoreland County (New)

Rhode Island
Rhode Island Department of Corrections

Texas
Dallas County
Travis County

Vermont
Winooski (New)
Montpelier (New)

Virginia
Arlington
Chesterfield County

Washington
Benton County
Chelan County
Clallam County
Clark County
Cowlitz County
Fife City
Franklin County
Jefferson County
Issaquah
Kent
King County
Kitsap County
Lynnwood City
Marysville
Pierce County
Puyallup
Skagit County
Snohomish County
South Correctional Entity (SCORE) Jail, King County
Spokane County
Sunnyside
Thurston County
Walla Walla County
Washington State Corrections
Whatcom County
Yakima County

Washington, DC

Wisconsin
Milwaukee County

 

http://cis.org/Sanctuary-Cities-Map

Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

 

Trump creates name-and-shame list to embarrass sanctuary cities

– The Washington Times – Thursday, January 26, 2017

President Trump on Wednesday ordered the Homeland Security Department to begin releasing a name-and-shame list of sanctuary cities, listing the specific crimes such as murder or robbery committed by those who have been released back into their communities under the sanctuary policies.

That was one of a number of less-noticed but potentially far-reaching moves tucked inside two new executive orders erasing decades of previous immigration enforcement policy and replacing it with the Trump plan, which calls for aggressive enforcement of existing laws.

Border Patrol and interior enforcement agents have been unshackled from the limits imposed by former President Barack Obama, as Mr. Trump said he wants to see them doing the jobs they were hired for.

He said he wants to enlist those local police and sheriff’s offices that are eager to enforce immigration law, and will punish those that throw up roadblocks — including the new name-and-shame list.

Some 279 cities and counties refused to cooperate on at least some deportations in 2016, accounting for 2,008 immigrants who were shielded, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Each of those immigrants’ convictions will now be publicly listed so residents can see the level of crimes committed by those released into their communities, under the Trump orders.

Analysts said that list could help rally internal opposition to sanctuary cities, which are already rallying to defy Mr. Trump.

“We will fight against attempts to undermine our values and the security of our cities,” said the group Cities for Action, a coalition of big municipalities that support sanctuary policies. “As mayors and county executives nationwide have made clear today, we will continue to provide for all in our communities — regardless of where they come from — and work to continue building trust between city residents and law enforcement.”

In addition to the shame list, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security to produce a list four times a year of all illegal immigrants serving time in federal or state prisons, or being held for trial.

And in another striking move, Mr. Trump ordered Homeland Security officials to begin releasing more information on illegal immigrants. He said the Privacy Act, which has regularly shielded information about illegal immigrants from public disclosure, will no longer apply to anyone who isn’t a citizen or green card holder.

That could give the public a new depth of transparency, enabling them to see the types of illegal immigrants the government is encountering.

One part of the new orders would allow Homeland Security to ship illegal immigrants caught crossing the border from Mexico back into Mexico, even as they await the outcome of their deportation cases in the U.S.

That’s allowed under existing law, but legal analysts said they’d never heard of it being used, and debated how far it might be used. But immigrant-rights advocates said it could hurt migrants who need protections.

“Given that many of the people crossing the border today are children and families fleeing violence in the Northern Triangle countries of Central America, invoking this provision threatens to undermine our commitment to refugee protections,” said Tom Jawetz, vice president for immigration policy at the Center for American Progress.

The Mexican Embassy in Washington did not respond to a request for comment on the provision Wednesday night.

Experts said it’s an open question whether Mexico could stymie that part of Mr. Trump’s orders by refusing to take back those who crossed over its northern border into the U.S.

Another lesser-noticed provision of the new orders would push Homeland Security to collect fines from both illegal immigrants and “those who facilitate their presence” in the U.S.

That could potentially include sanctuary colleges and universities that protect illegal immigrants, and businesses that hire unauthorized workers.

Current law calls for fines of more than $20,000 per illegal immigrant for companies that are repeat offenders.

Conspiracy to harbor an illegal immigrant carries potential jail time or a fine of up to $10,000.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/26/donald-trump-creates-name-and-shame-list-embarrass/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-825

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 817, January 13, 2017, Story 1: Digging Up Dirt Democratic Dossier Disinformation — Fake Opposition Research On Trump — Story 2: On The Road To Extinction: The Decline, Fall and Death of Big Lie Media or Mediasaurus Predicted By novelist Michael Crichton in 1993 — “It is basically junk.” — Videos

Posted on January 14, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Constitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Employment, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, History, Human, Human Behavior, Law, Life, Lying, Media, Mike Pence, Movies, News, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Russia, Second Amendment, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 804: November 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 803: November 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 802: November 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 801: November 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 800: November 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 799: November 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 798: November 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 797: November 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 796: November 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 795: November 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 794: November 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 793: November 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 792: November 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 791: November 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 790: November 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 789: November 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 788: November 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 787: October 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 786: October 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 785: October 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 784: October 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 783: October 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Story 1: Digging Up Dirt (DUD) Democratic Dossier — Fake Opposition  Research on Trump — Junk Journalism — Fake News — Videos

Image result for cartoon trump dossier dirty Image result for trump dossier Christopher Steele

Image result for trump dossier source Christopher Steele spyImage result for trump dossier Christopher Steele

Reality Check: Buzzfeed/CNN DID Push #Fakenews in “Trump Intelligence Memos”

What really happened in the cheap attacks on Donald Trump?

Who is Christopher Steele?

The Trump dossier

What really happened in the cheap attacks on Donald Trump?

Trump Staff warn CNN Acosta about rude behavior (CNN plays victim)

Chuck Todd Destroys Buzzfeed Editor Over Trump Russia Fake News

How credible are reports that Russia has compromising information about Trump?

The Secret Trump Dossier — What Does It Mean?

Glenn Greenwald on the Trump memo, the CIA and Russia – BBC Newsnight

Trump Dossier: Former British Ambassador to Russia Vouches for