The Pronk Pops Show 876, April 19, 2017, Story 1: Murdoch Sons Killing Fox News — Talent Exits — Who is next? — Adorable Deplorable Audience Abandons Fox News — Going, Going, Gone — Life Is Not Fair! — Big Lie Media Dying — Videos — Story 2: Totalitarians of Lying Lunatic Left Attempt to Suppress Speech of Conservatives, Libertarians, and Classical Liberals — Nothing New — Go On Offense And Attack The Collectivist Totalitarians — Battle For Berkeley — Berkeley Protesters Take the Pepsi Challenge — Why the Right Won — Chief of Police Orders Berkeley Police To Stand Down — Videos

Posted on April 19, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Law, Life, Media, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 876: April 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 875: April 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 874: April 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 873: April 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 872: April 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 871: April 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 870: April 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 869: April 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 868: April 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 867: April 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 866: April 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 865: March 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 864: March 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 863: March 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 862: March 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 861: March 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 860: March 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 859: March 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 858: March 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 857: March 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 856: March 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 855: March 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 854: March 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 853: March 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 852: March 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 851: March 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 850: March 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 849: March 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 848: February 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 847: February 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Story 1: Murdoch Sons Killing Fox News — Talent Exits — Who is next? — Adorable Deplorable Audience Abandons Fox News — Going, Going, Gone — Life Is Not Fair! —  Big Lie Media Dying — Videos — 

Image result for bill o'reilly on media mattersImage result for media mattersImage result for media mattersImage result for cartoons on george soros

The Bonner group/A Super PAC and fundraiser for Hillary & DNC. The Campaign against Bill OReily is orchestrated by MM & BG.

Glenn Beck ✔ @glennbeck The Bonner group/A Super PAC and fundraiser for Hillary & DNC. The Campaign against Bill OReily is orchestrated by MM & BG. #Smearproof 5:58 AM – 19 Apr 2017 321 321 Retweets 232 232 likes

http://www.glennbeck.com/2017/04/19/exclusive-proof-that-liberals-are-working-to-remove-bill-oreilly-from-fox-news/?utm_source=glennbeck&utm_medium=contentcopy_link

Bill O’Reilly Gets a $25M Copy of the Home Game Sayonara and “Hit the Road” Without Even a Goodbye

The Real Reason Bill O’Reilly Was Fired From Fox That Nobody’s Talking About

Bill O’Reilly’s Out at Fox | It Had Nothing to Do With Sexual Harassment | It Was Sponsors and Money

Mark Levin Reveals Why He Despised Bill O’Reilly

MARK LEVIN: I’m Not Gonna Defend Bill O’Reilly, But The Left Works As A CABAL

LIMBAUGH: Fox News Is Not Gonna Be The Way It Is For Long

Pitchfork and Torch Mob Crows Over O’Reilly’s Heave-Ho: Mum’s the Word As to Bill Clinton’s Victims

Ted Koppel tells Bill O’Reilly he’s ruined journalism

Bill O’Reilly Back On The Air After New Accuser Alleges Sexual Harassment | TODAY

Howard Stern Making Fun Of Bill O’Reilly Sexually Harassing Women 04/03/17

Sponsors split from FOX News over sexual harassment scandal

After Bill O’Reilly Blasts Megyn Kelly, She Insists: Ailes Made Fox Look Bad

Bill O’Reilly Calls His Critics “Hate Sites”

Bill O’Reilly Lashes Out At Media Matters And Salon For Highlighting His Anti-Immigration Coverage

Behold the Death Knell of Mainstream Corporate News Media

Megyn Kelly Flops and Folds at Fox and Faces a Career Stall at NBC Media Wasteland and Landfill

Why The Fake News Media Keeps Losing | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux

Sources: Fox News Has Decided Bill O’Reilly Has to Go

By Gabriel Sherman

The Murdochs have decided Bill O’Reilly’s 21-year run at Fox News will come to an end. According to sources briefed on the discussions, network executives are preparing to announce O’Reilly’s departure before he returns from an Italian vacation on April 24. Now the big questions are how the exit will look and who will replace him.

Wednesday morning, according to sources, executives are holding emergency meetings to discuss how they can sever the relationship with the country’s highest-rated cable-news host without causing collateral damage to the network. The board of Fox News’ parent company, 21st Century Fox, is scheduled to meet on Thursday to discuss the matter.

Sources briefed on the discussions say O’Reilly’s exit negotiations are moving quickly. Right now, a key issue on the table is whether he would be allowed to say good-bye to his audience, perhaps the most loyal in all of cable (O’Reilly’s ratings have ticked up during the sexual-harassment allegations). Fox executives are leaning against allowing him to have a sign-off, sources say. The other main issue on the table is money. O’Reilly recently signed a new multiyear contract worth more than $20 million per year. When Roger Ailes left Fox News last summer, the Murdochs paid out $40 million, the remainder of his contract.

According to sources, Fox News wants the transition to be seamless. Executives are currently debating possible replacement hosts. Names that have been discussed include Eric Bolling, Dana Perino, and Tucker Carlson, who would move from his successful 9 p.m. slot and create a need for a new host at that time. One source said Sean Hannity is happy at 10 p.m. and would not want to move.

The Murdochs’ decision to dump O’Reilly shocked many Fox News staffers I’ve spoken to in recent days. Late last week, the feeling inside the company was that Rupert Murdoch would prevail over his son James, who lobbied to jettison the embattled host. It’s still unclear exactly how the tide turned. According to one source, Lachlan Murdoch’s wife helped convince her husband that O’Reilly needed to go, which moved Lachlan into James’s corner. The source added that senior executives at other divisions within the Murdoch empire have complained that if O’Reilly’s allegations had happened to anyone else at their companies, that person would be gone already.

Spokespersons for 21st Century Fox and Fox News did not respond to requests for comment, nor did O’Reilly’s agent, Carole Cooper.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/sources-fox-news-has-decided-bill-oreilly-has-to-go.html

Bill O’Reilly has been forced out of his position as a prime-time host on Fox News, the company said on Wednesday, after the disclosure of multiple settlements involving sexual harassment allegations against him. His ouster brings an abrupt and embarrassing end to his two-decade reign as one of the most popular and influential commentators in television.

Bill O’Reilly’s Show Lost More Than Half Its Advertisers in a Week

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to the Fox News Channel,” 21st Century Fox, Fox News’s parent company, said in a statement.

Mr. O’Reilly’s departure comes two and a half weeks after an investigation by The New York Times revealed how Fox News and 21st Century Fox had repeatedly stood by Mr. O’Reilly even as sexual harassment allegations piled up against him. The Times found that the company and Mr. O’Reilly reached settlements with five women who had complained about sexual harassment or other inappropriate behavior by him. The agreements totaled about $13 million.

Document: Fox Statement on Bill O’Reilly’s Departure

Since then, more than 50 advertisers had abandoned his show, and women’s rights groups called for his ouster. Inside the company, women expressed outrage and questioned whether top executives were serious about maintaining a culture based on “trust and respect,” as they had promised last summer when another sexual harassment scandal forced the ouster of Fox News’s chairman, Roger Ailes.

That put pressure on 21st Century Fox and the Murdoch family that controlled it. After the dismissal of Mr. Ailes, the company struck two settlements involving sexual harassment complaints against Mr. O’Reilly and also extended his contract, even as it was aware of the complaints about his behavior.

Last week, the Murdochs enlisted the law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison to conduct an investigation into Mr. O’Reilly’s behavior after one woman, who had detailed her allegations against Mr. O’Reilly to The Times, called the company’s hotline to report her complaints. Another complaint was reported on Tuesday, according to the lawyer who represents the woman making the allegations.

Mr. O’Reilly has denied the allegations against him.

Mr. O’Reilly, 67, has been an anchor at Fox News since he started at the network in 1996. He was the top-rated host in cable news, serving up defiant commentary every weekday at 8 p.m., with a message that celebrated patriotism and expressed scorn for political correctness. His departure is a significant blow to Fox News’s prime-time lineup, which in January lost another star, Megyn Kelly, from a lineup that dominated the prime-time cable news ratings.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/media/bill-oreilly-fox-news-allegations.html?_r=0

Media Matters President Angelo Carusone: “Even If Bill O’Reilly Stays, His Show Will Never Be As Profitable”

Carusone: Fox News Said It Themselves … ‘If You Have A Television Show And You Have Advertiser Problems, You No Longer Have A Television Show That Is Viable.”

Video ››› April 5, 2017 6:30 PM EDT ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF

From the April 5 edition of Cheddar News:

KRISTEN SCHOLER (CO-HOST): We know that you’ve been following the developments in these sexual harassment claims against Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly, and as of right now ABC reporting 22 advertisers pulling out of advertising at least temporarily on his show. How is this going to force Fox News to respond long term? We’ve heard the response short-term which is it’s working with these advertisers, but big picture what do you think this means?

ANGELO CARUSONE: One thing that at the top that I point out is, when we think about the number of advertisers that have dropped, that 22 number is the ones that have given public statements.  From just observing the program and his advertisers the last couple of weeks, and then what his advertising looked like last night, and just from my own experience of running and being involved in similar kinds of advertiser efforts, like against Glenn Beck, I suspect that many more advertisers have actually adjusted their ad buys but just haven’t given public statements yet. Because many of the advertisers that had been advertising on the program every single night for the past few weeks did not appear last night after this controversy blew up, and I don’t think they’ll be there tonight.

JON STEINBERG (CO-HOST): Angelo, at what point — because they’re sticking by this guy, because he brings in money. And they basically don’t care; they don’t care how  bad it is or what he’s done, he makes them so much money that they’re going to stick with him. At what point is it enough advertisers that the math — the problem is, this looks bad for them, and it could be even worse for them, they could have gotten ahead of this and been like, “this guy’s toxic, we’re done,” right? Instead they paid his settlements, stuck by him, now they’re going to lose money and now they’re going to have to pull the ripcord on him, at which point it looks like they’re just doing it for the money.

CARUSONE: And I think that’s the exact right question, which is at what point does it actually start to affect them? What happens during these kinds of flare-ups is that there’s an assumption on the public’s part that if O’Reilly was to leave the program in a couple of days, that everything was pointless and worth it and Fox News is totally fine and Bill O’Reilly is totally fine. That’s actually just not true, and during the Glenn Beck period, after he lost a wave of advertisers, his advertiser rates never recovered. He limped along for over a year. His advertiser rates were a quarter of what other Fox News programs were even though he had a million viewers than many other Fox News programs, comparable ones, during similar time slots. He was beating the programs around him by a million viewers but his advertiser rates for the same advertisers, and for the same commercials, were sometimes a fifth of what they were on just a program an hour later or an hour earlier. That’s because they fell precipitously after he lost a lot of advertisers. The market addressed that issue; once you started to see there’s a problem buying ads on that show, media buyers weren’t going to pay the same rates anymore, and they never did. So that’s the first thing that I would point out, that no matter what, even if Bill O’Reilly stays, his program will never be as profitable as it was three days ago. That is just a bottom-line fact.

https://www.mediamatters.org/video/2017/04/05/media-matters-president-angelo-carusone-even-if-bill-oreilly-stays-his-show-will-never-be-profitable/215934

Political views of Bill O’Reilly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American commentator Bill O’Reilly regularly expresses his point of view on a wide variety of political, social, and moral issues. He has personally labeled his political philosophytraditionalism.[1]The O’Reilly Factor, since its inception on the Fox News Channel in 1996, has been the primary outlet of his opinions. O’Reilly started his own radio program, The Radio Factor, a few years later. He has also written several non-fiction books detailing some of his beliefs. O’Reilly generally leans to the right on most issues,[citation needed] most notably the Bush administration’s War on Terror, but breaks from the conservative and Republican majority on such issues as the global warming controversy, gun control, gay marriage and the death penalty.

Political views

Political affiliation

On The O’Reilly Factor and on his former talk-radio program, Bill O’Reilly has focused on news and commentary related to politics and culture.[2] O’Reilly has long said that he does not identify with any political ideology, writing in his book The O’Reilly Factor that the reader “might be wondering if whether I’m conservative, liberal, libertarian, or exactly what…. See, I don’t want to fit any of those labels, because I believe that the truth doesn’t have labels. When I see corruption, I try to expose it. When I see exploitation, I try to fight it. That’s my political position.”[3] On December 6, 2000, the Daily News in New York reported, however, that he had been registered with the Republican Party in the state of New York since 1994. When questioned about this, he said that he was not aware of it and says he registered as an independent after the interview.[4] During a broadcast of The Radio Factor, O’Reilly said that there was no option to register as an independent voter; however, there was in fact a box marked “I do not wish to enroll in party.”[5] Despite being registered as an Independent, many view him as a conservative figure.[2] A Pew Research February 2009 poll found that 66% of his television viewers identify themselves as conservative, 24% moderate, and 3% liberal.[6] A November 2008 poll by Zogby International found that O’Reilly was the second most trusted news personality after Rush Limbaugh.[7]

In a 2003 interview with Terry Gross on National Public Radio, O’Reilly said:

I’m not a political guy in the sense that I embrace an ideology. To this day I’m an independent thinker, an independent voter, I’m a registered independent… there are certain fundamental things that this country was founded upon that I respect and don’t want changed. That separates me from the secularists who want a complete overhaul of how the country is run.[8]

Domestic politics

O’Reilly has opined on many domestic issues. O’Reilly said the Bill Clintonimpeachment stemming from the Lewinsky scandal was “not about sex. This is about honesty and cruelty. For Mr. Clinton, it was about undermining the justice system.” In the same article he writes that Gary Condit, a moderate Democraticcongressman from California who had an extramarital affair with Chandra Levy prior to her disappearance and death, should be held to the same standard.[9]

According to the Newsmax publication, O’Reilly has repeatedly claimed that Clinton had the Internal Revenue Service audit him.[10] O’Reilly says that he was audited three times since his program debuted in 1996.

O’Reilly has been critical of former Attorney GeneralJanet Reno, calling her “perhaps the worst attorney general in history”, and that the FBI became a “disorganized mess” during her tenure. He later praised former Attorney General John Ashcroft for going after the Arthur Andersen accounting firm, as well as Enron, WorldCom, Sam Waksal of Imclone and Martha Stewart.[11]

In 2002, O’Reilly had criticized Democratic Senator Hillary Clinton, stating that she would run for president in 2008. In an interview with Jay Leno on The Tonight Show, he said, “I just feel that Hillary is a socialist, and I’m paying enough tax. Hillary wants to take my money [and] your money… and give it to strangers. There’s something about that that offends me.” He said that she had voted for every single spending bill that year. In the same interview, he accused her of running as a political carpetbagger, and said that she intends to abolish the Electoral College in favor of the popular vote, claiming that it would be done only to give her an advantage in the presidential race.[12]

After criticizing the overturn of Snyder v. Phelps by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, O’Reilly offered on March 30, 2010 to help Snyder pay the US$16,510 in court costs while he prepared an appeal to the Supreme Court.[13][14]

2004 presidential election

During the lead up to the 2004 presidential election, O’Reilly said that the Democratic Party has been taken over by the “far-left” in a conversation with former Democratic Congressman Brad Carson.[15] Shortly following the election, O’Reilly ridiculed a message in which Democratic challenger John Kerry thanked his supporters for their support as well as opposing “the attacks from big news organizations such as Fox, Sinclair Broadcasting, and conservative talk radio.”[16] O’Reilly shot back, calling Kerry a “sissy” six times.[17] Kerry himself stated publicly in a 2006 interview that he always felt he’d have a “fair shot” at conveying his views on The O’Reilly Factor and regrets not doing an interview prior to the election.[18]

Although O’Reilly has never officially endorsed any candidate, he did advise his audience not to support Democratic South Dakota senator Tom Daschle in his Senate re-election bid on his radio program, saying that, “[W]ith all due respect to the senator, we don’t have any respect for him at all. And we hope he loses in South Dakota. And I — really, I stay out of all these races, but you guys listening in South Dakota, vote for the other guy.”[19] Daschle would lose the 2004 Senate election in South Dakota to John Thune.[20]

2008 presidential election

In the 2008 Democratic primary, O’Reilly urged his viewers not to vote for a candidate, this time John Edwards, and called Edwards a “phony” regarding his public statements on poverty.[21] O’Reilly has, on many occasions, admitted to “having no respect for him”, and called him “arrogant” for keeping his campaign staffer Amanda Marcotte on after making remarks O’Reilly called offensive to Christians.[22]

O’Reilly has also criticized Republicans. When speaking to Ed Schulz in 2007, O’Reilly said that then-presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani had “terrible character judgement” with Bernard Kerik and felt that “disqualified him from being president.”[23]

“Culture War” and domestic politics

O’Reilly has taken to using the abbreviation “S-P”, for “SecularProgressive“, as a shorthand way of referring to a political category of people who want “drastic change” in the country.[citation needed] O’Reilly classifies the group as “far left”, and almost always refers to the group in a negative manner. However, he says that he is not equating the negative qualities he sees in “SPs” with a “liberal” political ideology, saying the SP camp is far more “libertine” with social values:

Liberal thought, however, can be a good thing. Progressive programs to help the poor, fight injustice and give working people a fair shake are all positive. But libertine actions damage a just society because actions have consequences. Kids who drink and take drugs are likely to hurt themselves and others. But obviously, the SPs do not make judgments like that.[24]

In his book Culture Warrior, O’Reilly called President John F. Kennedy and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. examples of liberals who were also traditionalists, also citing current US Senators Joe Lieberman of Connecticut and Evan Bayh of Indiana as liberal/Democratic “traditionalists”.

Foreign politics

Immigration and border control

O’Reilly has supported stricter border controls, including placement of the National Guard troops on the US-Mexican border and has criticized President George W. Bush for not allocating enough resources to make border security effective. He also criticized Ronald Reagan‘s act of amnesty, claiming that it made the illegal immigration problem worse.[25] O’Reilly makes a distinction between criminal illegal immigrants and non-criminals by saying that criminal illegal immigrants should be deported immediately. O’Reilly criticizes the lack of cooperation between local sanctuary cities and the INS.[26]

The Iraq War

O’Reilly initially supported the invasion of Iraq. Speaking on ABC’s Good Morning America on March 18, 2003, O’Reilly promised that “If the Americans go in and overthrow Saddam Hussein and it’s clean [of weapons of mass destruction]…I will apologize to the nation, and I will not trust the Bush administration again.”[27] In another appearance on the same program on February 10, 2004, O’Reilly responded to repeated requests for him to honor his pledge: “My analysis was wrong and I’m sorry. I was wrong. I’m not pleased about it at all.”[28] With regard to never again trusting the current U.S. government, he said, “I am much more skeptical of the Bush administration now than I was at that time.”

O’Reilly has questioned the U.S. invasion of Iraq in hindsight, in particular the performance of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. However, he maintains that the United States “did a good thing by trying to liberate a country”.[citation needed] O’Reilly says the war effort should continue as long as progress is being made. He has also said that some anti-war activists are actively rooting for the United States to lose:

General McCaffrey says strong progress is being made. He believes the Sunnis have turned against Al Qaeda and that the Maliki government is neutralizing the Shi’ia death squads.

Again, I don’t know. With all America has sacrificed in Iraq, though, it seems reasonable to let the end game play out. If things are getting better, don’t derail the train.

But the anti-war crew is now fully invested in defeat. So the struggle at home is becoming even more vicious. Iraq is a shooting war. America’s a political war. Both are driven by hatred.[29]

O’Reilly called the Iraqi people a “prehistoric group”, citing a poll showing that only two percent of them viewed the U.S. Forces as liberators and 55 percent preferred that they leave. “We cannot intervene in the Muslim world ever again”, he said. “What we can do is bomb the living daylights out of them (…) no more ground troops, no more hearts and minds, ain’t going to work.”[30]

In an interview with White House Press Secretary (and former Fox News colleague) Tony Snow, O’Reilly said that the United States cannot win given the circumstances of Iraqis not supporting the effort:

You can’t win. No one could. No nation could unless the Iraqi people turn on all the terrorists. And they’re not. They’re not, Tony.

O’Reilly went on to say that the country was corrupt and compared the situation to the American support of South Vietnam during the Vietnam War:

It’s like South Vietnam. It’s the same thing. There were a lot of South Vietnamese helping us. A lot fought and died on our side but there wasn’t enough of them to prevent the communists which were more united.[31]

O’Reilly would go on to praise General David Petraeus for reducing American casualties and advancing American objectives with the 2007 troop surge:

The cost has been great. We all know that. In suffering and cash. And the Iraqi government is still a mess. But General Petraeus, backed by a brave and professional U.S. military, has restored much order, largely defeated the Iraqi Al Qaeda thugs, and at least given the good people of that country a chance to prosper. General David Petraeus is “The Factor” person of the year by a wide margin.[32]

During The Rumble with Jon Stewart, O’Reilly admitted that “We should not have gone to Iraq. Afghanistan we had to.”[33]

Terrorism

O’Reilly has endorsed an aggressive War on Terror policy.[34] He supports coercive measures to extract information from detainees at Guantanamo Bay, which he visited on two occasions. He has said that, in comparison to procedures used under the regimes of dictators such as Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot, the U.S.’s tactics are not torture and are beneficial even when involving physical techniques,[35] claiming that “Torture is taking my fingers off, disfiguring me, taking my eye out — not keeping me in a cold room and uncomfortable with blaring rock music.”[36] O’Reilly cites waterboarding as a successful coercive measure that should not be classified as torture, citing that Abu Zubaydah and Khaled Sheikh Mohammed have both given up valuable information after being subjected to the technique:

In my opinion, it is immoral to allow terrorists to kill people when you can stop them. If you capture someone who knows the inner workings of a terror outfit, you make life very uncomfortable for that person within boundaries set by Congress.

But let’s stop the nonsense here. America’s not a bad country because it waterboarded Zubaydah. The Bush administration has done its job. We haven’t been attacked since 9/11.

The liberal press, politicians, the ACLU can’t stop any wrongdoing. They’re all lost in a fog of misguided indignation, crazy with hatred for Bush, but we the people must take a stand here. This isn’t a game. This is life and death. And if you don’t believe it, I know scores of people right here in New York City that will tell you about their dead loved ones.

Waterboarding should be a last resort, but it must be an option.[37]

He has also said that detainees should be judged under military tribunals, but not protected under the Geneva Convention because the convention requires combatants to wear a uniform.[35]

He has been critical of politicians such as Democratic Speaker of the HouseNancy Pelosi and private citizens such as financier George Soros for wanting to try terror suspects in civilian courts.[38]

O’Reilly has said that both political parties in the United States are “playing games” with regards to the war on terrorism:

…both the right and the left are playing games to some extent. Certainly, Al Qaeda remains dangerous, but the only way to hit them is to invade Pakistan. Do the Democrats want to do that?

On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if after all the blood and treasure Americans have sacrificed, Al Qaeda has not been badly damaged.

America should be united in fighting these savages, but we’re not. Ideology has poisoned a reasoned, disciplined approach to defeating the jihadists. America’s great strength, diversity of thought, can also be a weakness. And Al Qaeda knows it.

The old saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.” Well, we’re divided.[39]

George Soros

O’Reilly has accused billionaire businessman, investor and political activist George Soros of trying to influence the 2008 election by donating to causes and organizations that O’Reilly calls the “radical left”, such as moveon.org, which regularly criticizes conservative politicians. O’Reilly said of Soros “If Mike Myers didn’t invent Dr. Evil, some would give Soros that moniker.”[40] O’Reilly also accused Media Matters for America of receiving funds from Soros;[41] although Media Matters denies having any funding directly or indirectly from Soros,[42] he and the group’s founder, David Brock, have raised money together to fund political advertisements challenging John McCain in the 2008 election for what politico.com called “attack ads”.[43] O’Reilly responded to the politico report by labeling Soros, Brock and Paul Begala an “American axis of evil” and saying

This, ladies and gentlemen, is ultra dangerous. Most Americans have no idea who Soros or Brock are. They will only know what they see on TV, smear stuff against McCain. And the pipeline extends directly to NBC News, which will publicize every piece of slime Brock can create. Only one word describes this: despicable.[44]

O’Reilly alleged that PBS personality Bill Moyers oversaw $500,000 worth of money transferred from the Shoeman Center Foundation (a group Soros donated to) to Media Matters.[45]

you know, you’ve got to admire Soros for coming up with this organization. I mean, you know, he’s made billions by doing this in business, by being in Curaçao and Bermuda and France, where he was convicted of a felony. And he knows how to do this. He knows how to move the money around and use it to gain influence. And now he’s set his sights on changing the basic fabric of this country.[46]

The organization to which O’Reilly refers is the Open Society Institute.[45]

ACLU

O’Reilly has been critical of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), calling it “the most dangerous organization in the United States of America” especially in their challenging of the Justice Department and the Department of Defense regarding the War on Terror. He has called them a “fascist” organization in response to their threatened lawsuit against Los Angeles County for failing to remove a cross from its official seal.[47]

O’Reilly alleged hypocrisy on the part of the ACLU for stating that New York City‘s random searches of bags in the public transportation as a breach of personal rights, but requiring people entering their New York headquarters to consent to a bag search.[48]

O’Reilly asserted that the ACLU is now a political organization rather than an advocacy group, taking positions and cases based on politics rather than free speech.

He has come down hard on the organization for its actions on behalf of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) which is currently under suspicion of involvement with the rape and murder of a young boy:

Now many of these people subscribe to a philosophy of relativism. That is a theory which says there’s no absolute right or wrong. All moral values are relative. What’s wrong for you is not wrong for your neighbor if he or she doesn’t think his or her actions are wrong. That’s what the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) is all about. Those loons believe it’s OK to rape kids because they want to.[49]

The ACLU defends NAMBLA’s freedom of speech surrounding their publications and has said that the legal blame in the murder should go to who committed it.[50]

The ACLU has said that they sometimes have to defend “unpopular” speech or speech that they don’t agree with, including the Ku Klux Klan‘s, saying their only “client” is the Bill of Rights.[51] O’Reilly alleges the ACLU “cherry picks” its cases to promote a left wing agenda while not supporting causes of free speech that conservatives support in his criticism of the ACLU defending live sex shows in Oregon.[52]

O’Reilly decried the group’s criticism of The Minutemen, claiming the latter were only engaging in a form of protest, a right the ACLU defends. O’Reilly alleges that the organization is protesting the Minutemen because they are going against the ACLU’s agenda.[53][54]

O’Reilly accused the organization of having an anti-Christian bias when it protested the portrayal of the nativity scene in New York City Public Schools, but did not protest displayal of the Jewish menorah or the Islamic star and crescent.[55]

O’Reilly criticized the ACLU for suing San Diego County for renting property to the Boy Scouts of America in Balboa Park. The ACLU brought up a law claiming that the Boy Scouts discriminated against gays and atheists. O’Reilly criticized the San Diego City Council for voting 6-2 to vote the Scouts out before a ruling on the lawsuit was made.

It would be impossible for the Boy Scouts (search) or any children’s organization to admit avowed homosexuals because of the potential liability. Say the Scouts put openly gay and straight kids together and some sexual activity occurred. Well, parents could sue for millions, same way parents could sue if the Scouts put boys and girls together and underaged sex occurred. As far as the atheist issue is concerned, the Scouts say no specific belief in God is necessary, only an acknowledgement of a higher power. And that power could be nature. Come on. The whole discrimination thing is bogus.

Part of the Boy Scout Oath begins, “On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country” and the final point of the Scout Law reads, “A Scout is reverent,” with the Boy Scouts’ of America official explanation being that “a Scout is reverent toward God. He is faithful in his religious duties. He respects the beliefs of others.”[56] However, the bylaws of the organization specifically state that Scouts must “respect the religious beliefs of others” and “in no case where a unit is connected with a church or other distinctively religious organization shall members of other denominations or faith be required, because of their membership in the unit, to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to that organization or church.”[57]

O’Reilly argues this is a liberal definition of what God may be, allowing diversity for anyone believing in a higher power to join.

He went on to compare the ACLU to Nazis:

Now the ACLU is free to come to your town and sue the heck out of it. And believe me, that organization will. The ACLU doesn’t care about the law or the Constitution or what the people want. It’s a fascist organization that uses lawyers instead of Panzers. It’ll find a way to inflict financial damage on any concern that opposes its secular agenda and its growing in power.

He later went on to criticize the Boy Scout leadership for not standing up to the ACLU.[58]

On October 16, 2006 at Mount Pleasant High School in Michigan, a student stood up publicly in the cafeteria and called the principal of the school “a skank and a tramp.” In addition to this, the student called the school administrators Nazis and questioned the sexuality of the vice-principal. The school suspended the boy for 10 days, an action that brought a lawsuit by the ACLU. O’Reilly criticized the ACLU for defending the remarks as satire when he saw it as hate speech.[59]

Social views

Abortion

O’Reilly supported California Proposition 73 because it would have required parental notification of underage girls seeking an abortion. “[T]he left-wing media has been able to convince millions of Americans that the government knows what’s best for families, not the parents.”[60]

O’Reilly strongly condemns doctors who provide legal abortion services. Since 2005, he has repeatedly referred to physician and abortion doctor George Tiller as “Tiller the baby killer” on his Fox News prime time show, claiming that there must be “a special place in hell” for him. In May 2009, Tiller was murdered by anti-abortion gunman Scott Roeder.[61]

O’Reilly ardently condemns the practice of partial birth abortion. He has criticized the practice being done without explanations being made and has criticized human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch for not condemning the practice:

Once again, this isn’t about a women’s [sic] right to choose or the New York Times plea for reproductive rights. This is about late term abortions for just about any reason.[62]

Education

O’Reilly supports the discussion (but not the advocation) of intelligent design in schools and considers the opinion of the National Academy of Sciences and the American Association for the Advancement of Science‘s opposition to such theories “fascist”.[63] O’Reilly has also suggested that Richard Dawkins‘ argument for how science should be taught in school is equivalent to fascism.[64] He said he supports teachers saying that some people, especially in religious groups, believe that Charles Darwin‘s theory of evolution is wrong.

O’Reilly has said that there is a lack of leadership among the traditionalists and this has emboldened the secular-progressive cause. He consistently says that using religion to justify public policy is wrong:

Right now, religious people are the ones speaking out for traditional values. But America does not forge public policy based on religion. Thus as soon as God enters the debate, the secularists win.[65]

Gun rights

O’Reilly supports some forms of gun control, such as gun registration.[66][67]

Health care

O’Reilly opposed the nationalizedhealth care plan that filmmaker Michael Moore argues for in his film Sicko, saying it would create huge backlogs. He also said, however, that he thinks the government should perform more oversight functions on health care:

…[G]overnment-run health care would be a disaster, featuring long waits for treatment and an enormous rise in taxation. But there should be government oversight on private insurance companies and strict guidelines about abusing customers. There can be compromise and effective government control of medical care abuse in the USA. It is possible. But if Michael Moore’s plan ever gets traction, pray hard you never get sick.[68]

LGBT issues

O’Reilly’s stance on LGBT issues has been evolving.

On October 27, 2004, he was quoted saying: “I’ve been saying that all along, that if you open the door for gay marriage, then you have to have the polygamists and the triads and the commune people and everybody else, right?”[69]

O’Reilly supports civil unions for gay and lesbian couples, but has said that nobody has the “right” to marry; he says that marriage, like driving a car, is a privilege, not a right. He has said that if the government felt marriage was a right, then it would not stop polygamists and incestuous couples from marrying.[70] O’Reilly further explained his position in his book Culture Warrior:

To this culture warrior, gay marriage is not a vital issue. I don’t believe the republic will collapse if Larry marries Brendan. However, it is clear that most Americans want heterosexual marriage to maintain its special place in American society. And as long as gays are not penalized in the civil arena, I think the folks should make the call at the ballot box. Traditional marriage is widely seen as a social stabilizer, and I believe that is true.[71]

On March 26, 2013, O’Reilly stated “I support civil unions, I always have. The gay marriage thing, I don’t feel that strongly about it one way or the other. I think the states should do it.” O’Reilly then said, “The compelling argument is on the side of homosexuals … ‘We’re Americans, we just want to be treated like everybody else.’ That’s a compelling argument, and to deny that you’ve got to have a very strong argument on the other side. And the other side hasn’t been able to do anything but thump the Bible.[72]

O’Reilly discussed a story surrounding around a teenage lesbian couple being elected as the “cutest couple” in their school yearbook. He stated that he believed that this couple was elected by the students to “tweak the adults” and to “cause trouble”. He explains further here:

High school kids, they experiment. They experiment all over the place, they have a chip on their shoulder. They do things just to get a reaction, just to rebel. Parents might say “We don’t want to normalize homosexuality in a public way in an academic setting among minors. We don’t think that reflects how we feel about it”.[73]

O’Reilly is known to favor adoption by a same-sex couple since 2002.[74]

O’Reilly is opposed to the School Success and Opportunity Act (Assembly Bill 1266), which extends gender identity and expression discrimination protection to transgender and gender-nonconforming K-12 students in public schools. O’Reilly described the law as “madness” and “anarchy” on Fox News Channel.[75]

Just before the repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” law banning homosexuals from serving in the military, he appeared on the Tonight Show and called the law “nonsense” and said he didn’t understand why the President, in his role as commander in chief of the armed forces, simply didn’t sign an executive order rescinding it.

US legal system

He regularly criticizes jurists in controversial cases as “activist judges.” He uses the issue of gay marriage as an example. “The folks decide that by voting and, in the case of gay marriage, the folks have decided. And that decision should be respected.”[76]

He has suggested convicted rapists, mass murderers, terrorists, and other people who commit crimes against humanity be sent to a gulag style prison in Alaska with strict rules and minimal privileges. He has said this would serve as a replacement for the death penalty, to which he is opposed.[77]

Jessica’s Law

O’Reilly is a self-professed proponent of stricter penalties for child molesters. He has fervently supported Jessica’s Law,[78] and criticized the law’s detractors.[79] He has given verbal support for Republican Doug Forrester in the 2005 New Jersey gubernatorial election, suggesting that his opponent, Democrat Jon Corzine, would be less likely to support a national version of the law, though stopped short of actually endorsing Forrester.[80]

O’Reilly has been particularly critical of the Debra LaFave case, in which she was convicted of having sex with a 14-year-old boy, but was only sentenced to house arrest and seven years probation.[81]

He criticizes many politicians who oppose mandatory minimum sentences for child molesters, and calls several states “child predator-friendly.”[81]

Entertainment media

Film industry

O’Reilly has been very critical of the U.S. film industry for producing films featuring violence and human suffering, such as the Saw series. He has compared this to the brutal displays of death in the Colosseums of ancient Rome.[82] O’Reilly has said that films like these are marketed to children and can have consequences on their personal development. He commented on Kill Bill: Volume 1:

It’s the most violent movie ever made, featuring brutal dismemberments and a scalping close-up. And you should see the raves this movie is getting from the pinhead critics. And who’s lining up to see it? Children, that’s who.[83]

O’Reilly severely chastized billionaire Mark Cuban, owner of the Dallas Mavericks, for his support of Brian De Palma‘s film Redacted that portrayed the rape of an Iraqi girl by American soldiers. O’Reilly claimed that the film would be used as a recruiting tool by terrorists.[84]

Music industry

O’Reilly has criticized the rap and hip hop industry for promoting an “anti-social” culture. He has said he does not care if adults listen to the music, but argues that children are not able to process the information and determine it to be destructive behavior. He has gone after several rappers such as 50 Cent, Jay Z, Jadakiss, Eminem, Lupe Fiasco, Nas, Ludacris, Lil Wayne, Common, Nelly, Snoop Dogg, and Young Jeezy:

Every educator that I’ve talked to, and I’ve talked to hundreds, say that the kind of gangsta rap that Ludacris traffics in has debased the culture, made it more difficult for them to teach children and indeed, led children into anti-social behavior.[85]

In 2007, O’Reilly had a dispute with Nas after the rapper was hired to play a concert at Virginia Tech one year after the school had experienced the Virginia Tech massacre. “Having a rapper who trades in violence perform at Virginia Tech insults the victims, the university and the entire commonwealth,” declared Bill O’Reilly.[86]Nas subsequently called Bill O’Reilly a racist, and accused O’Reilly of going to extremes for publicity. He repeated this stance again in July 2008, when a dispute between Nas and O’Reilly led to Nas taking a petition to Fox News, and appearing on both Fox News, and the The Colbert Report. Also in 2008, Nas challenged Bill O’Reilly to a public debate, to which O’Reilly did not accept.

In May 2015, O’Reilly blamed the decline of American religion particularly the declining numbers of American Christians on hip hop music citing the genre as “pernicious entertainment” and an adducing factor for contributing to the decline. O’Reilly remarked that people of faith are being marginalized by a secular media and pernicious entertainment and rap industry often glorifies depraved behavior causing the minds of people who consume the music as the least likely to reject religion.”[87] American rapper Killer Mike subsequently criticized him for his remarks calling O’Reilly “full of s**t than an outhouse” and then mocked him while he was a guest Real Time with Bill Maher.[88]

Several rappers and hip hop producers have appeared on The O’Reilly Factor. Rapper Cam’ron and hip hop entrepreneur Damon Dash appeared on the program to defend their supposed corruption of young people, to which Damon Dash responded:

So, if you know there is negative in something, try to find the positive as opposed to always talking about the negative. That’s the thing I don’t understand, why we’re criticized so hard within hip-hop. No one talks about the jobs we create, no one talks about the things we do within our community, and no one talks about the businesses we’ve done, how we’ve opened the doors and shown people that it’s cool to be smart, it’s cool to be a CEO, and it’s cool to not take advantage but to reap the benefits of all your labor and to do it fairly.[89]

Bill O’Reilly has also interviewed Marilyn Manson on the topic of being a “dangerous” influence on U.S. youth. O’Reilly asked Manson if he thought his work encouraged kids to have sex, homosexuality, use drugs and profanity. He also asked Manson whether his songs encouraged suicide or not. Marilyn Manson answered that in his view the songs were about getting through those feelings, and that ultimately people make their own decisions.[90]

News media

O’Reilly believes the American news media is corrupt and often criticizes it for not reporting topics that hurt the liberal agenda. He has often stated that he is the only one in the media holding people accountable on both sides. In June 2007, Adweek Magazine sponsored a survey that asked participants who they trusted more as a source of political information between ABC News and O’Reilly. According to the poll, 36 percent believe that O’Reilly is a better source than ABC News, while 26 percent believe the opposite. According to the survey, 23 percent of Democrats believed that O’Reilly was a better source while 55 percent of Republicans believed the same.[91]

O’Reilly has criticized the media for not highlighting Rosie O’Donnell‘s controversial remarks saying the United States attacked itself on September 11th while they highlighted Ann Coulter‘s remarks about calling Senator John Edwards a “fag.” O’Reilly said in response to the situation:

Doing the math, Ms. O’Donnell says something 100 times more offensive than Ms. Coulter, in my opinion, yet there’s no coverage about it. But there’s no left wing media bias in this country. Oh no![92]

O’Reilly has criticized journalists who donate to political parties after a report stated that nine out of 10 journalists donated to Democrats or liberal causes; he has said this has resulted in news media tilting to the left.[93]

O’Reilly says that news coverage about positive improvements for American and Iraqi objectives in Iraq have been largely ignored. He conjectured that the ignoring of the positive news took place to help a Democrat win a presidential election.[94]

O’Reilly has asked his viewers and listeners to not patronize the following media outfits, saying those organizations “have regularly helped distribute defamatory, false or non-newsworthy information supplied by far-left websites”:[95]

Television news

In an interview with commentator Bill Maher, former CBS News anchor Dan Rather accused Fox News Channel of receiving “talking points” from the Republican controlledWhite House. O’Reilly criticized Rather heavily, responding that Rather did not offer any evidence to support the claim. O’Reilly cited his defense of Rather during the Memogate incident:

As you may remember, I defended Rather in the Bush National Guard debacle. I said Rather did not intentionally put on a bogus story. He just didn’t check it out, he was too anxious for the story to be true.

Now many of you criticized me for that defense, but I’m a fact-based guy. And there’s no evidence Dan Rather fabricated anything. It was sloppy reporting that did him in.

But now the fabrication word is in play again. If Dan Rather has evidence of White House dictums coming to FOX News employees, he needs to display that evidence. We are awaiting his appearance. We’ll let you know when it is.[96]

O’Reilly has gone after PBS personality Bill Moyers. O’Reilly criticized Moyers for having no balance in his presentations, citing a criticism by PBS’ own ombudsman. He also called Moyers dishonest for making disparaging remarks about O’Reilly to Rolling Stone and then later denying he made the remarks when confronted by one of O’Reilly’s producers.[97]

CNN journalists were prominent among those critical of O’Reilly when he stated that he “couldn’t get over the fact” that a largely African-American crowd at a Harlem restaurant behaved no differently than patrons of a white restaurant and garnered media coverage O’Reilly objected to CNN’s portrayal of his commentary, stating that CNN had been irresponsible in mischaracterizing his remark as racist, when in fact, he said, he was actually speaking against racism.[98]

O’Reilly scolded MSNBC and CNN for not providing coverage of the ceremony that awarded Lieutenant Michael P. Murphy the Medal of Honor during their primetime shows. O’Reilly said that “[O]n their prime-time broadcast last night, CNN and MSNBC just said no to Lieutenant Michael Murphy and his proud family,” that the networks “despise the Bush administration and believe anything positive like American heroes in war zones, detract from their negative assessment of the administration” and that they should not claim to support the troops and ignore their heroism.[99] MSNBC and CNN had covered the events during their daytime programs.[100][101]

NBC News and MSNBC

O’Reilly has criticized NBC News and their affiliated cable service MSNBC several times for their coverage of the war in Iraq, claiming that it is biased toward the war’s opponents.[102][103] He later called NBC News the most “anti-military news operation in the country,” when he cited an example of NBC correspondent William Arkin that called American troops “mercenaries.”[84]

He also criticized the network of trying to downplay the War on Terror in the wake of American casualties in Iraq.[104]

Robert Greenwald, who had directed the controversial documentary Outfoxed that criticized O’Reilly and the Fox News Channel, put together an event of homeless veterans criticizing O’Reilly for calling John Edwards dishonest when Edwards asserted that there were about 200,000 homeless veterans. O’Reilly denied Edwards claim, stating “They may be out there, but there are not many of them out there, OK. So if you know where there is a veteran sleeping under a bridge, you call me immediately, and we will make sure that man does not do it.”[105] After government statistics supported Edwards[citation needed], O’Reilly then said that there was no linkage between the economy and homeless veterans and claims that Veterans Affairs has up to 150,000 beds ready for them every night.[106] O’Reilly felt Greenwald’s event was a “contrived” situation after O’Reilly’s producers had interviewed some of the homeless veterans whom were protesting and found out that some did not actually hear O’Reilly’s comments. O’Reilly blasted NBC’s Steve Capus and the New York Daily News for covering the event and claimed that Capus did not know about the nature of the event.[107]

O’Reilly called NBC hypocritical for putting supporters of legalizing prostitution in the wake of Democratic Governor of New YorkEliot Spitzer resigning his post after allegedly engaging in the act in an effort and felt they would not be as defensive if a Republican had gotten in trouble.[108]

Although he praised the late Meet the Press host Tim Russert in the past,[109] O’Reilly criticized Russert for what he saw as a misinterpretation of what were seen as potentially racially insensitive comments by former President Bill Clinton. In his comments, Russert challenged Senator Hillary Clinton about her husband’s remarks regarding Senator Barack Obama, when Mr. Clinton referred to Obama’s position on Iraq as a “fairy tale.” O’Reilly said that Russert “should have known better” and realized the former President’s comments were regarding Obama’s Iraq policy and not his entire candidacy.[110]

Tape doctoring incidents

O’Reilly would join in the criticism of others when NBC News was found to have doctored tapes on multiple occasions. The first was about accused killer George Zimmerman that portrayed Zimmerman as having a racial motivation.[111] He also criticized veteran news correspondent Andrea Mitchell for her reporting of a doctored tape of Mitt Romney to portray him as out of touch.[112] After the Sandy Hook Shooting, O’Reilly and others criticized MSNBC’s Martin Bashir of dishonesty when Bashir only played a part of the entire tape that portrayed the father of a victim being heckled when the entire tape showed the audience only saying something after he made it clear he was looking for an answer.[111] O’Reilly criticized MSNBC host Rachel Maddow showed a tape of Senator John McCain portraying him as insensitive to the plight of a person who lost a family member to gun violence. Although Maddow did readily admit the tape may have been doctored, O’Reilly criticized her nonetheless for airing it knowing that it could have been edited.[113]

Press

O’Reilly has accused the print press of purposely misquoting him and using their hard news pages to further their editorial points of view. He has said that print media is too liberal and attacks opposing viewpoints.[114]

In 2003, O’Reilly criticized the Los Angeles Times for endorsing then-governor Gray Davis, who was running against Arnold Schwarzenegger and a whole field of different candidates, including Republicans, Democrats and Independents, in a recall election. He said that he “has never seen a newspaper try to destroy someone as aggressively as the Times is doing.” He also criticized The New York Times on the same issue for referring to Schwarzenegger solely as a bodybuilder. He made the claim that Californians have canceled their subscriptions due to the “extreme left-wing bias” of the newspaper.[115]

O’Reilly has accused the media of being hypercritical of President Bush’s handling of North Korea and Iran pursuing nuclear weapons while not being critical of President Bill Clinton for what was the same course of action.[116]

The New York Times

O’Reilly frequently criticizes The New York Times, accusing them of omitting information that would be damaging to left-wing organizations and causes.[117]

On March 15, 2007, The New York Times ran an editorial titled “Immigration Misery” that had claimed a “screaming baby girl has been forcibly weaned from breast milk and taken dehydrated to an emergency room so that the nation’s borders will be secure.” Upon further investigation, the only two babies admitted to the hospital in the area of Bedford, Massachusetts (where the raid took place) were due to dehydration because of pneumonia and not as a result of being “forcibly weaned.” O’Reilly alleged that the information in the editorial was falsified and claimed The Times wanted to promote illegal immigration in order to make the illegal immigrants into legal US citizens and register them as Democrats.[118]

He accused The Times of promoting NBC News over ABC News.[119]

On June 2, 2007, Homeland Security stopped a plot by four terror suspects thought to be linked to Al Qaeda. Authorities have alleged that the suspects were trying to blow up an oil pipeline in the Howard Beach section of New York City that carries jet fuel to JFK Airport. O’Reilly went on his program and told his listeners that he expected The Times to report it as a featured story on its Sunday edition for June 3, but found that the story was on page 37[citation needed]. A story that occupied the front page talked about brick laying in India. O’Reilly accused the newspaper of burying the story not to highlight a successful foiled terror plot because it contradicts the paper’s editorial point of view.[104] O’Reilly claims that as polls show most Americans feel Republicans would do a better job of handling a terrorist threat than Democrats, The Times intentionally gave the news less exposure in hopes of influencing their readers’ focus away from issues that Democrats tend to poll weaker than Republicans in.[120] O’Reilly has also said that the paper would highlight any terrorist attack if one was to occur so they may criticize the Bush Administration:

So The Times wins both ways. The paper diminishes the War on Terror by putting it on page 37, but if something bad ever happened, it can attack President Bush.[121]

O’Reilly has accused the paper of being deceptive about television ratings for The O’Reilly Factor against that of MSNBC during the same time slot, citing that the paper felt that MSNBC was “competitive” with his program when O’Reilly’s ratings were significantly higher.[122]

O’Reilly has questioned the paper’s interpretation of violence statistics among veterans of the military. His contention is that the paper is out to disparage the military as being overly violent after returning home from deployment in the War on Terror.[123]

O’Reilly criticized the paper for running an article alleging Senator John McCain had an “inappropriate relationship” during the lobbyist controversy story the paper had. O’Reilly raised the question about why the paper had endorsed McCain on January 25, 2008 for the Republican nomination if they had information that alleged an inappropriate relationship.[124]

In May 2009, O’Reilly severely criticized the paper as “corrupt” for dropping a story about a possible violation of campaign laws by ACORN and the Obama campaign. O’Reilly claimed that sworn testimony before Congress by a former ACORN employee, Anita Moncrief corroborated the story. O’Reilly stated:

Strong evidence suggests the paper killed a story linking ACORN to some Obama people. Instead they ran a general piece stating ACORN has a left-wing bias, knowing that story would be largely ignored while the Obama connection would not be.[125]

In response, the New York Times ombudsman, Clark Hoyt stated it “was a normal and reasonable editorial decision” not to run the article. He said the Times had run four other stories on ACORN. The story in question had remained unpublished because Anita Moncrief had not provided independently verifiable proof. In addition, The Times ombudsman stated that Moncrief had not given sworn testimony to Congress as claimed by O’Reilly, and that she had credibility problems, having been fired from Acorn for employee theft.[126]

Internet medi

O’Reilly has accused a few liberal political websites of “distorting the truth” and “engaging in hatred”:

There are no rules. These people will do and say pretty much anything to harm people with whom they disagree politically. The trend started back in the ClintonLewinsky days, and now thousands of bloggers are operating, throwing dirt all over the place. Now they’re not all bad. Some of these bloggers are good, accurate watchdogs. But there are plenty of awful ones.[127]

He has criticized the Daily Kos website, accusing it of calling for increased attacks upon American troops in Iraq, and for Iran to attack Israel. O’Reilly has also alleged that Daily Kos bloggers have called the Pope a primate and evangelicals “nut cases”, that they wish for the success of any subsequent attempts at the assassination of Vice President Dick Cheney after he avoided an attempt on his life in Afghanistan during a 2007 visit, and have said that the world is “better off” without White House Press SecretaryTony Snow when Snow publicly said he had cancer.[128]

In summer of 2007, O’Reilly said that the entire field of 2008 Democratic Presidential Candidates (aside from Senator Joseph Biden) went to the Yearly Kos convention that was sponsored by the Daily Kos. He has said that sites like the Kos are taking control of the Democratic Party through intimidation:

As we have been reporting, a group of far-left bloggers has succeeded in frightening most of the Democratic presidential candidates and moving the party significantly to the left, at least in the primary season. The lead intimidators are MoveOn, Media Matters and the vicious Daily Kos. These people savagely attack those with whom they disagree. And the politicians don’t want to become smear targets. So most of the Democratic candidates have agreed to speak at the Kos convention this coming weekend, something that is beyond shameful.[129]

O’Reilly has compared the Huffington Post to the Nazis and the KKK. He also called MoveOn.org the “new Klan.” In response, Arianna Huffington wrote that O’Reilly had confused bloggers with anonymous commentors and suggested he enroll in “How to Use the Internet 101.”[130] Huffington alleged that offensive comments are taken down from her site when confronted by one of O’Reilly’s producers. She also noted that offensive comments are posted by users of O’Reilly’s own site, billoreilly.com.[131] O’Reilly alleged that Huffington had no standards of conduct and did not remove comments about wishing Nancy Reagan had died after she fell that were written on her site. “She says it is down, but it is not. She does not tell the truth.”[132] O’Reilly later alleged that Huffington implied Pope Benedict XVI was a Nazi.[133] O’Reilly referred to a satirical article written by comedian Chris Kelly, which mocked O’Reilly on Huffington’s website.[134]

Environmental issues

O’Reilly generally supports the notion of a clean environment, although he has said that he is not entirely certain that fossil fuels are the cause of global warming. Nonetheless, he has expressed support for a long-term strategy to curb fossil fuel use. He has said he would not support the Kyoto Treaty for economic reasons, but supports the use of fewer polluting agents, more conservation, and “tons more innovation” such as tax credits for alternative fuels.[135] He has said that renewable energy is a waste of time because “God controls the climate” and that “nobody can control the climate except God, so give a little extra at mass”.[136]

Economic views

O’Reilly is a frequent critic of government welfare and poverty programs. He is also critical of the estate tax. However, he does not differentiate between the marginal tax rate (46 percent) and the effective tax rate (roughly nine percent ).[137]

O’Reilly has said French unemployment and subsequent riots are the “common effects of socialist thinking”. He claims the French unemployment rate is high because of entitlements sanctioned by the French government, and that these entitlements make employers hesitant to hire young employees for fear that they will be required to give benefits to underperforming workers.[138]

He says he supports income-based affirmative action as opposed to race-related affirmative action.[139]

Trade with hostile countries

O’Reilly has been critical of companies doing business with countries that are hostile to the United States. O’Reilly criticized General Electric for doing business with Iran. O’Reilly cited how NBC News‘ correspondent John Hockenberry did a report on Dateline highlighting GE’s business relationship with the Bin Laden family and was criticized by the company, who owns NBC, for the Dateline report.[140]

Free markets, profits, and the oil companies

O’Reilly questions the free market by suggesting that the oil companies need an excuse to raise prices thereby overlooking the fact that in a free market, oil companies have the right to increase prices so as to increase profits or for any other reason. Rather than praise oil companies for their record profits, O’Reilly has been critical of oil companies, claiming their record profits are evidence that they have price-gouged Americans with artificially high gas prices.[141] and has said he is personally boycotting products by Exxon-Mobil.[142] It therefore appears that O’Reilly does not recognize profit maximization as a virtue. He has often taken an opposing point of view to conservatives such as fellow Fox News analyst and commentator, Neil Cavuto.[141] During one discussion on The O’Reilly Factor, Cavuto accused O’Reilly of “push[ing] populist nonsense.”[143] He said blocking Brazilian ethanol imports was “awful” and has criticized both the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration for not doing enough to stem the cost of oil from “foreign predators”.[142]

Protectionism

In a May 8, 2006 article published at the Jewish World Review, O’Reilly said, “There is no question that illegal workers deliver more profit to business than American workers do. A Harvard study says that the employment of illegal foreign workers has driven down wages among American high school dropouts, the lowest labor pool rung, by 7 percent.”[144]

Idyllic civilization

Bill O’Reilly on his show The O’Reilly Factor has expressed the view that “if everybody followed the teachings of Jesus Christ, […] we’d have peace on earth, […] everybody would love one another, and we’d almost be an idyllic civilization.”[145]

Ethanol

O’Reilly claims that the United States is not doing enough to make itself independent of foreign oil, stating that “There’s no way the ethanol industry could be dominated by five mega-companies. I mean corn and sugar cannot be carteled. The oil racket is simple: We control the marketplace, and you have to buy from us. … If Brazil can develop an ethanol industry that makes it completely independent of foreign oil, then the USA can.”[144]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_views_of_Bill_O%27Reilly

Story 2: Totalitarians of Lying Lunatic Left Attempt to Suppress Speech of Conservatives, Libertarians, and Classical Liberals — Nothing New — Go On Offense And Attack The Collectivist Totalitarians — Battle For Berkeley — Berkeley Protesters Take the Pepsi Challenge — Why the Right Won — Chief of Police Orders Berkeley Police To Stand Down — Videos

Image result for media matters david brock Image result for media matters and bill o'rielly

Image result for media matters and bill o'rielly

Image result for cartoons on george sorosImage result for cartoons on george sorosImage result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for cartoons berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for cartoons berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017Image result for cartoons berkely april 15, 2017Image result for berkely april 15, 2017

Does Free Speech Offend You?

Ben Shapiro on Free Speech, College Campuses, and The Regressive Left

Ben Shapiro – Practical Tactics For Fighting The Left

UC Berkley Must Be Disciplined For Furthering Leftist Violence Against Conservatives

Amid Mounting Controversy, Media Matters Says It’s Time for Bill OReilly to Go | Cheddar

HIDDEN CAM: Media Matters Brags About Sabotaging Roger Stone

Published on Oct 28, 2016

Project Veritas Action has released the sixth video in a multi-part series that is sending shockwaves through the DNC and the Clinton campaign. In a new video released by Project Veritas Action, a PVA journalist exposes how his pay for play with Robert Creamer landed him a meeting with Bradley Beychock, the President of Media Matters For America, an organization that has been attacking James O’Keefe for years.

During the meeting, Beychock gave the PVA journalist a tour of their offices. He also proudly boasted about the Media Matters assault on conservative writer and political consultant Roger Stone.

Battle of Berkeley: Why the Right Won

Published on Apr 17, 2017

Berkeley erupted into political violence on April 15th, 2017, with leftwing radicals attacking the Freedom Rally hosted by Trump supporters. The Antifa thugs were roundly defeated by the Freedom Rally attendees, but where did this violence start? I discuss the events that lead up to this day and uncover the progression of leftwing violence that’s destroying a city that once celebrated free speech.

Lauren Southern And The Madness Behind The Battle Of Berkeley

THE BEAUTIFUL LAUREN SOUTHERN; ProudBoys and Some Ugly Antifa

The Battle of Berkeley in 81 seconds

Berkeley Protesters Take the Pepsi Challenge

Battle of Berkeley 3 FULL DAY[ANTIFA Vs FREE SPEECH PROTESTERS]Patriots Day Rally Ft. Based Stickman

Trump Supporters chase Antifa down the street at FREE SPEECH Rally in Berkeley

Battle of Berkeley 3 as Antifa circled the park

2017 The Battle for Berkeley LARP!

Patriot’s Day Riot in the Streets

UC Berkeley Cancels Coulter Appearance Over Security Concerns

Conservative Commentator Ann Coulter To Speak At UC Berkeley

Ben Shapiro interviews Ann Coulter; Adios America; 7/13/2015; C-Span

UC Berkeley Presses Campus Republicans To Cancel Another Conservative Speaker

WARNING:TRUMP SUPPORTERS ATTACKED AT BERKELEY BY ANTI TRUMP PROTESTERS

Free Speech Battle For Berkeley, California! | Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux

Berkeley Mayor Connected to Antifa

Tucker Carlson Has UC Berkeley Protest Leader Yvette Felarca Explain Fascism

Lauren Southern Coverage of Antifa vs Trump Supporters Battle

Berkeley April 15,Based stick man Antifa smashing

ANTIFA VS America Compilation

Antifa Reddit Admits They Lost Berkeley Battle with Trump Supporters

Berkeley April 15,BAMN leader Yvette Felarca assaults patriots

Berkeley Leftists Riot Against Milo (Mini Documentary: Arrest Yvette Felarca Part 2)

Handicap Senior Citizen U.S Military Vet Stands Up & Cucks Antifa

Is It Wrong To Bash Antifa Leftist Scum?

Berkeley Police Refuse To Stop the Riots – When Told People are Being Beaten, Officer Says “…and?”

Steyn: Media annoyed someone has outfaked their fake news

BILL O’REILLY EXPOSES GEORGE SOROS

EXPOSED : George Soros Owned Media Matters Sabotages Pro Trump Media

George Soros Lost Interview Compilation – Left Wing Oligarch

George Soros exposed!

George Soros Warns The World About Fox News And How Dangerous IT Really Is

George Soros, Puppet Master

Mark Levin: Media Matters is “A Criminal Enterprise”!

Andrew Breitbart — Media War

Thomas Sowell — Dismantling America

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Andrew Breitbart Predicted and Warned us about George Soro’s Media Matters Controlling our Media

One World Government & Collectivism – G. Edward Griffin

The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture

The Mainstream Media Are Enemies of Freedom, Agents of Tyranny and Must Be Overthrown

Super rich are in a conspiracy to rule the world – G. Edward Griffin – 2007

Antifa and Conservatives Throw Down At ‘Battle Of Berkeley’…

battle of berkeley
In the course of history, there have been many great battles. Thermopylae. Gettysburg. Tupac and Biggie. The forces of good and douchebag have long utilized beating the crap out of each other to resolve their grievances. Well, last weekend, yet another battle was had. Conservative and leftist blood alike was shed at what shall henceforth be referred to as the Battle of Berkeley

For the third time this year, Trump supporters and Antifa clashed on the streets of Berkeley, California. The two forces met Saturday during the pro-Trump Patriot Day rally.

Berkeley Police have arrested at least 15 people this morning and afternoon, after antifascists met Trump supporters at a pro-Trump rally. Police attempted to maintain order with poles and fence mesh, but the barriers did not stop the two sides from violently engaging.

Trump supporters had organized a Patriot Day rally, starring Lauren Southern, a former reporter for conservative Canadian outlet The Rebel Media and Kyle Chapman, a man who achieved internet stardom as “Based Stickman” after assaulting a member of Antifa with a stick at the March 4 scuffle in Berkeley, among others.

Berkeley police have confiscated banned items such as knives, flagpoles, and sticks used as weapons.

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/antifa-conservatives-battle-of-berkeley/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-876

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 854, March 8, 2017, Story 1: FBI Search For Vault 7 Leaker Who Gave Wikileaks The CIA Collection of Hacking and Malware Software Tools — Sources and Methods — Treason By The Lying Lunatic Left — Videos — Story 2: -Soros’ and Obama’s Seditious and Subversive War On Trump With Organizing For Action Applying Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals — Videos

Posted on March 9, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Employment, Foreign Policy, Fourth Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Health, High Crimes, History, House of Representatives, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Trump, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rule of Law, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weather, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

 Story 1: FBI Search For Vault 7 Leaker Who Gave Wikileaks The CIA Collection of Hacking and Malware Software Tools — Treason By The Lying Lunatic Left — Videos —

 

Image result for cia wikileaks hacker tools

Image result for cia wikileaks hacker tools

Image result for cartoons cia hacker tools

Image result for cartoons cia hacker tools

Image result for intelligence communityImage result for cia wikileaks hacker tools

TREASON OR BETRAYAL? FBI SET TO LAUNCH CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION INTO WIKILEAKS OVER CIA HACK

Hannity : Former intelligence officials on surveillance tactics and document leaks : 3/8/2017

Treason is in the air

Investigating national security leaks

UK: Assange holds presser on CIA hacking leaks

WATCH: WikiLeaks Julian Assange Press Conference On CIA Hacking (3/9/2017)

Julian Assange Press Conference On The CIA Vault 7 Release | March 9th, 2017

Julian Assange Wikileaks Press Conference, Q&A on CIA Vault 7, Year Zero [03/09/2017]

WikiLeaks publishes apparent CIA hacking tools

WikiLeaks Dump Shows CIA Using Cell Phones And Smart TVs To Listen And WATCH “Everyday Americans”

Can the CIA control your phone? WikiLeaks claims explained

What Pisses Me Off About Wikileaks Vault 7 Release

WikiLeaks Vault 7: What You Should Know and Fear, CIA vs. NSA Turf Battles, How Trump Was Right

VAULT 7: CIA Staged Fake Russian Hacking to Set Up Trump — Russian Cyber-Attack M.O. As False Flag

Lionel “Wikileaks Vault 7 Shows That Trump Is Not Crazy. The CIA Spy On Everybody.”

Wikileaks Claims CIA Is Hacking Americans’ Electronics – Tucker Carlson Tonight – Fox News – 3/7/17

Silent Coup: Obama, FISA, NSA, Deep State vs. President Donald Trump

TUCKER CARLSON reacts to latest CIA scandal and the big story ‘OBAMA CARE LITE’

Former CIA Director: Wikileaks Dump Could Be ‘Very Damaging’ | Andrea Mitchell | MSNBC

CIA lost control of its hacking tools – Wikileaks Vault7 report finding

Fall Out of Wikileak’s Vault 7 Year Zero Release Has Begun. Investigations Initiated.

WikiLeaks Fallout: CIA Revelations Rock The Political Establishment

Bombshell: WikiLeaks Releases Trove Of CIA Documents

Whistleblower: NSA Collecting Data On Every U.S. Citizen

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

NSA Surveillance and What To Do About It

Our Almost Orwellian State & NSA Surveillance Forum

How the Government Tracks You: NSA Surveillance

US Surveillance: An Analysis of EO 12333 and Its Global Implications

E.O: 12333 VS Kyle from Secular Talk, debunked again.

Executive Order 12333 (The President’s Inherent Article II Power to Conduct Foreign Intelligence)

Executive Order 12333 (Greatest Hits)

The Silent Order NSA Sees Everything Hears Everything Documentary HD

Judge Rules NSA Surveillance “Almost Orwellian” — Obama Prepares to Leave Spying Program Intact

Glenn Greenwald: The NSA Can “Literally Watch Every Keystroke You Make”

NSA has collected bulk data on Americans since Reagan

NSA surveillance program “almost Orwellian,” federal judge rules

Judgement NSA Violates Unconstitutional Patriot Act

ALGORITHM: The Hacker Movie

FBI prepares for new hunt for WikiLeaks’ source

March 7 at 6:55 PM
The FBI has begun preparing for a major mole hunt to determine how anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks got an alleged arsenal of hacking tools the CIA has used to spy on espionage targets, according to people familiar with the matter.

The leak rattled government and technology industry officials, who spent Tuesday scrambling to determine the accuracy and scope of the thousands of documents released by the group. They were also trying to assess the damage the revelations may cause, and what damage may come from future releases promised by WikiLeaks, these people said.

It was all a familiar scenario for a government that has repeatedly seen sensitive information compromised in recent years.

But cracks keep appearing in the system. Last year, the FBI arrested Harold T. Martin III, an NSA contractor who took home documents detailing some of the agency’s most sensitive offensive cyberweapons. Some of those files later appeared online, although investigators are still trying to determine Martin’s role, if any, in that part of the case.

WikiLeaks says it has a trove on the CIA’s hacking secrets. Washington Post national security reporter Greg Miller explains what these documents reveal. (Dalton Bennett, Greg Miller/The Washington Post)

He has pleaded not guilty to charges that he violated the Espionage Act. Officials call the Martin case the largest theft of classified information in U.S. history.

Now, less than a year after the Martin case, U.S. intelligence agencies are rushing to determine whether they again have suffered an embarrassing compromise at the hands of one of their own.

“Anybody who thinks that the Manning and Snowden problems were one-offs is just dead wrong,’’ said Joel Brenner, former head of U.S. counterintelligence at the office of the Director of National Intelligence. “Ben Franklin said three people can keep a secret if two of them are dead. If secrets are shared on systems in which thousands of people have access to them, that may really not be a secret anymore. This problem is not going away, and it’s a condition of our existence.’’

In Silicon Valley, industry figures said they received no heads-up from the government or the hacking community that such a move by WikiLeaks was in the works. By midday Tuesday, industry officials said they still had not heard from the FBI.

It wasn’t immediately clear if the CIA had sent a crimes report to the Justice Department — a formal mechanism alerting law enforcement of a potentially damaging and illegal national security leak. Such a report would offer the FBI a road map for where to begin investigating, and whom to question.

The FBI and CIA both declined to comment.

Once investigators verify the accuracy of the WikiLeaks documents, a key question to answer is who had access to the information, according to veterans of past leak probes. The FBI has spent years investigating WikiLeaks, and authorities are eager to figure out whether it has recruited a new, well-placed source from the U.S. government.

Anti-secrecy group Wikileaks on Tuesday said it had obtained a top-secret trove of hacking tools used by the CIA to break into phones, communication apps and other electronic devices, and published confidential documents on those programs. (Reuters)

In releasing thousands of pages of documents, WikiLeaks indicated that its source was a former government employee or contractor.

“This extraordinary collection, which amounts to more than several hundred million lines of code, gives its possessor the entire hacking capacity of the CIA,’’ WikiLeaks said in announcing the first release of documents. “The archive appears to have been circulated among former U.S. government hackers and contractors in an unauthorized manner, one of whom has provided WikiLeaks with portions of the archive.’’

One former intelligence official said if that claim is accurate, “there’s going to be another major mole hunt . . . If this is all correct, it’s a big deal.’’

A key distinction for investigators will be whether WikiLeaks reveals the actual computer code — or enough details about such code — that others can develop and deploy some of the hacking tools, according to current and former officials.

The security failures highlighted by damaging leaks from Snowden and Manning have proven difficult to address.

Manning was arrested in Iraq in May 2010 after transmitting documents to WikiLeaks that came to be known as the Iraq and Afghanistan “War Logs.’’ She also leaked a video showing a U.S. Apache helicopter in Baghdad opening fire on a group of people that the crew thought were insurgents. Among the dead were two journalists who worked for Reuters. She also leaked documents pertaining to Guantanamo Bay prisoners, as well as 250,000 State Department cables.

In response to the Manning case, the Obama administration created the National Insider Threat Task Force, designed to teach and train government workers and contractors to spot potential leakers.

Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, came out as transgender after her 2013 conviction. In the waning days of his presidency, Barack Obama commuted her 35-year prison sentence, and she is due to be released in coming months.

The post-Manning efforts did not stop Snowden from taking reams of data about sensitive bulk intelligence collection in 2013 and giving the material to reporters. Those revelations, including a court document showing how the government gathered Americans’ phone records, sparked years of political debate about privacy and government surveillance in the digital age.

Snowden has remained out of reach of the U.S. government, living in Russia.

Brenner, the former counterintelligence official, said the net effect of the new leaks could be “very dangerous to us, because they “accelerate the leveling of the playing field between the United States and its adversaries in cyberspace.’’

The bigger lesson of the newest leak, Brenner argued, is that U.S. pursuit of dominance in cyberspace may actually be destabilizing over the long run. “That is a very unsettling debate for our military and our intelligence services, but I think it’s coming,’’ he said.

Snowden also weighed in regarding the alleged CIA documents, tweeting: “What @Wikileaks has here is genuinely a big deal. Looks authentic.’’

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-prepares-for-new-hunt-for-wikileaks-source/2017/03/07/28dcb9e0-0356-11e7-ad5b-d22680e18d10_story.html?utm_term=.0d9871aa3c4c

U.S. aware of CIA security breach in 2016; contractors suspected in leak

By John Walcott and Andrea Shalal | WASHINGTON/BERLIN

U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials said on Wednesday they have been aware since the end of last year of a security breach at the CIA and were focusing on contractors as the likeliest source of documents being passed on to anti-secrecy group WikiLeaks detailing the agency’s hacking tools.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Reuters that they believed documents published by WikiLeaks on Tuesday about CIA techniques used between 2013 and 2016 were authentic.

The documents showed that CIA hackers could get into Apple Inc (AAPL.O) iPhones, Google Inc (GOOGL.O) Android devices and other gadgets in order to capture text and voice messages before they were encrypted with sophisticated software.

The White House said on Wednesday that President Donald Trump was “extremely concerned” about a CIA security breach that led to the Wikileaks release, and the administration would be tough on leakers.

“Anybody who leaks classified information will be held to the highest degree of law,” spokesman Sean Spicer told reporters.

One official with knowledge of the investigation said companies that are contractors for the CIA have been checking to see which of their employees had access to the material that Wikileaks published, and then going over their computer logs, emails and other communications for any evidence of who might be responsible.

One reason the investigation is focused on a potential leak by contractors rather than for example a hack by Russian intelligence, another official said, is that so far there is no evidence that Russian intelligence agencies tried to exploit any of the leaked material before it was published.

One European official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the Wikileaks material could in fact lead to closer cooperation between European intelligence agencies and U.S. counterparts, which share concerns about Russian intelligence operations.

U.S. intelligence agencies have accused Russia of seeking to tilt last year’s U.S. presidential election in Trump’s favor, including by hacking into Democratic Party emails. Moscow has denied the allegation.

The lobby of the CIA Headquarters Building in Langley, Virginia, U.S. on August 14, 2008. REUTERS/Larry Downing/File Photo

One major security problem was that the number of contractors with access to information with the highest secrecy classification has “exploded” because of federal budget constraints, the first U.S. official said.

U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to hire additional permanent staff needed to keep pace with technological advances such as the “Internet of Things” that connects cars, home security and heating systems and other devices to computer networks, or to pay salaries competitive with the private sector, the official said.

Reuters could not immediately verify the contents of the published documents. On Tuesday, several contractors and private cyber security experts said the materials appeared to be legitimate.

A person familiar with Wikileaks’ activities said Wikileaks has had the CIA hacking material for months, and that the release of the material was in the works “for a long time.”

A Congressional official said that the U.S. House of Representatives Intelligence Committee has begun asking questions about the WikiLeaks disclosures.

GERMAN CONCERN

In Germany on Wednesday, the chief federal prosecutor’s office said that it would review the Wikileaks documents because some suggested that the CIA ran a hacking hub from the U.S. consulate in Frankfurt.

“We’re looking at it very carefully,” a spokesman for the federal prosecutor’s office told Reuters. “We will initiate an investigation if we see evidence of concrete criminal acts or specific perpetrators.”

Chancellor Angela Merkel is scheduled to visit Washington on March 14 for her first meeting with Trump, who has sharply criticized Berlin for everything from its trade policy to what he considers inadequate levels of military spending.

The Wikileaks documents may also complicate bilateral intelligence ties that have just begun to recover after a series of scandals, including news in 2013 that the U.S. National Security Agency had bugged Merkel’s cellphone. The Frankfurt consulate was investigated by German lawmakers after that incident.

Merkel told lawmakers last month she did not know how closely Germany’s spies cooperated with their U.S. counterparts until 2015 when former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the BND spy agency had for years passed on information to the NSA about European companies and politicians.

Germany scaled back the level of cooperation with the NSA after those revelations.

U.S. officials have acknowledged that the consulate in Frankfurt is home to a CIA base. A facility adjacent to the city’s airport and the Rhein-Main Air Base has for many years been home to the CIA’s “Tefran” station, a U.S. center for collecting intelligence on Iranian activities in Europe, maintaining surveillance on Iranian officials and targeting potential defectors working in Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

Foreign ministry spokesman Sebastian Fischer told a regular government news conference that Germany took the issue seriously, but more work needed to be done to verify the authenticity of the documents. Berlin was in close touch with Washington about the case and such matters generally, he said.

Government spokesman Steffen Seibert said Germany’s domestic intelligence agency had the job of uncovering espionage activities in Germany, and carried out its work comprehensively.

Wikileaks reported that CIA employees had been given diplomatic passports and State Department identities to carry out their work in Frankfurt, focused on targets in Europe, the Middle East and Africa. The documents included advice for CIA experts about life in Germany, noting that shops are closed on Sundays, and to have “your cover-for-action story down pat” when they were asked by German authorities when entering the country.

(Reporting by John Walcott, Mark Hosenball, Yara Bayoumy in Washington and Matthias Sobolewski and Andrea Shalal in Berlin; Writing by Grant McCool; Editing by Peter Graff, Grant McCool and Frances Kerry)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-cia-wikileaks-idUSKBN16F2AP?il=0

Wikileaks to hand over alleged CIA spying tools to tech companies

Assange
Assange said he would give tech companies the details of hacks affecting their products  CREDIT: WIKILEAKS

Wikileaks will hand Central Intelligence Agency hacking tools to technology companies in order for them to defend their customers against spying.

Julian Assange, founder of the website, said he had decided to provide the classified information to giants such as Microsoft, Samsung and Apple whose products were implicated in the alleged CIA leaks.

The announcement comes after Wikileaks on Tuesday released a raft of documents that it claims detail tools the CIA used to hack into peoples computers, televisions and smartphones, among other internet-connected devices.

Wikileaks didn’t disclose details of how the tools worked, but basic information that allegedly proves the cyber weapons arsenal exists.

Samsung F8000
The CIA could have hacked Samsung’s F8000 smart TVs to turn them into spying toolsCREDIT: SAMSUNG

In the wake of the release, Assange said tech companies had asked Wikileaks to pass them details of the hacks that affect their products in order for them to fix them.

“After considering what we think is the best way to proceed and hearing calls from some of the manufacturers we have decided to work with them, to give them exclusive access to some of the technical details we have,” said Assange.

With the information Assange said the companies can “effectively disarm” the alleged CIA hacking tools.

It is not clear how long it will take for all of the vulnerabilities to be fixed or if they can all be solved. Some could be blocked in a couple of days, said Assange, while other more critical one could take weeks.

Assange warned that other hacks, such as the one used to turn on a “fake off” spying mode on Samsung smart TVs, may have to be manually blocked. This could prove difficult as it would require people to know their device had been infected in order for it to be fixed.

https://cf-particle-html.eip.telegraph.co.uk/25f7b704-4ac6-4678-a1a0-b3beeb494718.html?ref=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/09/wikileaks-hand-alleged-cia-spying-tools-tech-companies/&title=Wikileaks%20to%20hand%20over%20alleged%20CIA%20spying%20tools%20to%20tech%20companies

Apple has responded directly to the alleged CIA hacking tools mentioned in the documents. It says the security vulnerabilities that could have been used to access iPhones were fixed as of its latest security update. Samsung and Google meanwhile have said they are investigating the claims but it is unclear what action they have taken.

The CIA has not commented on the authenticity of the leaks.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2017/03/09/wikileaks-hand-alleged-cia-spying-tools-tech-companies/

Assange: WikiLeaks Will Work With Tech Companies

 WikiLeaks has offered to help the likes of Google and Apple identify the software holes used by purported CIA hacking tools – and that puts the tech industry in something of a bind.

While companies have both a responsibility and financial incentive to fix problems in their software, accepting help from WikiLeaks raises legal and ethical questions. And it’s not even clear at this point exactly what kind of assistance WikiLeaks can offer.

THE PROMISE

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange said Thursday that the anti-secrecy site will help technology companies find and fix software vulnerabilities in everyday gadgets such as phones and TVs. In an online news conference, Assange said some companies had asked for more details about the purported CIA cyberespionage toolkit that he revealed in a massive disclosure on Tuesday.

“We have decided to work with them, to give them some exclusive access to the additional technical details we have, so that fixes can be developed and pushed out,” Assange said. The digital blueprints for what he described as “cyberweapons” would be published to the world “once this material is effectively disarmed by us.”

Any conditions WikiLeaks might set for its cooperation weren’t immediately known. Nor was it clear if WikiLeaks holds additional details on specific vulnerabilities, or merely the tools designed to exploit them.

Apple declined comment on the WikiLeaks offer, and Google didn’t respond to requests for comment. Microsoft said it hopes that anyone with knowledge of software vulnerabilities would report them through the company’s usual channels.

LEGAL QUESTIONS

Tech companies could run into legal difficulties in accepting the offer, especially if they have government contracts or employees with security clearances.

“The unauthorized release of classified documents does not mean it’s unclassified,” said Stewart Baker, a former official at the Department of Homeland Security and former legal counsel for the National Security Agency. “Doing business with WikiLeaks and reviewing classified documents poses a real risk for at least their government contracting arms and their cleared employees.”

Other lawyers, however, are convinced that much of the information in the documents is so widely known that they are now part of the public domain. That means tech companies would be unlikely to face any legal liability for digging deeper with WikiLeaks.

Alternatively, suppose tech companies don’t accept WikiLeaks’ offer to help fix any security flaws – and are subsequently hacked. At that point, they could face charges of negligence, particularly in Europe where privacy laws are much stricter than in the U.S., said Michael Zweiback, a former assistant U.S. attorney and cybercrime adviser now in private practice.

GETTING TOO CLOSE TO WIKILEAKS

Public perception might be a bigger problem. “They don’t want to be seen as endorsing or supporting an organization with a tainted reputation and an unclear agenda,” said Robert Cattanach, a former U.S. Department of Justice attorney.

During the 2016 election, WikiLeaks published thousands of emails, some embarrassing, from breached Democratic Party computers and the account of a top aide to Hillary Clinton. U.S. intelligence agencies concluded those emails were stolen by hackers connected to the Russian government in an attempt to help Donald Trump win the presidency.

The CIA did not respond directly to Assange’s offer, but it appeared to take a dim view of it.

“Julian Assange is not exactly a bastion of truth and integrity,” CIA spokeswoman Heather Fritz Horniak said.

But most tech companies already have digital hotlines to receive tips about security weaknesses, even if they come from unsavory characters. So it wouldn’t break new ground for them to consult with a shadowy organization such as WikiLeaks.

A BETTER PATH

Ideally, the CIA would have shared such vulnerabilities directly with companies, as other government agencies have long done. In that case, companies would not only be dealing with a known entity in an aboveboard fashion, they might also obtain a more nuanced understanding of the problems than their engineers could glean from documents or lines of computer code.

And if companies could learn details about how the CIA found these vulnerabilities, they might also find additional holes using the same technique, said Johannes Ullrich, director of the Internet Storm Center at the SANS Institute.

And there are risks obtaining actual hacking tools from WikiLeaks. Some might have unadvertised features that could, for instance, start extracting data as soon as they launch. Ullrich said the CIA also might have left some traps to attack people running its exploits. If these aren’t detailed in the documents, only the CIA would be able to help tech companies avoid setting them off.

If all goes well, WikiLeaks could emerge looking better than some parts of the U.S. government.

“I am not a fan of WikiLeaks, but I don’t think it is fair to throw rocks at everything they do,” said Cindy Cohn, executive director of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group specializing in online privacy and other digital rights. “What WikiLeaks is demonstrating is that the CIA does not have the best interests of these companies at heart.”

BETTER THAN NOTHING

There’s one more unknown, which is just how much help WikiLeaks can actually provide. Apple, Google and Microsoft say they’ve already rendered many of the alleged CIA cyberespionage tools obsolete with earlier updates that patched related software holes.

Still, the companies will probably want to check out what WikiLeaks has, assuming that the organization hasn’t set unreasonable conditions on its cooperation. Some privacy and security experts believe the CIA’s own refusal to contact the affected companies about the vulnerabilities gives them little choice.

“We all should have better security, and certainly at this point, not trying to fixing them makes no sense,” Cohn said.

Liedtke reported from San Ramon, Calif. Raphael Satter in Paris, Paisley Dodds in London and Deb Riechmann in Washington contributed to this report.

This story has been corrected to reflect that purported CIA tools are not aimed at “defeating encryption” but at hijacking computers.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_WIKILEAKS_CIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-03-09-17-09-24

Why Is Obama Expanding Surveillance Powers Right Before He Leaves Office?

It could be to prevent Trump from extending them even more.

Obama waves at the end of his farewell address in Chicago
The Obama administration made it easier for the NSA to share information with other intelligence agencies, just weeks before the inauguration.Jonathan Ernst / Reuters
On Thursday, the Obama administration finalized new rules that allow the National Security Agency to share information it gleans from its vast international surveillance apparatus with the 16 other agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community.With the new changes, which were long in the works, those agencies can apply for access to various feeds of raw, undoctored NSA intelligence. Analysts will then be able to sift through the contents of those feeds as they see fit, before implementing required privacy protections. Previously, the NSA applied those privacy protections itself, before forwarding select pieces of information to agencies that might need to see them.The updated procedures will multiply the number of intelligence analysts who have access to NSA surveillance, which is captured in large quantities and often isn’t subject to warrant requirements. The changes rankled privacy advocates, who oppose a broadening of surveillance powers—especially on the cusp of Donald Trump’s inauguration. Trump and Mike Pompeo, the president-elect’s nominee for CIA director, have made it clear that they think overzealous civil-liberties protections should be cleared away in favor of stronger surveillance laws.
But while the changes may subject more Americans to warrantless surveillance, the last-minute timing of the announcement actually might have been designed to cut future privacy losses. Susan Hennessey, a Brookings fellow and the managing editor of Lawfare, says firming up the changes before Trump takes office makes it harder for the incoming president to encroach even further on civil liberties.I spoke with Hennessey, who was previously an attorney in the NSA general counsel’s office, about the lasting effects of the new intelligence-sharing procedures. A transcript of our conversation follows, lightly edited for clarity and concision.


Kaveh Waddell: First off, what do these changes mean for the intelligence community? Has a lack of information-sharing among agencies been holding back investigations?

Susan Hennessey: The origin of these changes dates back, honestly, to just after 9/11. There was this identified issue of “stovepiping”: Intelligence wasn’t being shared frequently or fast enough. Some modifications have already been made throughout the years.

Under Executive Order 12333 as it previously existed, NSA analysts had to make an initial determination and apply a set of privacy rules before sharing raw signals-intelligence information with other parts of the intelligence community. After this change, it doesn’t necessarily have to be an NSA analyst that makes that determination—that information can be shared with other parts of the intelligence community.

So it doesn’t change the substantive rules, it doesn’t change the scope of collection, it doesn’t change the types of protection, it doesn’t change the possible uses; it essentially just broadens the group of people who can apply those protections to the raw intelligence.

Waddell: And by extension, it broadens the group of people who get to see raw intelligence, before those rules are applied?

Hennessey: Yes. This is something that has been at the forefront of privacy and civil-liberties advocates’ minds when they’ve expressed concern with this type of collection. But it’s not accurate to say the rule change means it’s a raw signals-intelligence free-for-all, that anybody can get signals intelligence.

Intelligence agencies other than the NSA will have to provide justification for why they need access to that data. It can only be for foreign intelligence, or other enumerated purposes. So it’s not that those agencies will just be able to see whatever they want—it’s that they will be able to request, with particular justifications, access to more raw signals intelligence than they had before. Then, they will need to apply those minimization procedures for themselves.

The civil-liberties concern often surrounds the use of incidentally collected information. Under the new rule, the FBI could not obtain access to or search raw intelligence information for ordinary criminals in an ordinary criminal investigation against a U.S. person. However, if the FBI incidentally seized evidence of a crime, they are allowed to use that information. So that tends to be where the tension is for people who are concerned with the potential impacts that this change could have on U.S. persons.

Waddell: The fact that more Americans could potentially be subject to warrantless searches, just by virtue of being caught up in the raw signals intelligence that’s shared—is that something that concerns you?

Hennessey: No. Look, I think it’s important to understand that these minimization procedures are taken very seriously, and all other agencies that are handling raw signals intelligence are essentially going to have to import these very complex oversight and compliance mechanisms that currently exist at the NSA.

Within the NSA, those are extremely strong and protective mechanisms. I think people should feel reassured that the rules cannot be violated—certainly not without it coming to the attention of oversight and compliance bodies. I am confident that all of the agencies in the U.S. intelligence community will discharge those very same obligations with the same level of diligence and rigor, adhering to both the spirit and the letter of the law.

That said, there are potentially broader reforms that might be undertaken. I don’t think that they necessarily need to be linked to the sharing of data. But it’s reasonable to at least engage in a conversation about whether or not it’s appropriate to have particular post-collection reforms, like for example imposing an obligation for law enforcement to obtain a warrant in particular circumstances.

That’s a long way of saying that nothing about this particular rule change exposing Americans to additional privacy risks. However, that doesn’t mean that there are not still reasonable and responsible reforms which might take place.

Waddell: I found it interesting that you said the change could, in one way, actually be viewed as a “huge source of comfort.” I think you were referring to the timing of the change. Why is that?

Hennessey: These changes have actually been in process for eight or nine years. One of the things that I think individuals who had insight into intelligence activities and were concerned about the election of Donald Trump—specifically, some of the statements he’s made about adherence to the rule of law—a lot of those people’s minds went very quickly to these procedures.

It’s important to understand the distinction between Executive Order 12333 and the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act: One very oversimplified way to think about it is that FISA is a statute that governs collection that takes place within the United States, but that is aimed at a foreign target; 12333 collection is aimed at a foreign target, and takes place outside the United States. That’s shorthand that glosses over some technical and legal nuance, but those are the broad buckets people should be thinking about.

FISA is a statute, so you’d need congressional action to change those rules, and you have a built-in check there. But 12333 is not constrained by statute; it’s constrained by executive order. In theory, a president could change an executive order—that’s within his constitutional power. It’s not as easy as just a pen stroke, but it’s theoretically possible.

Executive Order 12333 requires that this series of protective procedures exist and are adhered to. The procedures are kind of where the rubber meets the road on privacy. They’re the details, the nitty-gritty: What can you actually see? What can you share? What do you have to minimize? So they’re really, really important in terms of what the relationship between U.S. citizens and the intelligence community looks like.

When they were in rewrites, they were sort of vulnerable. There was the possibility that an incoming administration would say, “Hey! While you’re in the process of rewriting, let’s go ahead and adjust some of the domestic protections.” And I think a reasonable observer might assume that while the protections the Obama administration was interested in putting into place increased privacy protections—or at the very least did not reduce them—that the incoming administration has indicated that they are less inclined to be less protective of privacy and civil liberties. So I think it is a good sign that these procedures have been finalized, in part because it’s so hard to change procedures once they’re finalized.

Waddell: Is that why we just went through an eight- or nine-year process to get here?

Hennessey: Exactly. For questions both of genuine complexity and just government bureaucracy, the time horizon here is longer than a single term of the presidency.

So I don’t think that it’s necessarily true that the intelligence community or the Department of Justice was rushing to get these procedures passed; if anything, they’re a little bit late. But I think the bottom line is that it’s comforting to a large national-security community that these are procedures that are signed off by Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Attorney General Loretta Lynch, and not by the DNI and attorney general that will ultimately be confirmed under the Trump Administration.

Waddell: Is there anything else we should be thinking about with these new changes?

Hennessey: People sometimes focus on the top-line stuff and end up missing the things that aren’t necessarily the symbolic expressions of privacy—the things that make us feel good—but are the functional elements of privacy and civil liberties. What rules do people apply day-to-day and how? There’s going to be a need moving forward to have disciplined conversations about the legal protections that really matter.

If there is a silver lining to some of the anxieties that the incoming administration has produced, I think it’s the potential to move the conversation into a much more productive place. But that opportunity will end up being lost if the responses are the same old same. That’s my last shred of optimism, and I’m hanging on to it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/01/obama-expanding-nsa-powers/513041/

Executive Orders

Executive Order 12333–United States intelligence activities

Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12333 of Dec. 4, 1981, appear at 46 FR 59941, 3 CFR, 1981 Comp., p. 200, unless otherwise noted.

Table of Contents

Preamble

Part 1.Goals, Direction, Duties, and Responsibilities With Respect to the National Intelligence Effort
1.1 Goals
1.2 The National Security Council
1.3 National Foreign Intelligence Advisory Groups
1.4 The Intelligence Community
1.5 Director of Central Intelligence
1.6 Duties and Responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies
1.7 Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community
1.8 The Central Intelligence Agency
1.9 The Department of State
1.10 The Department of the Treasury
1.11 The Department of Defense
1.12 Intelligence Components Utilized by the Secretary of Defense
1.13 The Department of Energy
1.14 The Federal Bureau of Investigation
Part 2.Conduct of Intelligence Activities
2.1 Need
2.2 Purpose
2.3 Collection of Information
2.4 Collection Techniques
2.5 Attorney General Approval
2.6 Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities
2.7 Contracting
2.8 Consistency With Other Laws
2.9 Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States
2.10 Human Experimentation
2.11 Prohibition on Assassination
2.12 Indirect Participation
Part 3.General Provisions
3.1 Congressional Oversight
3.2 Implementation
3.3 Procedures
3.4 Definitions
3.5 Purpose and Effect
3.6 Revocation

Timely and accurate information about the activities, capabilities, plans, and intentions of foreign powers, organizations, and persons and their agents, is essential to the national security of the United States. All reasonable and lawful means must be used to ensure that the United States will receive the best intelligence available. For that purpose, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including the National Security Act of 1947, as amended, and as President of the United States of America, in order to provide for the effective conduct of United States intelligence activities and the protection of constitutional rights, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Part 1

Goals, Direction, Duties and Responsibilities With Respect to the National Intelligence Effort

1.1Goals. The United States intelligence effort shall provide the President and the National Security Council with the necessary information on which to base decisions concerning the conduct and development of foreign, defense and economic policy, and the protection of United States national interests from foreign security threats. All departments and agencies shall cooperate fully to fulfill this goal.
(a) Maximum emphasis should be given to fostering analytical competition among appropriate elements of the Intelligence Community.
(b) All means, consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, shall be used to develop intelligence information for the President and the National Security Council. A balanced approach between technical collection efforts and other means should be maintained and encouraged.
(c) Special emphasis should be given to detecting and countering espionage and other threats and activities directed by foreign intelligence services against the United States Government, or United States corporations, establishments, or persons.
(d) To the greatest extent possible consistent with applicable United States law and this Order, and with full consideration of the rights of United States persons, all agencies and departments should seek to ensure full and free exchange of information in order to derive maximum benefit from the United States intelligence effort.

1.2The National Security Council.
(a) Purpose. The National Security Council (NSC) was established by the National Security Act of 1947 to advise the President with respect to the integration of domestic, foreign and military policies relating to the national security. The NSC shall act as the highest Executive Branch entity that provides review of, guidance for and direction to the conduct of all national foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, and special activities, and attendant policies and programs.
(b) Committees. The NSC shall establish such committees as may be necessary to carry out its functions and responsibilities under this Order. The NSC, or a committee established by it, shall consider and submit to the President a policy recommendation, including all dissents, on each special activity and shall review proposals for other sensitive intelligence operations.

1.3National Foreign Intelligence Advisory Groups.
(a) Establishment and Duties. The Director of Central Intelligence shall establish such boards, councils, or groups as required for the purpose of obtaining advice from within the Intelligence Community concerning:
(1) Production, review and coordination of national foreign intelligence;
(2) Priorities for the National Foreign Intelligence Program budget;
(3) Interagency exchanges of foreign intelligence information;
(4) Arrangements with foreign governments on intelligence matters;
(5) Protection of intelligence sources and methods;
(6) Activities of common concern; and
(7) Such other matters as may be referred by the Director of Central Intelligence.
(b) Membership. Advisory groups established pursuant to this section shall be chaired by the Director of Central Intelligence or his designated representative and shall consist of senior representatives from organizations within the Intelligence Community and from departments or agencies containing such organizations, as designated by the Director of Central Intelligence. Groups for consideration of substantive intelligence matters will include representatives of organizations involved in the collection, processing and analysis of intelligence. A senior representative of the Secretary of Commerce, the Attorney General, the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, and the Office of the Secretary of Defense shall be invited to participate in any group which deals with other than substantive intelligence matters.

1.4The Intelligence Community. The agencies within the Intelligence Community shall, in accordance with applicable United States law and with the other provisions of this Order, conduct intelligence activities necessary for the conduct of foreign relations and the protection of the national security of the United States, including:
(a) Collection of information needed by the President, the National Security Council, the Secretaries of State and Defense, and other Executive Branch officials for the performance of their duties and responsibilities;
(b) Production and dissemination of intelligence;
(c) Collection of information concerning, and the conduct of activities to protect against, intelligence activities directed against the United States, international terrorist and international narcotics activities, and other hostile activities directed against the United States by foreign powers, organizations, persons, and their agents;
(d) Special activities;
(e) Administrative and support activities within the United States and abroad necessary for the performance of authorized activities; and
(f) Such other intelligence activities as the President may direct from time to time.

1.5Director of Central Intelligence. In order to discharge the duties and responsibilities prescribed by law, the Director of Central Intelligence shall be responsible directly to the President and the NSC and shall:
(a) Act as the primary adviser to the President and the NSC on national foreign intelligence and provide the President and other officials in the Executive Branch with national foreign intelligence;
(b) Develop such objectives and guidance for the Intelligence Community as will enhance capabilities for responding to expected future needs for national foreign intelligence;
(c) Promote the development and maintenance of services of common concern by designated intelligence organizations on behalf of the Intelligence Community;
(d) Ensure implementation of special activities;
(e) Formulate policies concerning foreign intelligence and counterintelligence arrangements with foreign governments, coordinate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence relationships between agencies of the Intelligence Community and the intelligence or internal security services of foreign governments, and establish procedures governing the conduct of liaison by any department or agency with such services on narcotics activities;
(f) Participate in the development of procedures approved by the Attorney General governing criminal narcotics intelligence activities abroad to ensure that these activities are consistent with foreign intelligence programs;
(g) Ensure the establishment by the Intelligence Community of common security and access standards for managing and handling foreign intelligence systems, information, and products;
(h) Ensure that programs are developed which protect intelligence sources, methods, and analytical procedures;
(i) Establish uniform criteria for the determination of relative priorities for the transmission of critical national foreign intelligence, and advise the Secretary of Defense concerning the communications requirements of the Intelligence Community for the transmission of such intelligence;
(j) Establish appropriate staffs, committees, or other advisory groups to assist in the execution of the Director’s responsibilities;
(k) Have full responsibility for production and dissemination of national foreign intelligence, and authority to levy analytic tasks on departmental intelligence production organizations, in consultation with those organizations, ensuring that appropriate mechanisms for competitive analysis are developed so that diverse points of view are considered fully and differences of judgment within the Intelligence Community are brought to the attention of national policymakers;
(l) Ensure the timely exploitation and dissemination of data gathered by national foreign intelligence collection means, and ensure that the resulting intelligence is disseminated immediately to appropriate government entities and military commands;
(m) Establish mechanisms which translate national foreign intelligence objectives and priorities approved by the NSC into specific guidance for the Intelligence Community, resolve conflicts in tasking priority, provide to departments and agencies having information collection capabilities that are not part of the National Foreign Intelligence Program advisory tasking concerning collection of national foreign intelligence, and provide for the development of plans and arrangements for transfer of required collection tasking authority to the Secretary of Defense when directed by the President;
(n) Develop, with the advice of the program managers and departments and agencies concerned, the consolidated National Foreign Intelligence Program budget, and present it to the President and the Congress;
(o) Review and approve all requests for reprogramming National Foreign Intelligence Program funds, in accordance with guidelines established by the Office of Management and Budget;
(p) Monitor National Foreign Intelligence Program implementation, and, as necessary, conduct program and performance audits and evaluations;
(q) Together with the Secretary of Defense, ensure that there is no unnecessary overlap between national foreign intelligence programs and Department of Defense intelligence programs consistent with the requirement to develop competitive analysis, and provide to and obtain from the Secretary of Defense all information necessary for this purpose;
(r) In accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, give the heads of the departments and agencies access to all intelligence, developed by the CIA or the staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence, relevant to the national intelligence needs of the departments and agencies; and
(s) Facilitate the use of national foreign intelligence products by Congress in a secure manner.

1.6Duties and Responsibilities of the Heads of Executive Branch Departments and Agencies.
(a) The heads of all Executive Branch departments and agencies shall, in accordance with law and relevant procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, give the Director of Central Intelligence access to all information relevant to the national intelligence needs of the United States, and shall give due consideration to the requests from the Director of Central Intelligence for appropriate support for Intelligence Community activities.
(b) The heads of departments and agencies involved in the National Foreign Intelligence Program shall ensure timely development and submission to the Director of Central Intelligence by the program managers and heads of component activities of proposed national programs and budgets in the format designated by the Director of Central Intelligence, and shall also ensure that the Director of Central Intelligence is provided, in a timely and responsive manner, all information necessary to perform the Director’s program and budget responsibilities.
(c) The heads of departments and agencies involved in the National Foreign Intelligence Program may appeal to the President decisions by the Director of Central Intelligence on budget or reprogramming matters of the National Foreign Intelligence Program.

1.7Senior Officials of the Intelligence Community. The heads of departments and agencies with organizations in the Intelligence Community or the heads of such organizations, as appropriate, shall:
(a) Report to the Attorney General possible violations of federal criminal laws by employees and of specified federal criminal laws by any other person as provided in procedures agreed upon by the Attorney General and the head of the department or agency concerned, in a manner consistent with the protection of intelligence sources and methods, as specified in those procedures;
(b) In any case involving serious or continuing breaches of security, recommend to the Attorney General that the case be referred to the FBI for further investigation;
(c) Furnish the Director of Central Intelligence and the NSC, in accordance with applicable law and procedures approved by the Attorney General under this Order, the information required for the performance of their respective duties;
(d) Report to the Intelligence Oversight Board, and keep the Director of Central Intelligence appropriately informed, concerning any intelligence activities of their organizations that they have reason to believe may be unlawful or contrary to Executive order or Presidential directive;
(e) Protect intelligence and intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure consistent with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(f) Disseminate intelligence to cooperating foreign governments under arrangements established or agreed to by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(g) Participate in the development of procedures approved by the Attorney General governing production and dissemination of intelligence resulting from criminal narcotics intelligence activities abroad if their departments, agencies, or organizations have intelligence responsibilities for foreign or domestic narcotics production and trafficking;
(h) Instruct their employees to cooperate fully with the Intelligence Oversight Board; and
(i) Ensure that the Inspectors General and General Counsels for their organizations have access to any information necessary to perform their duties assigned by this Order.

1.8The Central Intelligence Agency. All duties and responsibilities of the CIA shall be related to the intelligence functions set out below. As authorized by this Order; the National Security Act of 1947, as amended; the CIA Act of 1949, as amended; appropriate directives or other applicable law, the CIA shall:
(a) Collect, produce and disseminate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, including information not otherwise obtainable. The collection of foreign intelligence or counterintelligence within the United States shall be coordinated with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(b) Collect, produce and disseminate intelligence on foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking;
(c) Conduct counterintelligence activities outside the United States and, without assuming or performing any internal security functions, conduct counterintelligence activities within the United States in coordination with the FBI as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(d) Coordinate counterintelligence activities and the collection of information not otherwise obtainable when conducted outside the United States by other departments and agencies;
(e) Conduct special activities approved by the President. No agency except the CIA (or the Armed Forces of the United States in time of war declared by Congress or during any period covered by a report from the President to the Congress under the War Powers Resolution (87 Stat. 855)1) may conduct any special activity unless the President determines that another agency is more likely to achieve a particular objective;
(f) Conduct services of common concern for the Intelligence Community as directed by the NSC;
(g) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to authorized functions;
(h) Protect the security of its installations, activities, information, property, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the CIA as are necessary; and
(i) Conduct such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (a) through (h) above, including procurement and essential cover and proprietary arrangements.

1.9The Department of State. The Secretary of State shall:
(a) Overtly collect information relevant to United States foreign policy concerns;
(b) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence relating to United States foreign policy as required for the execution of the Secretary’s responsibilities;
(c) Disseminate, as appropriate, reports received from United States diplomatic and consular posts;
(d) Transmit reporting requirements of the Intelligence Community to the Chiefs of United States Missions abroad; and
(e) Support Chiefs of Missions in discharging their statutory responsibilities for direction and coordination of mission activities.

1.10The Department of the Treasury. The Secretary of the Treasury shall:
(a) Overtly collect foreign financial and monetary information;
(b) Participate with the Department of State in the overt collection of general foreign economic information;
(c) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence relating to United States economic policy as required for the execution of the Secretary’s responsibilities; and
(d) Conduct, through the United States Secret Service, activities to determine the existence and capability of surveillance equipment being used against the President of the United States, the Executive Office of the President, and, as authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury or the President, other Secret Service protectees and United States officials. No information shall be acquired intentionally through such activities except to protect against such surveillance, and those activities shall be conducted pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General.

1.11The Department of Defense. The Secretary of Defense shall:
(a) Collect national foreign intelligence and be responsive to collection tasking by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(b) Collect, produce and disseminate military and military-related foreign intelligence and counterintelligence as required for execution of the Secretary’s responsibilities;
(c) Conduct programs and missions necessary to fulfill national, departmental and tactical foreign intelligence requirements;
(d) Conduct counterintelligence activities in support of Department of Defense components outside the United States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI pursuant to procedures agreed upon by the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General;
(e) Conduct, as the executive agent of the United States Government, signals intelligence and communications security activities, except as otherwise directed by the NSC;
(f) Provide for the timely transmission of critical intelligence, as defined by the Director of Central Intelligence, within the United States Government;
(g) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to authorized intelligence functions;
(h) Protect the security of Department of Defense installations, activities, property, information, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the Department of Defense as are necessary;
(i) Establish and maintain military intelligence relationships and military intelligence exchange programs with selected cooperative foreign defense establishments and international organizations, and ensure that such relationships and programs are in accordance with policies formulated by the Director of Central Intelligence;
(j) Direct, operate, control and provide fiscal management for the National Security Agency and for defense and military intelligence and national reconnaissance entities; and
(k) Conduct such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (a) through (j) above.

1.12Intelligence Components Utilized by the Secretary of Defense. In carrying out the responsibilities assigned in section 1.11, the Secretary of Defense is authorized to utilize the following:
(a) Defense Intelligence Agency, whose responsibilities shall include;
(1) Collection, production, or, through tasking and coordination, provision of military and military-related intelligence for the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, other Defense components, and, as appropriate, non-Defense agencies;
(2) Collection and provision of military intelligence for national foreign intelligence and counterintelligence products;
(3) Coordination of all Department of Defense intelligence collection requirements;
(4) Management of the Defense Attache system; and
(5) Provision of foreign intelligence and counterintelligence staff support as directed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
(b) National Security Agency, whose responsibilities shall include:
(1) Establishment and operation of an effective unified organization for signals intelligence activities, except for the delegation of operational control over certain operations that are conducted through other elements of the Intelligence Community. No other department or agency may engage in signals intelligence activities except pursuant to a delegation by the Secretary of Defense;
(2) Control of signals intelligence collection and processing activities, including assignment of resources to an appropriate agent for such periods and tasks as required for the direct support of military commanders;
(3) Collection of signals intelligence information for national foreign intelligence purposes in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(4) Processing of signals intelligence data for national foreign intelligence purposes in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(5) Dissemination of signals intelligence information for national foreign intelligence purposes to authorized elements of the Government, including the military services, in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(6) Collection, processing and dissemination of signals intelligence information for counterintelligence purposes;
(7) Provision of signals intelligence support for the conduct of military operations in accordance with tasking, priorities, and standards of timeliness assigned by the Secretary of Defense. If provision of such support requires use of national collection systems, these systems will be tasked within existing guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence;
(8) Executing the responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense as executive agent for the communications security of the United States Government;
(9) Conduct of research and development to meet the needs of the United States for signals intelligence and communications security;
(10) Protection of the security of its installations, activities, property, information, and employees by appropriate means, including such investigations of applicants, employees, contractors, and other persons with similar associations with the NSA as are necessary;
(11) Prescribing, within its field of authorized operations, security regulations covering operating practices, including the transmission, handling and distribution of signals intelligence and communications security material within and among the elements under control of the Director of the NSA, and exercising the necessary supervisory control to ensure compliance with the regulations;
(12) Conduct of foreign cryptologic liaison relationships, with liaison for intelligence purposes conducted in accordance with policies formulated by the Director of Central Intelligence; and
(13) Conduct of such administrative and technical support activities within and outside the United States as are necessary to perform the functions described in sections (1) through (12) above, including procurement.
(c) Offices for the collection of specialized intelligence through reconnaissance programs, whose responsibilities shall include:
(1) Carrying out consolidated reconnaissance programs for specialized intelligence;
(2) Responding to tasking in accordance with procedures established by the Director of Central Intelligence; and
(3) Delegating authority to the various departments and agencies for research, development, procurement, and operation of designated means of collection.

(d)

The foreign intelligence and counterintelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps,

whose responsibilities shall include:

(1) Collection, production and dissemination of military and military-related foreign intelligence and counterintelligence, and information on the foreign aspects of narcotics production and trafficking. When collection is conducted in response to national foreign intelligence requirements, it will be conducted in accordance with guidance from the Director of Central Intelligence. Collection of national foreign intelligence, not otherwise obtainable, outside the United States shall be coordinated with the CIA, and such collection within the United States shall be coordinated with the FBI;
(2) Conduct of counterintelligence activities outside the United States in coordination with the CIA, and within the United States in coordination with the FBI; and
(3) Monitoring of the development, procurement and management of tactical intelligence systems and equipment and conducting related research, development, and test and evaluation activities.
(e) Other offices within the Department of Defense appropriate for conduct of the intelligence missions and responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Defense. If such other offices are used for intelligence purposes, the provisions of Part 2 of this Order shall apply to those offices when used for those purposes.

1.13The Department of Energy. The Secretary of Energy shall:
(a) Participate with the Department of State in overtly collecting information with respect to foreign energy matters;
(b) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence necessary for the Secretary’s responsibilities;
(c) Participate in formulating intelligence collection and analysis requirements where the special expert capability of the Department can contribute; and
(d) Provide expert technical, analytical and research capability to other agencies within the Intelligence Community.

1.14The Federal Bureau of Investigation. Under the supervision of the Attorney General and pursuant to such regulations as the Attorney General may establish, the Director of the FBI shall:
(a) Within the United States conduct counterintelligence and coordinate counterintelligence activities of other agencies within the Intelligence Community. When a counterintelligence activity of the FBI involves military or civilian personnel of the Department of Defense, the FBI shall coordinate with the Department of Defense;
(b) Conduct counterintelligence activities outside the United States in coordination with the CIA as required by procedures agreed upon by the Director of Central Intelligence and the Attorney General;
(c) Conduct within the United States, when requested by officials of the Intelligence Community designated by the President, activities undertaken to collect foreign intelligence or support foreign intelligence collection requirements of other agencies within the Intelligence Community, or, when requested by the Director of the National Security Agency, to support the communications security activities of the United States Government;
(d) Produce and disseminate foreign intelligence and counterintelligence; and
(e) Carry out or contract for research, development and procurement of technical systems and devices relating to the functions authorized above.

Part 2

Conduct of Intelligence Activities

2.1Need. Accurate and timely information about the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations, or persons and their agents is essential to informed decisionmaking in the areas of national defense and foreign relations. Collection of such information is a priority objective and will be pursued in a vigorous, innovative and responsible manner that is consistent with the Constitution and applicable law and respectful of the principles upon which the United States was founded.

2.2Purpose. This Order is intended to enhance human and technical collection techniques, especially those undertaken abroad, and the acquisition of significant foreign intelligence, as well as the detection and countering of international terrorist activities and espionage conducted by foreign powers. Set forth below are certain general principles that, in addition to and consistent with applicable laws, are intended to achieve the proper balance between the acquisition of essential information and protection of individual interests. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to apply to or interfere with any authorized civil or criminal law enforcement responsibility of any department or agency.

2.3Collection of Information. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to collect, retain or disseminate information concerning United States persons only in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General, consistent with the authorities provided by Part 1 of this Order. Those procedures shall permit collection, retention and dissemination of the following types of information:
(a) Information that is publicly available or collected with the consent of the person concerned;
(b) Information constituting foreign intelligence or counterintelligence, including such information concerning corporations or other commercial organizations. Collection within the United States of foreign intelligence not otherwise obtainable shall be undertaken by the FBI or, when significant foreign intelligence is sought, by other authorized agencies of the Intelligence Community, provided that no foreign intelligence collection by such agencies may be undertaken for the purpose of acquiring information concerning the domestic activities of United States persons;
(c) Information obtained in the course of a lawful foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, international narcotics or international terrorism investigation;
(d) Information needed to protect the safety of any persons or organizations, including those who are targets, victims or hostages of international terrorist organizations;
(e) Information needed to protect foreign intelligence or counterintelligence sources or methods from unauthorized disclosure. Collection within the United States shall be undertaken by the FBI exceptthat other agencies of the Intelligence Community may also collect such information concerning present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present or former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting;
(f) Information concerning persons who are reasonably believed to be potential sources or contacts for the purpose of determining their suitability or credibility;
(g) Information arising out of a lawful personnel, physical or communications security investigation;
(h) Information acquired by overhead reconnaissance not directed at specific United States persons;
(i) Incidentally obtained information that may indicate involvement in activities that may violate federal, state, local or foreign laws; and
(j) Information necessary for administrative purposes.
In addition, agencies within the Intelligence Community may disseminate information, other than information derived from signals intelligence, to each appropriate agency within the Intelligence Community for purposes of allowing the recipient agency to determine whether the information is relevant to its responsibilities and can be retained by it.

2.4Collection Techniques. Agencies within the Intelligence Community shall use the least intrusive collection techniques feasible within the United States or directed against United States persons abroad. Agencies are not authorized to use such techniques as electronic surveillance, unconsented physical search, mail surveillance, physical surveillance, or monitoring devices unless they are in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such procedures shall protect constitutional and other legal rights and limit use of such information to lawful governmental purposes. These procedures shall not authorize:
(a) The CIA to engage in electronic surveillance within the United States except for the purpose of training, testing, or conducting countermeasures to hostile electronic surveillance;
(b) Unconsented physical searches in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Searches by counterintelligence elements of the military services directed against military personnel within the United States or abroad for intelligence purposes, when authorized by a military commander empowered to approve physical searches for law enforcement purposes, based upon a finding of probable cause to believe that such persons are acting as agents of foreign powers; and
(2) Searches by CIA of personal property of non-United States persons lawfully in its possession.
(c) Physical surveillance of a United States person in the United States by agencies other than the FBI, except for:
(1) Physical surveillance of present or former employees, present or former intelligence agency contractors or their present of former employees, or applicants for any such employment or contracting; and
(2) Physical surveillance of a military person employed by a nonintelligence element of a military service.
(d) Physical surveillance of a United States person abroad to collect foreign intelligence, except to obtain significant information that cannot reasonably be acquired by other means.

2.5Attorney General Approval. The Attorney General hereby is delegated the power to approve the use for intelligence purposes, within the United States or against a United States person abroad, of any technique for which a warrant would be required if undertaken for law enforcement purposes, provided that such techniques shall not be undertaken unless the Attorney General has determined in each case that there is probable cause to believe that the technique is directed against a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. Electronic surveillance, as defined in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, shall be conducted in accordance with that Act, as well as this Order.

2.6Assistance to Law Enforcement Authorities. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to:
(a) Cooperate with appropriate law enforcement agencies for the purpose of protecting the employees, information, property and facilities of any agency within the Intelligence Community;
(b) Unless otherwise precluded by law or this Order, participate in law enforcement activities to investigate or prevent clandestine intelligence activities by foreign powers, or international terrorist or narcotics activities;
(c) Provide specialized equipment, technical knowledge, or assistance of expert personnel for use by any department or agency, or, when lives are endangered, to support local law enforcement agencies. Provision of assistance by expert personnel shall be approved in each case by the General Counsel of the providing agency; and
(d) Render any other assistance and cooperation to law enforcement authorities not precluded by applicable law.

2.7Contracting. Agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to enter into contracts or arrangements for the provision of goods or services with private companies or institutions in the United States and need not reveal the sponsorship of such contracts or arrangements for authorized intelligence purposes. Contracts or arrangements with academic institutions may be undertaken only with the consent of appropriate officials of the institution.

2.8Consistency With Other Laws. Nothing in this Order shall be construed to authorize any activity in violation of the Constitution or statutes of the United States.

2.9Undisclosed Participation in Organizations Within the United States. No one acting on behalf of agencies within the Intelligence Community may join or otherwise participate in any organization in the United States on behalf of any agency within the Intelligence Community without disclosing his intelligence affiliation to appropriate officials of the organization, except in accordance with procedures established by the head of the agency concerned and approved by the Attorney General. Such participation shall be authorized only if it is essential to achieving lawful purposes as determined by the agency head or designee. No such participation may be undertaken for the purpose of influencing the activity of the organization or its members except in cases where:
(a) The participation is undertaken on behalf of the FBI in the course of a lawful investigation; or
(b) The organization concerned is composed primarily of individuals who are not United States persons and is reasonably believed to be acting on behalf of a foreign power.

2.10Human Experimentation. No agency within the Intelligence Community shall sponsor, contract for or conduct research on human subjects except in accordance with guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services. The subject’s informed consent shall be documented as required by those guidelines.

2.11Prohibition on Assassination. No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.

2.12Indirect Participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.

Part 3

General Provisions

3.1Congressional Oversight. The duties and responsibilities of the Director of Central Intelligence and the heads of other departments, agencies, and entities engaged in intelligence activities to cooperate with the Congress in the conduct of its responsibilities for oversight of intelligence activities shall be as provided in title 50, United States Code, section 413. The requirements of section 662 of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended (22 U.S.C. 2422), and section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended (50 U.S.C. 413), shall apply to all special activities as defined in this Order.

3.2Implementation. The NSC, the Secretary of Defense, the Attorney General, and the Director of Central Intelligence shall issue such appropriate directives and procedures as are necessary to implement this Order. Heads of agencies within the Intelligence Community shall issue appropriate supplementary directives and procedures consistent with this Order. The Attorney General shall provide a statement of reasons for not approving any procedures established by the head of an agency in the Intelligence Community other than the FBI. The National Security Council may establish procedures in instances where the agency head and the Attorney General are unable to reach agreement on other than constitutional or other legal grounds.

3.3Procedures. Until the procedures required by this Order have been established, the activities herein authorized which require procedures shall be conducted in accordance with existing procedures or requirements established under Executive Order No. 12036. Procedures required by this Order shall be established as expeditiously as possible. All procedures promulgated pursuant to this Order shall be made available to the congressional intelligence committees.

3.4Definitions. For the purposes of this Order, the following terms shall have these meanings:
(a) Counterintelligence means information gathered and activities conducted to protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or assassinations conducted for or on behalf of foreign powers, organizations or persons, or international terrorist activities, but not including personnel, physical, document or communications security programs.
(b) Electronic surveillance means acquisition of a nonpublic communication by electronic means without the consent of a person who is a party to an electronic communication or, in the case of a nonelectronic communication, without the consent of a person who is visibly present at the place of communication, but not including the use of radio direction-finding equipment solely to determine the location of a transmitter.
(c) Employee means a person employed by, assigned to or acting for an agency within the Intelligence Community.
(d) Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities, intentions and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons, but not including counterintelligence except for information on international terrorist activities.
(e) Intelligence activities means all activities that agencies within the Intelligence Community are authorized to conduct pursuant to this Order.
(f) Intelligence Community and agencies within the Intelligence Community refer to the following agencies or organizations:
(1) The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA);
(2) The National Security Agency (NSA);
(3) The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA);
(4) The offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance programs;
(5) The Bureau of Intelligence and Research of the Department of State;
(6) The intelligence elements of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of Energy; and
(7) The staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence.
(g) The National Foreign Intelligence Program includes the programs listed below, but its composition shall be subject to review by the National Security Council and modification by the President:
(1) The programs of the CIA;
(2) The Consolidated Cryptologic Program, the General Defense Intelligence Program, and the programs of the offices within the Department of Defense for the collection of specialized national foreign intelligence through reconnaissance, except such elements as the Director of Central Intelligence and the Secretary of Defense agree should be excluded;
(3) Other programs of agencies within the Intelligence Community designated jointly by the Director of Central Intelligence and the head of the department or by the President as national foreign intelligence or counterintelligence activities;
(4) Activities of the staff elements of the Director of Central Intelligence;
(5) Activities to acquire the intelligence required for the planning and conduct of tactical operations by the United States military forces are not included in the National Foreign Intelligence Program.
(h) Special activities means activities conducted in support of national foreign policy objectives abroad which are planned and executed so that the role of the United States Government is not apparent or acknowledged publicly, and functions in support of such activities, but which are not intended to influence United States political processes, public opinion, policies, or media and do not include diplomatic activities or the collection and production of intelligence or related support functions.
(i) United States person means a United States citizen, an alien known by the intelligence agency concerned to be a permanent resident alien, an unincorporated association substantially composed of United States citizens or permanent resident aliens, or a corporation incorporated in the United States, except for a corporation directed and controlled by a foreign government or governments.

3.5Purpose and Effect. This Order is intended to control and provide direction and guidance to the Intelligence Community. Nothing contained herein or in any procedures promulgated hereunder is intended to confer any substantive or procedural right or privilege on any person or organization.

3.6Revocation. Executive Order No. 12036 of January 24, 1978, as amended, entitled “United States Intelligence Activities,” is revoked.


1Editorial note: The correct citation is (87 Stat. 555).

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html

 

Story 2: -Soros’ and Obama’s  Seditious and Subversive War On Trump With  Organizing For Action Applying Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals — Videos

Judge Nap: If Obama Wiretapped Trump, It Would ‘Destroy Whatever Legacy’ He Has

SARA CARTER VS SEAN HANNITY (3/8/2017)

Laura Ingraham: New WikiLeaks Release Could Be ‘Really Damning’ For CIA

IS THIS THE END OF BARACK OBAMA? More proofs of illegal acts during Barack Obama’s administration

Gingrich talks ‘deep state’ bureaucrats’ attacks on Trump

On the Russia Lunacy & Wikileaks BOMBSHELL Leak of CIA Hacking Force

‘Everyday, a new piece falls into place’׃ Maddow spells out the Trump Russia connection 2

Former DOJ Lawyer: Lynch, Comey Could Have ‘Intimate Knowledge’ of Alleged Wiretapping

REAKING NEWS 03⁄08⁄2017 TRUMP: OBAMA “WEAK”

BREAKING NEWS March 8, 2017 WAR IN WHITE HOUSE, TRUMP vs OBAMA

ORGANIZING FOR ACTION OBAMA TEAM OF 80,000 PROTESTERS NATIONWIDE

Organizing for Action fights President Trump’s policies

Political Group “Organizing for Action” Relaunches For Trump Era

How Obama is Scheming to Sabotage Trump’s Presidency

Lou Dobbs: Obama Looking Very Close To Sedition

Monica Crowley: What happened to me was a political hit job

Tomi Lahren, Jessica Tarlov on attacks against the Trumps

Tomi Lahren – So you want me fired – Final Thoughts With Tomi Lahren

Tomi Lahren – Tantrums Against Trump (Final Thoughts)

Not My President’s Day Protests – Tomi Lahren Final Thoughts – The Blaze

Hannity With 3 Special Guest Uncover Obama’s Sedition Against The Republic For Which WE STAND!

HANNITY 3/7/17 – Ingraham – Crowley, ‘Deep State Plan to Imprison Trump.’

EXPOSED: Trump National Security Pick Monica Crowley Plagiarizes Book, Rewarded Title By President

Trump pick Monica Crowley has a plagiarism problem Viral news US

Lou Dobbs : Paul Sperry – Obama’s ‘shadow government’ is organizing to sabotage Trump : 2/15/2017

BREAKING Obama’s Plan to SABOTAGE Trump’s Presidency EXPOSED No Former President Has Ever Done This

Billionaire Soros linked to anti-Trump protests – WikiLeaks

Personal attacks on President Trump

Obama Moves to Bunker & Prepares To ‘Fight Trump’—30,000 Man Activist Army READY At His COMMAND

What is Organizing for Action?

Obama’s Organizing for Action Partners with Soros-Linked ‘Indivisible’ to Disrupt Trump’s Agenda

Organizing for Action, the activist group that morphed from Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign, has partnered with the newly-formed Indivisible Project for “online trainings” on how to protest President Donald Trump’s agenda.

Last week, Breitbart News extensively reported that Indivisible leaders are openly associated with groups financed by billionaire George Soros.

Politico earlier this month profiled Indivisible in an article titled, “Inside the protest movement that has Republicans reeling.”  The news agency not only left out the Soros links, but failed to note that the organizations cited in its article as helping to amplify Indivisible’s message are either financed directly by Soros or have close ties to groups funded by the billionaire, as Breitbart News documented.

Organizing for Action (OFA) is a so-called community organizing project that sprung from Obama’s 2012 campaign organization, Organizing for America, becoming a nonprofit described by the Washington Post as “advocate[ing] for the president’s policies.”

In a recent Facebook post titled, “Take a deep breath. Then take action,” OFA called on constituents to lobby particularly hard between now and February 26, when lawmakers will be in their home districts.

The post included a link to a guide released by Indivisible on how to organize against Trump. “Stay tuned for online trainings and invitations to calls with coalition partners like Indivisible Guide,” the OFA post states.

Paul Sperry, writing at the New York Post, relates:

The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

“Express your concern [to the event’s hosts] they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption,” it says.

…“Even the safest [Republican] will be deeply alarmed by signs of organized opposition,” the document states, “because these actions create the impression that they’re not connected to their district and not listening to their constituents.”

Sperry reported OFA “plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump and Republicans over ObamaCare’s repeal.”

Earlier this month, NBC News reported on OFA’s new actions and its partnership with Indivisible:

OFA has hired 14 field organizers in states home to key senators as part of its campaign to defend Obama’s signature healthcare law. To run that campaign, the group hired Saumya Narechania — the former national field director at Enroll America, which worked to sign people up for Obamacare — and a deputy campaign manager.

…OFA says more than 1,800 people have applied to its Spring Community Engagement Fellowship, a six-week training program, two-thirds of whom have not previously been involved with OFA.

And the group has teamed up with Indivisible, a buzzy newcomer to the progressive movement, to offer organizing training that began Thursday night with a video conference. A combined 25,000 people have registered to participate in those trainings, OFA said.

Indivisible’s DC branch was implicated in a scuffle last week that reportedly injured a 71-year-old staffer for Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) as well as reportedly knocking a 2-year-old to the ground.  Protesters claimed they were only delivering Valentine’s Day cards.

Indivisible is a part of a coalition of activist groups slated to hold a massive anti-Trump Tax March in Washington and at least 60 other locations on April 15.

Unreported by the news media is that most of the listed partners and support organizers of the march are openly financed by Soros or have close links to Soros financing, as Breitbart News documented last week.

Meanwhile, earlier this month, Politico profiled Indivisible and reported that “conservatives” are “spreading unfounded rumors” that the group is “being driven by wealthy donors like George Soros.”

Politico, however, seemingly failed to do even the most minimal research on the Indivisible leaders cited in the news outlet’s own profile.  Some of those personalities are openly associated with groups financed by Soros.

Politico further failed to note that the organizations cited in its article as helping to amplify Indivisible’s message are either financed directly by Soros or have close ties to groups funded by the billionaire.

Citing Angel Padilla, a co-founder of the group, Politico reported:

Dubbed “Indivisible,” the group launched as a way for Padilla and a handful of fellow ex-Democratic aides to channel their post-election heartbreak into a manual for quashing President Donald Trump’s agenda. They drafted a 26-page protest guide for activists, full of pointers on how to bird dog their members of Congress in the language of Capitol insiders.

The manual has since been downloaded over one million times. Indivisible says on its website that over 4,500 local groups across the nation have “signed up to resist the Trump agenda in nearly every congressional district in the country.”

The manual has been utilized to form the basis of a protest movement. The group’s website states: “What’s more, you all are putting the guide into action—showing up en masse to congressional district offices and events, and flooding the congressional phone lines. You’re resisting—and it’s working.”

Politico reported on “unfounded” rumors being spread about Soros’s involvement with Indivisible (emphasis added by this reporter):

Its handful of senior leaders count about 100 contributors to their national organizing work but insist that all are working on a volunteer basis. They know conservatives are spreading unfounded rumors that their success is being driven by wealthy donors like George Soros, which they flatly deny.

That paragraph was followed by the following quote from co-founder Padilla (emphasis again added by this reporter):

“It doesn’t matter who we take money from — we’re always going to get blamed as a Soros group, even if we don’t take money from Soros,” said Padilla, now an analyst with the National Immigration Law Center. “That’s one of the attacks and that’s fine.”

While “Indivisible” has yet to disclose its donors, Politico failed to inform readers that the National Immigration Law Center where the news outlet reported Padilla serves as an analyst is financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations. The Center has received numerous Open Society grants earmarked for general support.

Also unmentioned by Politico is that Padilla previously served as an immigration policy consultant at the radical National Council of La Raza. Soros is a major La Raza donor.

Politico went on to detail how Indivisible has been aided by MoveOn.org and the ACLU.  The news website failed to tell readers that MoveOn.org and the ACLU are both financed by Soros, a relevant tidbit given Politico’s claim about “unfounded rumors” that Indivisibles’ success was being driven by Soros . 

The news website reported:

In addition, MoveOn.org and the Working Families Party joined with Indivisible for its first nationwide call on Jan. 22. Nearly 60,000 people phoned in that day, according to Levin and MoveOn organizing director Victoria Kaplan. Indivisible estimates that its second national call, on the impact of Trump’s immigration order with assistance from the ACLU and Padilla’s group, drew 35,000 people.

Politico also missed that, according to its Twitter account, another organizer of the conference call with MoveOn.org was the International Refugee Assistance Project, a project of the Urban Justice Center, another recipient of an Open Society grant.

Taryn Higashi, executive director of the Center’s International Refugee Assistance Project, currently serves on the Advisory Board of the International Migration Initiative of Soros’s Open Society Foundations.

Politico further reported on Indivisible’s ties to the organizers of last month’s anti-Trump Women’s March while failing to mention that Soros reportedly has ties to more than 50 “partners” of that march. Also, this journalist first reported on the march leaders’ own close associations with Soros.

Regarding Indivisible and the Women’s March, Politico reported:

Indivisible is also embracing collaboration with other major anti-Trump protest outlets. Leaders of the group were in communication with Women’s March organizers before their main event on Jan. 21, and that partnership will become official when the March unveils the third in its series of 10 direct actions that attendees have been asked to pursue in their communities.

Another Indivisible leader mentioned in the Politico article is Jeremy Haile. Not reported by Politico is that is Haile served as federal advocacy counsel for the Sentencing Project.  The Sentencing Project is reportedly financed by Soros’s Open Society Foundations, which has also hosted the Project to promote its cause.

Aaron Klein is Breitbart’s Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” Follow him on Twitter @AaronKleinShow. Follow him on Facebook.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/02/19/obamas-organizing-action-partners-soros-linked-indivisible-disrupt-trumps-agenda/

Obama-linked activists have a ‘training manual’ for protesting Trump

An Obama-tied activist group training tens of thousands of agitators to protest President Trump’s policies plans to hit Republican lawmakers supporting those policies even harder this week, when they return home for the congressional recess and hold town hall meetings and other functions.

Organizing for Action, a group founded by former President Barack Obama and featured prominently on his new post-presidency website, is distributing a training manual to anti-Trump activists that advises them to bully GOP lawmakers into backing off support for repealing ObamaCare, curbing immigration from high-risk Islamic nations and building a border wall.

In a new Facebook post, OFA calls on activists to mobilize against Republicans from now until Feb. 26, when “representatives are going to be in their home districts.”

The protesters disrupted town halls earlier this month, including one held in Utah by House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, who was confronted by hundreds of angry demonstrators claiming to be his constituents.

The manual, published with OFA partner “Indivisible,” advises protesters to go into halls quietly so as not to raise alarms, and “grab seats at the front of the room but do not all sit together.” Rather, spread out in pairs to make it seem like the whole room opposes the Republican host’s positions. “This will help reinforce the impression of broad consensus.” It also urges them to ask “hostile” questions — while keeping “a firm hold on the mic” — and loudly boo the GOP politician if he isn’t “giving you real answers.”

“Express your concern [to the event’s hosts] they are giving a platform to pro-Trump authoritarianism, racism, and corruption,” it says.

The goal is to make Republicans, even from safe districts, second-guess their support for the Trump agenda, and to prime “the ground for the 2018 midterms when Democrats retake power.”

The goal is to make Republicans, even from safe districts, second-guess their support for the Trump agenda.

“Even the safest [Republican] will be deeply alarmed by signs of organized opposition,” the document states, “because these actions create the impression that they’re not connected to their district and not listening to their constituents.”

After the event, protesters are advised to feed video footage to local and national media.

“Unfavorable exchanges caught on video can be devastating” for Republican lawmakers, it says, when “shared through social media and picked up by local and national media.” After protesters gave MSNBC, CNN and the networks footage of their dust-up with Chaffetz, for example, the outlets ran them continuously, forcing Chaffetz to issue statements defending himself.

The manual also advises protesters to flood “Trump-friendly” lawmakers’ Hill offices with angry phone calls and emails demanding the resignation of top White House adviser Steve Bannon.

A script advises callers to complain: “I’m honestly scared that a known racist and anti-Semite will be working just feet from the Oval Office … It is everyone’s business if a man who promoted white supremacy is serving as an adviser to the president.”

The document provides no evidence to support such accusations.

Protesters, who may or may not be affiliated with OFA, are also storming district offices. Last week, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher blamed a “mob” of anti-Trump activists for knocking unconscious a 71-year-old female staffer at his Southern California office. A video of the incident, showing a small crowd around an opening door, was less conclusive.

Separately, OFA, which is run by ex-Obama officials and staffers, plans to stage 400 rallies across 42 states this year to attack Trump and Republicans over ObamaCare’s repeal.

“This is a fight we can win,” OFA recently told its foot soldiers. “They’re starting to waver.”

On Thursday, Trump insisted he’s moving ahead with plans to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, which has ballooned health insurance premiums and deductibles. “ObamaCare is a disaster, folks,” he said, adding that activists protesting its repeal are hijacking GOP town halls and other events.

“They fill up our rallies with people that you wonder how they get there,” the president said. “But they’re not the Republican people that our representatives are representing.”

As The Post reported, OFA boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and more than 32,000 organizers, with another 25,000 actively under training. Since November, it’s beefed up staff and fundraising, though as a “social welfare” nonprofit, it does not have to reveal its donors.

These aren’t typical Black Lives Matter or Occupy Wall Street marchers, but rather professionally trained organizers who go through a six-week training program similar to the training — steeped in Alinsky agitation tactics — Obama received in Chicago when he was a community organizer.

Chicago socialist Saul Alinsky, known by the left as “the father of community organizing,” taught radicals to “rub raw the sores of discontent” and create the conditions for a “revolution.” He dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals,” to “Lucifer.” Michelle Obama quoted from the book when she helped launch OFA in 2013.

Obama appears to be behind the anti-Trump protests. He praised recent demonstrations against Trump’s travel ban. And last year, after Trump’s upset victory, he personally rallied OFA troops to “protect” his legacy in a conference call. “Now is the time for some organizing,” he said. “So don’t mope” over the election results.

He promised OFA activists he would soon join them in the fray.

“Understand that I’m going to be constrained in what I do with all of you until I am again a private citizen, but that’s not so far off,” he said. “You’re going to see me early next year, and we’re going to be in a position where we can start cooking up all kinds of great stuff.”

Added the ex-president: “I promise you that next year Michelle and I are going to be right there with you, and the clouds are going to start parting, and we’re going to be busy. I’ve got all kinds of thoughts and ideas about it, but this isn’t the best time to share them.

“Point is, I’m still fired up and ready to go, and I hope that all of you are, as well.”

http://nypost.com/2017/02/18/obama-linked-activists-have-a-training-manual-for-protesting-trump/

Obama’s Shadow Government Is Organizing To Undermine Trump

The leaks that led to Michael Flynn’s resignation are just the beginning. Obama and his loyalists in and outside government are working to undermine Trump.

By John Daniel Davidson

Once out of office, ex-presidents usually fade into private life and stay out of politics. They write memoirs, serve on corporate boards, and start charitable foundations. George W. Bush retired to his ranch in Texas and, most recently, painted portraits of veterans wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bill Clinton was briefly thrust back into politics during Hillary’s two failed presidential campaigns, but most of his post-White House career consisted of flying around the world raising boatloads of money for his family’s now-defunct charity.

There are exceptions, of course. Jimmy Carter threw himself into international diplomacy, mediating an agreement in 1994 to return exiled President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power in Haiti, and generally agitating for a Palestinian state.

Then there is Obama. Less than a month out of office, the broad contours of Obama’s post-presidency career are already taking shape. Obama and his loyalists, it seems, will remain in the center of the political fray, officially and unofficially, in an organized effort to undermine the Trump administration.

The bizarre scandal now unfolding over the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn is a case in point. Flynn’s resignation was prompted by a series of coordinated and anonymous leaks from current and former Obama administration officials in our domestic intelligence agencies.

Regardless of any valid criticism of Flynn, the leaks are part of a larger, loosely organized effort now underway to preserve Obama’s legacy. This effort involves Obama-era officials still inside the federal government, former Obama staffers working in the private sector, and Obama himself.

This isn’t some conspiracy theory. After the election, Obama indicated he intends to stay involved in the political fray. In an email to his supporters on his last day in office, Obama encouraged them to stay engaged, promising “I’ll be right there with you every step of the way.” Less than two weeks later, he issued a statement saying he was “heartened” by anti-Trump protests over the executive order on immigration.

Obama Is Jumping Back Into The Political Fray

But there’s more to all this than Obama issuing solidarity statements to Trump protestors. For one thing, the former president isn’t moving back to Chicago. The Obama family will remain in Washington DC, within a couple miles of the White House, for the next two years as Obama’s youngest daughter finishes high school.

From there, Obama will help direct his new foundation, which he has said will be a “startup for citizenship.” That could mean a lot things, but in light of his other plans it suggests the Obama Foundation will be a political grassroots organization designed to mobilize progressive activists.

Obama has also announced he’ll be working with former Attorney General Eric Holder on a political action group called the National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Its goal is to get Democrats elected at the state and local level ahead of the next redrawing of congressional districts. Last month, Obama reportedly met with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe to strategize about redistricting.

In addition to these pursuits, the former president will likely play a prominent role in a network of progressive nonprofits, most notably Organizing for Action, the political group that grew out of Obama’s first campaign. OFA has kept a low profile in recent years, and if Clinton had won it likely would have shut down.

But last week, OFA officials told NBC News the organization was ramping up operations nationwide in an effort to preserve Obama’s signature achievements like the Affordable Care Act. As part of that effort, the group recently hired 14 field organizers in key states, adding to a growing infrastructure that boasts more than 250 offices nationwide and more than 32,000 volunteers.

Former Obama Staffers Are Speaking Out

Obama of course isn’t alone in all this. Trump’s victory has mobilized his top aides and staffers to take action, too. Former Obama staffer Tommy Vietor told the Daily Beast that, had Clinton won, “I would have been inclined to feel comfortable that Obama’s legacy and the things we worked on were safe.”

Instead, Vietor, along with former Obama administration staffers Jon Favreau and Jon Lovett, are launching a new podcast, Pod Save America, under their new joint media venture, Crooked Media.

The purpose of the company should be fairly obvious. “In the battle between Donald Trump and the media, we are firmly on the side of the media,” Favreau told the Daily Beast, adding that he’s not interested in “the veneer of objectivity.” “We’re always going to be Obama guys, we’re very open and honest about that.”

Favreau has also been helping create Obama’s new foundation, whose mission, he says, “is to get people involved in civic life and get people engaged in politics.” Of Crooked Media, Favreau says, “I think we would very much like to be the media company version of that. So it’s certainly inspired by a lot of what Obama has talked about in terms of the media over the last several months.”

A host of other former Obama staffers have simply taken to social media to voice their opposition to Trump. One former senior administration official told Yahoo News, “There are more than a few of us who believe deeply in holding this administration’s feet to the fire—especially when they offer falsehoods to the American people and distort our record. We have an email chain going where we share impressions, etc.”

As the leaks keep flowing from our intelligence agencies and the tweets keep flying from former Obama officials, keep in mind that although we haven’t heard much from Obama himself yet, the Trump administration is going to keep feeling the disruptions of what amounts to a shadow government.

Obama had eight years in the White House to secure his legacy. Any efforts on his part to undermine his successor aren’t just an affront to the principles of our democracy, they’re an admission that he and his acolytes never put much stock in democracy to begin with.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/02/16/obamas-shadow-government-organizing-undermine-trump/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-854

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 782, October 24, 2016: Breaking News — Story 1: Project Veritas Video 3 — Hillary Clinton Wants Trump Ducks On The Ground Following Trump Around Nationally — Duck Call and Message — Coordinating DNC and Superpacs — Breaking Federal Election Laws — Hiring People To Commit Voter Fraud! — Dodge Deflect Deceive Divert Duck Damaging Do Do — Videos — Story 2: George Soros and Hillary Clinton Agree On Open Borders — United Nations All-In For Unlimited Mass Migration — Videos

Posted on October 24, 2016. Filed under: American History, Banking System, Blogroll, Breaking News, British Pound, Budgetary Policy, Business, Coal, Constitutional Law, Countries, Currencies, Diet, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Energy, Environment, Eugenics, Euro, European Union, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Food, Food, Foreign Policy, France, Free Trade, Germany, Government, Great Britain, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, Hillary Clinton, History, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iraq, Islamic Republic of Iran, Islamic State, Israel, Italy, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Libya, Life, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Netherlands, Nuclear, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Success, Syria, Tax Policy, Taxation, Trade Policy, U.S. Dollar, United States of America | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 782: October 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 781: October 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 780: October 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 779: October 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 778: October 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 777: October 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 776: October 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 775: October 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 774: October 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 773: October 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 772: October 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 771: October 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 770: October 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 769: October 5, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 768: October 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 767: September 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 766: September 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 765: September 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 764: September 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 763: September 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 762: September 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 761: September 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 760: September 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 759: September 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 758: September 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Image result for project varitasImage result for project varitas

Image result for project varitas

Image result for project varitas

Image result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for donal ducks in may 2016 At Trump event

Image result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for trump ducksImage result for trump supporters attackedImage result for trump supporters attackedImage result for trump supporters attackedImage result for trump supporters attackedImage result for trump ducks

Image result for trump supporters attacked

Image result for trump supporters attackedImage result for trump ducks at trump rally

Image result for trump ducks

 

Image result for trump ducks at trump rally

Image result for bill clinton with Hillary H button

 On the Record | Fox News | 10/24/16

Benson: Dem Operatives ‘Got Fired Awfully Quickly’ for Veritas Tape to be Edited

Rigging the Election – Video III: Creamer Confirms Hillary Clinton Was PERSONALLY Involved

Published on Oct 24, 2016

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.

First video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJG

Second video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8P

Are you kidding me! Hillary Clinton hires Donald Duck to erupt Donald Trump press conference!

Part III of the undercover Project Veritas Action investigation dives further into the back room dealings of Democratic politics. It exposes prohibited communications between Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the DNC and the non-profit organization Americans United for Change. And, it’s all disguised as a duck. In this video, several Project Veritas Action undercover journalists catch Democracy Partners founder directly implicating Hillary Clinton in FEC violations. “In the end, it was the candidate, Hillary Clinton, the future president of the United States, who wanted ducks on the ground,” says Creamer in one of several exchanges. “So, by God, we would get ducks on the ground.” It is made clear that high-level DNC operative Creamer realized that this direct coordination between Democracy Partners and the campaign would be damning when he said: “Don’t repeat that to anybody.” The first video explained the dark secrets and the hidden connections and organizations the Clinton campaign uses to incite violence at Trump rallies. The second video exposed a diabolical step-by-step voter fraud strategy discussed by top Democratic operatives and showed one key operative admitting that the Democrats have been rigging elections for fifty years. This latest video takes this investigation even further.
Project Veritas Action Founder James O’Keefe brings you more Hillary shockers.

Impact of Project Veritas videos on the 2016 election

Top Clinton Strategist Discusses Project Veritas Action Videos With George Stephanopoulos

George Stephanopoulos and Eric Trump Discuss Project Veritas Action Videos

Anderson Cooper Calls Project Veritas Action Videos “Damning”

Bob Woodward on the Clinton Foundation: ‘It’s Corrupt’

BREAKING: HILLARY IS DISQUALIFIED! NEW UNDERCOVER VERITAS VIDEO CONVICTS HER OF GROSS FEDERAL CRIMES

BREAKING: HILLARY IS GOING DOWN!

O’KEEFE JUST FILED SUIT AGAINST CLINTON AND THE DNC

WIKILEAKS JUST ASSASSINATED HILLARY: TREASON REVEALED AFTER ONE NATION DONATED HUGE TO THE CLINTONS

WikiLeaks Reveals How Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Coordinates With Super PACs

Wikileaks emails prove illegal coordination between Clinton and her Super PACs

More Truth About The Hillary Clinton Wikileaks Scandal

Fact-Checking Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Debate Lies

Trey Gowdy On Hillary’s Treason Email Scandal ‘be in jail’

White House Responds to Project Veritas Action Videos

Judge Jeanine Pirro Goes Off on Project Veritas Video Democrats Inciting Violence at Trump Rally

Donald Trump Mentions Project Veritas Action Videos at Third Presidential Debate

Rigging the Election – Video I: Clinton Campaign and DNC Incite Violence at Trump Rallies

Rigging the Election – Video II: Mass Voter Fraud

Wikileaks: Hillary Plans To Implode US Economy

New Wikileaks Confirm Media Rigging Polls For Hillary

Trump Is Leading Hillary In New Polls And New Wikileaks – The Kelly File (FULL SHOW 10/21/2016)

HILLARY WIKILEAKS: Top 10 You Must Know

NEW WIKILEAKS Revelations DEADLY For Hillary Clinton – Hannity (FULL SHOW 10/14/2016)

O’KEEFE COMPLAINT TO FEC CITES DEMS’ ‘CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY’

Vote fraud, Trump-rally anarchy linked to Clinton campaign

Citing a Democratic operative’s confirmation of a chain of command that runs directly from Hillary Clinton’s campaign to agents who “execute … on the ground,” the activists at Project Veritas are asking the Federal Election Commission to investigate a “criminal conspiracy.’

The filing of the complaint with the federal agency follows the release earlier this week of two videos in which Democrats explain how they can attempt to change the outcome of the election through apparently fraudulent means, such as having people travel across state lines to vote illegally.

The complaint follows the filing of a another complaint with the FEC, by the Public Interest Legal Foundation, a nonprofit organization “dedicated to protect the right to vote, preserve the constitutional framework of American elections, and educate the public on the issue of election integrity.”

Both cite the evidence in the videos released by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.

The videos have resulted already in two Democratic operatives who appeared on them losing their jobs.

Editor’s Note: Be aware of offensive language throughout videos and in quotes from videos.

One is Scott Foval, who had worked for People for the American Way, a George Soros-funded group, and more recently with Americans United for Change.

In the video, he said: “You know what? We’ve been busing people in to deal with you f—ing a—–es for 50 years, and we’re not going to stop now.”

Also, he said he and his agents are “starting anarchy” by creating “conflict engagement … in the lines at Trump rallies.”

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

Also now out of work is Bob Creamer, founder and partner of Democracy Partners, and husband of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill.

Foval credited Creamer with coming up with a number of ideas and strategies to enhance Democrats’ standing among voters.

The new complaint from O’Keefe’s organization explained his journalists “have uncovered a criminal conspiracy where, in the words of Scott Foval, ‘The way that works is: The [Clinton] campaign pays DNC, DNC pays Democracy Partners, Democracy Partners pays The Foval Group, The Foval group goes and executes … on the ground.’

The complaint states: “This has been done in a manner to evade federal election laws and violating coordinated expenditure rules.”

It is supplemented with pages of evidence.

“The criminal conspiracy involves the knowing and willful creation of coordinated expenditures from prohibited corporate sources. As is detailed numerous times in the Veritas transcript, attached as EXHIBIT A, the supposedly independent speech and actions of third-party groups were directed, controlled, or puppeteered by HFA or the DNC.

“Indeed, the record establishes not just simple violations of the FECA’s coordination provisions, but ongoing knowing and willful evasion of federal election law requirements through a complicated scheme. Because this conspiracy involves large numbers of employees, heightened travel, production, and distribution costs and because of the nationwide scale of the operation, upon information and belief, this triggers criminal penalties.”

One result of the six-month undercover investigation is that “the supposedly spontaneous and independent protests occurring at Donald Trump events nationwide were controlled and directed by Democratic Party operatives.”

“The commission should find reason to believe that Hillary for America and other named respondents have violated 52 U.S.C. [paragraph] 30101, et seq, and conduct an immediate investigation,” the complaint explains. “Because of the weighty public interest at stake here, it should do so within 120 days of the filing of this complaint … the complainants request that the FEC impose sanctions appropriate to these violations and take further action as may be appropriate, including referring the matter to the Department of Justice for a criminal investigation.”

Foval explains the subterfuge.

“We can hire any demo that we want. We use the same mechanism to recruit them that we do to make focus groups. … We have to be really careful. Um, because, what we don’t need is for it to show up on CNN that the DNC paid ‘x’ people to … that’s not gonna happen. We need to keep it, you know, I hate to use the Beyonce term, ‘partition,’ but we need to keep the partition. That’s as gay as I’ll get.”

The previous complaint from PILF was over the same events.

Sign the precedent-setting petition supporting Trump’s call for an independent prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton!

When the videos appeared, former House Speak Newt Gingrich also raised questions about the apparent disdain for the law.

“Where is the FBI, why is the FBI not investigating this?” the former House speaker asked during an appearance on Fox News on Tuesday, BizPacReview reported. “You have a deliberate willful effort to foment violence, to break up a presidential campaign [and] to intimidate voters.”

The PILF complaint, directed to the office of the general counsel for the FEC in Washington, names Hillary for America, the DNC, Democracy Partners, Americans United for Change and others.

“This complaint is based on information and belief that respondents have engaged in public communications, campaign activity, targeted voter registration drives, and other targeted GOTV activity … at the request, direction, and approval of the Hillary for America campaign committee and the Democratic National committee in violation of 11 C.F.R. 109.20 and 11 C.F.R. 114.4(d)(2) and (3).”

The activities, the complaint says, “potentially registered persons who were not citizens.” They also illegally coordinated political maneuvers between a candidate’s committee and groups that are supposed to be operating independently, the complaint charges.

That puts them in violation of Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, the complaint contends.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, said on Twitter, according to the Washington Examiner, that multiple visits to the White House by a “voter fraud operative” merits “a serious criminal investigation.”

Talk-radio icon Rush Limbaugh said the evidence is worrisome.

“Every Trump rally would feature none of this [violence] unless the Democrats were paying for it. I think it’s a big deal, folks. The media is complicit. They know who these people are. … They’re in on it. They’re part of the game. … None of it’s organic. None of it’s natural. None of it’s real. Every bit of it is bought and paid for.

“[Democrats] can’t leave elections to chance because they know that, despite the way it may look, the majority of Americans would not support them if they knew who they are.”

Foval said he works backward in his thinking. He first speculates how a charge of voter fraud could be proven, and then he manipulates circumstances and events to avoid those tactics.

He talked about bringing voters from one state to another to vote illegally.

Hiring a bus could be used as evidence of conspiracy, he noted, so people would need to drive their own cars, or better yet, rentals.

There also was a discussion about using local addresses for illegal voters.

He said what needs to happen is to “implement the plan on a much bigger scale.”

“You implement a massive change in state legislatures and in Congress. So you aim higher for your goals, and you implement it across every Republican-held state.”

In Monday’s video, Creamer confirmed, “The campaign is fully in it.”

Project Veritas says the actions are “behind-the-scenes shady practices with consequences most Americans have seen on national television at Donald Trump campaign rallies across the country.”

“What the media hasn’t reported is that the Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee has been directing these activities with, at very best, a very thin veil of plausible deniability.”

Commented Foval at one point, “I’m saying we have mentally ill people, that we pay to do s—, make no mistake. Over the last 20 years, I’ve paid off a few homeless guys to do some crazy stuff, and I’ve also taken them for dinner, and I’ve also made sure they had a hotel, and a shower. And I put them in a program. Like I’ve done that. But the reality is, a lot of people especially our union guys. A lot of our union guys … they’ll do whatever you want. They’re rock and roll. When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, ‘What do you need?’ And I will say, ‘I need a guy who will do this, this and this.’ And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, ‘Hell yeah, let’s do it.’”

Last week, O’Keefe reported his Twitter account was shut down as he was releasing reports on voter fraud.

In one video he released last week, a Clinton staffer confessed that ripping up voter registration forms – if they are for Republicans – is “fine.”

The video also revealed a sexist atmosphere inside the Clinton campaign in which another staffer boasts he would probably have to “grab a–” twice before he’d even be reprimanded. It underscores the double standard by Democrats who have been critical of the 11-year-old recording of Donald Trump making lewd remarks about women.

In the video, both Wylie Mao, a field organizer for the Clinton campaign and the Democratic Party of Florida in West Palm Beach, and Trevor Lafauci, a Clinton campaign staffer, agree that ripping up registration forms from Republicans should be “fine.”

“If I rip up completed VR forms, like 20 of them, I think I’ll just get reprimanded. I don’t think I would get fired,” Mao said.

Lafauci, after being told that someone else ripped up Republican registration forms, said, “Yeah, that should be fine.”

When Project Veritas journalists confronted both Mao and Lafauci about the comments they made on camera, they “refused to answer and walked away,” the organization said.

O’Keefe previously released an undercover video of Alan Schulkin, the New York Democratic commissioner of the Board of Elections, confirming there is widespread fraud.

In the video, he is heard disclosing that organizers use buses to haul people from poll to poll to vote.

“Yeah, they should ask for your ID. I think there is a lot of voter fraud,” he said in the video, which was recorded some months ago.
 http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/okeefe-complaint-to-fec-cites-dems-criminal-conspiracy/#y15gwzlJcyR5tBzu.99

 

Story 2: George Soros and  Hillary Clinton  Agree On Open Borders —  United Nations All-In For Unlimited Mass Migration — Videos

Fox News Exposes George Soros, Open Society Foundation & Hillary Clinton Relations!

George Soros, the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton

Wikileaks: George Soros To Be Shadow President Of USA

Europe: Who benefits from Muslim mass migration? Only the elite Left

5 immigration myths debunked in (just over) 5 minutes

Australia’s zero tolerance of migrants: A lesson for Italy

Top UN official says mass migration ‘unavoidable reality’

UN-led Mass Migration Destroying U.S. Nationhood

EUROPE ILLEGAL MIGRANT CRISIS – The Truth & Agenda Exposed

Something You’ve Never Seen Is Happening in Europe!! | ‘Migrant Crisis’ | ‘WW3’ | ‘Donald Trump’

Migrants Attack 60 Minutes Crew In Sweden.

Sweden…… (MUST SEE)

[yotuube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olH1qXW2w4M]

Sweden has died. Do not allow your country to be next….

Immigrant rape statistics in Sweden

Hungary – Defending Europe’s Borders

Visegrad Alliance – Central Europe Rises

Tribute to the Visegrad Four countries: Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. Often in the West we hear of “Europeans values”, “Western values”. Those values that are touted as “European” and “Western” by Leftist are anything but. The value of self-hate is a value of the far-left imposed on Europe over the last half-century. Those aren’t our real European values nor representative of our ancient cultures. It is manipulation and deceit to say they are.

Hungarian PM: Mass Migration a Plot to Destroy Christian West

The New Urban Agenda

Agenda 21 – Replacement Migration – United Nations

How the World Will Know if the New Urban Agenda Is Successful

George Soros Owns Hillary Clinton: Why We Need Trump (FULL SHOW)

Hillary Clinton embraces George Soros’ ‘radical’ vision of open-border world

– The Washington Times

Hillary Clinton has aligned herself closely with a vision for America laid out by her benefactor — left-wing financier George Soros, who talks of “international governance,” more open borders, increased Muslim immigration and diminished U.S. global power.

The phrase “American exceptionalism” is not part of his agenda. He wrote in 1998: “The sovereignty of states must be subordinated to international law and international institutions.”

“We need some global system of political decision-making. In short, we need a global society to support our global economy,” Mr. Soros wrote.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda attacks on New York City and the Pentagon, he said, “Military power is of limited use in dealing with asymmetric threats such as terrorism.”

The Clinton-Soros symbiosis came into clearer focus this month with WikiLeaks’ release of thousands of hacked emails from John Podesta, Mrs. Clinton’s campaign chairman. Mr. Soros‘ name comes up nearly 60 times.

 

The financial and ideological alliance is so complete that after Mr. Soros dined with Mrs. Clinton in 2014 and asked her to attend a liberal group’s fundraiser, her campaign manager, Robby Mook, wrote in an email, “I would only do this for political reasons (ie to make Soros happy).”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/20/hillary-clinton-embraces-george-soros-radical-visi/

 

Will Hillary explain her dream of ‘open borders’?

John Kass

John Kass Contact Reporter

Just as America was tossed — or did we eagerly jump — into the sexual political gutter with Bill and Hillary and Donald, there was other news breaking.At least I thought it was news. But I must warn you: Sex and sexual politics has nothing to do with it.

It’s Hillary Clinton‘s dream of an America without borders, as expressed to investors of a Brazilian bank, in comments leaked by WikiLeaks.

An America without borders, Hillary? How positively George Soros of you, Madam Secretary.

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that’s as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere,” Clinton reportedly said to investors in a paid speech she gave to Brazilian Banco Itau in 2013.

Here’s the thing about borders. If you don’t have borders, you don’t have a country. Americans are beginning to understand this. Europeans understand it now, quite clearly.

Clinton’s dream also includes a Western Hemispheric common market, like the European common market that is dissolving in chaos, fear and debt.

If that is indeed her dream, then she dreams the internationalist dream that would end America. But Americans aren’t talking about this, perhaps because there is no video involving sex and Hollywood and Trump.

I would love to hear Clinton’s explanation. Perhaps she could put it in some proper context.

Or perhaps she was merely telling the Brazilians something they wanted to hear, because they were paying her a good chunk of cash.

And if there is a way for America to maintain sovereignty without borders, Hillary might be just the one to tell us. But the Clinton campaign isn’t commenting. And reporters aren’t really pressing, preoccupied as they are by that vulgar video of a boorish Trump.

Clinton campaign spokesman Robby Mook was on one of the talk shows saying Clinton’s dreams of American open borders didn’t really mean open borders.

Mook said she meant open borders in the context of green energy for all.

Cool. But then what about her dreams of the hemispheric common market and all the people traveling to and fro across the Western Hemisphere?

So I’d like to hear Hillary Clinton tell it.

The way to deal with this would be for Clinton to release the transcripts of all her well-paid speeches, the ones to Wall Street and the one about border dreams to Banco Itau. That’s what Bernie Sanders wanted.

But that’s not happening, just like Donald Trump isn’t releasing his tax returns.

So the Clintonistas are blaming the Russians for the hacking.

It might also be true that if a hacker could hack into Clinton campaign emails, then a hacker might also have hacked into top secret emails she kept on her home brew server in violation of federal law when she was secretary of state.

But I won’t say anything, lest I be denounced as a Russian spy.

That WikiLeaks information was available just before the last Clinton-Trump debate. The moderators could have asked a question about it, but they chose not to.

They did ask about another drop from WikiLeaks, that of Clinton’s belief in holding one public position on policy for the public and another for private consideration by insiders.

Kind of like when she was secretary of state and telling America that the four dead Americans in Benghazi were killed by protesters angry about some video. And then telling her daughter and others, in private emails, that the four were killed in a terrorist attack.

In the debate, Clinton was asked if an official holding a private and a public position could be considered “two-faced.”

She said Abraham Lincoln did it. In a movie.

And now, rather than worry about divisive issues such as borders, we’re consumed by that vulgar Trump video.

Yet back when the Clintons held the White House, back when Bill used the cigar on that intern in the Oval Office, the political left protected him. And they defended Hillary for defending Bill, who had a habit of putting his hands on women when he held office.

Sex was a private matter then. It’s quite a public matter now. But then it was all a private matter, remember?

And so, after a brief bout of impeachment interruptus, the American political establishment welcomed Bill and Hillary back into the establishment fold, where wealth and near absolute power awaited them.

What’s laughable about all this is the Clintonista argument that to cleanse America of the stain of Trump, we must re-install Hillary and Bill back into the same White House that they soiled years ago.

I get all that.

Trump is a boor and Bill Clinton is a boor and Hillary is Hillary — either a loyal spouse or a cunning enabler. And politics is politics, so you’ll hate the one or forgive the other based on your preferences, or shout a pox upon them all.

But having an America with or without borders is also rather important, no?

And someone running for president might want to explain it all, in the proper context of course.

An America without borders? That’s not a dream, that’s a nightmare.

Ask the Europeans. They know.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-open-borders-kass-1012-20161011-column.html

WIKILEAKS RELEASE : Hillary Calls For The End of The U.S. and One “Hemispheric” Government

The most frightening thing about the recent Wikileaks drop, which included excerpts of Hillary’s paid Wall St. speeches is her excitement over ending the United States as we know it.

Hillary is an extreme globalist.

She not only embraces the globalist mentality but she actually wants to end the U.S. as we know it and replace it with a “Hemispheric Government.”

No wonder Angela Merkel is her “favorite leader.”

Hillary wants to turn the United States into Germany – or worse.

wikileaks

U.N. GOES ALL-IN FOR UNLIMITED MIGRATION

Hillary an enthusiastic supporter of globalist plan for U.S. cities

LEO HOHMANN

The United Nations has cooked up a “New Urban Agenda” coming soon to a city near you.

It was unveiled this week in Quito, Ecuador, at the so-called Habitat III conference.

And part of the plan, enthusiastically embraced by Hillary Clinton, calls for unlimited migration across open borders. Migrants displaced by war, failing economies or other hardships will be seen as having “rights” in nations other than their own. Cities are seen as the key battlegrounds and the U.N. conference in Quito had a lot to say about how your city will be expected to embrace migrants of all types, from all regions of the world.

By now most Americans who follow world events are familiar with the U.N’s plan for global governance as envisioned by its “2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development,” approved by some 190 world leaders including President Obama and Pope Francis in September 2015.

This agenda includes 17 goals aimed at ending hunger, wiping out poverty and stamping out global income inequality by “transforming our world” through sweeping changes ostensibly aimed at freeing cross-border “labor mobility,” among other things.

Hillary Clinton, anointed by Obama as his successor, said in a speech to Wall Street bankers she envisions the U.S. as part of a single “hemispheric common market with free trade and open borders,” according to WikiLeaks data dumps.

In another bombshell revealed by WikiLeaks, Mrs. Clinton told Goldman Sachs bankers that Americans who want to limit immigration are “fundamentally un-American.” She has also called for a 550-percent increase in the resettlement of Syrian refugees in America – that’s 550 percent more than Obama’s vastly increased level of more than 12,000 resettled in one year.

In short, Hillary’s agenda for cities sounds an awful lot like the U.N.’s agenda for cities as laid out in the New Urban Agenda document approved this week by world leaders in Quito.

“She’s totally in line with the U.N. agenda, on board with everything they do,” says economist Patrick Wood, author of “Technocracy Rising: The Trojan Horse of Global Transformation.”

Clinton earlier this year announced her $135 billion “breaking every barrier” program to transform America’s cities.

In this plan, she makes 37 pledges promising everything from removal of blight to construction of affordable housing in areas that are currently out of the price range of refugees, immigrants, the chronically unemployed and under-employed. She intends to build on the “successes” of her husband and the Obama administration in using public-private partnerships to transform cities. Obama’s contribution in this area included his Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing rule, which forces grant-receiving cities to infuse their low-crime suburban areas, deemed “too white,” with subsidized housing marketed to low-income renters.

This fits right in with the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

“She’s making a pre-announcement here that she’s going to follow the U.N. agenda,” Wood said. “She’s signaling to her fellow globalists that she’s 100 percent on board with their agenda.”

The problem that keeps globalists like Obama and Clinton up at night is how to implement the sweeping changes laid out in the U.N. 2030 Agenda last September at the global sustainability summit in New York.

That’s where Habitat III comes into play. It’s called the U.N. Conference on Housing and Sustainable Development or “Habitat III” for short. Its focus is on the world’s cities.

Largest U.N. conference ever

Habitat III was attended by a staggering 50,000 people including more than 200 mayors and another 140 city delegations

The sole purpose of this conference is to approve a 24-page document called the New Urban Agenda.

“The only purpose of the conference is to rubber stamp this document and elevate it and lift it up to the world,” said Wood. “And right now it looks like they are. Everybody. All the nations.”

In this document lies the globalists’ plans for cities. All cities. Big, small, even tiny cities. Every American who lives in a city will at some point see the fruits of the plan the U.N. has in store for the world, says Wood, an expert on global governance and the technocracy movement.

The Habitat conference convenes only once every 20 years but when it does, it leaves a trail of anti-capitalist, anti-liberty “global standards” in its wake, says Wood. These are the standards by which the U.N. wants each and every city in the world to be operated. They come packaged as “non-binding” and Congress never approves them.

Yet, somehow, the global standards coming out of the major U.N. conferences always seem to filter down to even the smallest American hamlet. How? Through federal grants. Any city that accepts federal grants will at some point be required to implement the practices that the U.N. has declared “sustainable.”

‘Inclusive’ by design, coercive by default

The buzzword in the New Urban Agenda is “inclusive” or “inclusivity.” This concept has a long history with global elites and technocrats.

The definition of “technocracy” as used by the original technocrats back 1938 was “the science of social engineering, the scientific operation of the entire social mechanism, to produce and distribute goods and services to the entire population.” That’s according to The Technocrat magazine.

“They use the word ‘entire’ twice in that definition so I’m really not surprised we see it showing up in these conferences today,” Wood said. “Their intent is to create a net that will catch 100 percent of the people.”

The word “inclusive” or “inclusivity” appear in the New Urban Agenda document no fewer than 36 times.

“There is no exclusion,” Wood says. “If you read the document, you’ll find for instance under item 6a, ‘transformative commitments,’ the statement starts out ‘leave no one behind.’”

That same phrase, leave no one behind, is in the U.N.’s 2030 Agenda.

“In fact just about everywhere you go now at the U.N. you’ll find this concept,” Wood said. “It’s a little disturbing.”

Wood says the U.N. is resurrecting an old concept that fizzled in the early days of the technocracy movement. Its time hadn’t arrived yet, back in the 1930s, but now things are different. The world is run by big data and the world is eager to embraced a set of globalized, one-world standards for everything, whether it be Common Core education standards, globalized police standards that Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced at the U.N. last fall in the form of the Strong Cities Network, or global standards for healthcare, ala Obamacare. You name it, the United Nations wants to standardize it.

The next big hurdle in the race to standardize the world is the issue of immigration.

Point 42 on page 7 of the New Urban Agenda talks about cities providing opportunities for dialogue, “paying particular attention to the potential contributions” of women and children, the elderly and disabled, “refugees and internally displaced persons and migrants, regardless of migration status, and without discrimination based on race, religion, ethnicity, or socio-economic status.”

Everyone is welcome

Wood notes that, in America, that would mean exactly what John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign manager, has already said — that anyone with a driver’s license should be allowed to vote.

“This is the way I read it,” he said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal, wanted or unwanted, jihadists or non-jihadists, sick or healthy. If they show up in your country, they must participate in the affairs of that country immediately, whatever country they find themselves in.”

The preamble to the New Urban Agenda says cities are the “key to tackling global challenges.”

“So these people are viewing cities as the key ingredient right now to implementing sustainable development, and they say this battle for sustainability will be won or lost in the cities.”

And the U.N. document goes on to state that this agenda is “the first step for operationalizing sustainable development in an integrated and coordinated way at the global, national, subnational, and local levels.”

In essence, it’s a roadmap to global governance where American cities will no longer get their direction from elected officials representing them on the city council, or even the state legislature, but the United Nations itself. The local councils will likely not even know that the rules they are following in order to qualify for federal grants are tied to United Nations’ standards for sustainability.

Cities committing to ‘a paradigm shift’

The document talks about cities committing to “a paradigm shift” in the way they “plan, develop and manage urban development.”

“It’s top to bottom,” Wood said. “They’re saying it’s going to be a top-down implementation. But for all the gains that sustainable development have made since 1992, there’s been a complaint that it hasn’t gone fast enough or far enough, and that it’s not inclusive enough, that some pockets have been left out. So, what they’re saying here is that this New Urban Agenda document is really, in their minds, the first step for operationalizing it. First step to making sustainable development completely operational. That’s huge.”

Wallace Henley, a journalist and former aide in the Nixon White House who went on to become a Christian pastor and who has written extensively on globalism, said the U.N. is making a full-on assault against the American system of government, which requires federalism, states’ rights and separation of powers.

“The U.N. is a glaring example of the inevitable course of bureaucracies. Like kudzu in Alabama, a tiny seed will inevitably spread until it controls the whole of a hillside,” Henley, author of “God and Churchhill,” told WND in an email.

And he, like Wood, sees Hillary Clinton in the thick of the battle, fighting on the side of the globalists, not America first.

“The leftist-progressive philosophy is the fertilizer. Agencies sprout and grow, and bring forth policy confabs like Habitat III. The conferences then produce white papers that ultimately become the source of policies,” he said. “It is a leftist-progressivist dream.”

“Sustainability” is a code word for regulatory authority, Henley said, and that is the suffocating vine that chokes out everything else.

“This meshes perfectly with the New Globalism and its dream of a world without borders. Anything can be done in the name of a ‘sustainable’ future, including the ‘humanitarian’ invasion of a sovereign state – but only if its leaders embrace the same left-progressive philosophy as the bureaucracies headquartered in New York. This makes a Hillary Clinton presidency even more foreboding,” he said.

And these “progressives” include many in the Republican Party who are now shilling for Clinton, such as House Speaker Paul Ryan and Arizona Sen. John McCain. Ryan, according to an article by Breitbart’s Julia Hahn, has been working hand in hand with the Clinton campaign for months.

“The true conservative seeks preservation of liberty-nurturing principles, and the sustenance of values that resist the control of the bureaucrats and guarantee freedom from a globalist hegemon in the form of the U.N.,” Henley said

Eric Voegelin’s 1975 book, “From Enlightenment to Revolution,” describes with amazing prescience the “line of progress” according to the revolutionaries who drive what Henley calls the New Globalism, from the local to the global, from the individual to the mass of humanity, from nation-states to a concentrated global power.

“This is the big picture of which Habitat III and its New Urban Agenda is a part.”

 http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/u-n-goes-all-in-for-unlimited-migration/#jJfgd2IQ66VXRtIG.99

 

The New Urban Agenda: What Our Cities Can Be

The future is urban and nowhere is that more true than in Bangladesh. If current rates of urbanisation continue, the country’s urban population will double by 2035. Around the Bay of Bengal, a mega city would join Dhaka to Chittagong, creating one of the world’s largest conglomerations. Whether that process produces a congested toxic unlivable mess of concrete and steel, or whether it becomes a thriving, connected, wonderful city to live in, is almost entirely down to the political and policy choices we make.

Photo: Star

Photo: Star

This week a critical meeting in Quito, Ecuador, will look at those critical political and policy choices. The Habitat III conference to adopt a “New Urban Agenda” builds on the Habitat Agenda of Istanbul in 1996 (Habitat II).The new agenda is intended to reinvigorate the global commitment to sustainable urbanisation. The conference is expected to result in a concise, focused, forward-looking and action-oriented outcome document on making cities and human settlements equitable, prosperous, sustainable, just, equal and safe until 2030. By the middle of the century, a majority of the world’s citizens —four out of five people — could be living in towns or cities. Indeed, in the time since the Habitat Agenda was adopted, the world has become majority urban, lending extra urgency to the New Urban Agenda.

Habitat III is one of the first major global conferences to be held after the adoption of two key agreements, last year. Agenda 2030, a new development plan for the world; and a new Climate Change agreement adopted in Paris. It offers a unique opportunity to discuss the important challenge of how cities, towns and villages are planned and managed in a sustainable manner, to meet the new global agenda and climate change goals.

The New Urban Agenda, agreed upon at Habitat III in Quito, will guide the efforts around urbanisation of a wide range of actors — nation states, city and regional leaders, international development funders, UN programmes and civil society — for the next 20 years. Inevitably, this agenda will also lay the groundwork for policies and approaches that will have long lasting impact.

HABITAT I and II

Forty years later, after both Habitat I and II, there is wide consensus that towns’ and cities’ structure, form, and functionality need to change as societies change. Especially, slums and related informal settlements that have become a spontaneous form of urbanisation, consisting of a series of survival strategies by the urban poor, most borne out of poverty and exclusion.

Habitat III represents an opportunity to make concrete the ideals of Habitat II in designing policies, planning urban spaces for all, and providing affordable urban services and utilities through adopting a ‘New Urban Agenda’ this October.

Towards the New Urban Agenda

The core issues of the Habitat II Agenda — adequate housing and sustainable human settlements — remain on the table, as the number of people worldwide living in urban slums continues to grow. There is also an increasing recognition that cities have morphed into mega-regions, urban corridors and city-regions whose economic, social and political geographies defy traditional conceptions of the “city”.

Impact of the agenda

The Agenda will seek to create a mutually reinforcing relationship between urbanisation and development. Several core ideas form the ideological underpinnings of the New Urban Agenda. Democratic development and respect for human rights feature prominently in the draft agreements, as does the relationship between the environment and urbanisation.

The new agenda also places importance on establishing a global monitoring mechanism to track progress on meeting commitments. As an “agenda”, it will provide guidance to nation states, city and regional authorities, civil society, foundations, NGOs, academic researchers and UN agencies. However, this guidance is not binding. This arrangement is different from, for example, the December 2015 climate negotiations in Paris, which resulted in a legally binding agreement.

Let’s take a practical example. The new urban agenda calls for mass transit systems and to cut back our dependence on vehicles. In recent years in Dhaka, our response to traffic congestion has been to build flyovers. This has been compared to an overweight person addressing the need to lose weight by loosening their belt. You feel better at first, but it doesn’t last. The underlying issues are not addressed. The government recently broke ground on metro rail link between Uttara and the airport. With policy choices like this, we can move Dhaka to the fore of the New Urban Agenda.

The New Urban Agenda and Bangladesh

A broad range of actors in Bangladesh were involved in contributing to developing the New Urban Agenda. The Government of Bangladesh, through the Ministry of Housing and Public Works, is engaged in both the Habitat III conference and related academic discussions through various national and international forums.

It is estimated that 60 percent of Bangladesh’s GDP is produced in urban areas. Having laid out an urban vision in the 7th Five-year Plan as “compact, networked, resilient, competitive, and inclusive and smart,” Bangladesh still has considerable work ahead to meet international goals set by the New Urban Agenda. Certainly, in Bangladesh the stakes are high, since it is the third most urbanised nation in South Asia.

The ‘new urban agenda’ will clearly influence policymakers as they consider cities, urbanisation and sustainable development, and set priorities at the national levels. With the global perspectives on managing urbanisation for making cities and human settlements equitable, prosperous, sustainable, just, equal and safe, Bangladesh can finalise the long awaited national urban sector policy. And it can begin drafting a ‘New Urban Agenda’ to tackle the country’s rapid urbanisation in order to maximise the benefits of urbanisation for the people of Bangladesh.

The writers are Acting Country Director of UNDP Bangladesh and Urban Programme Specialist of UNDP Bangladesh.

http://www.ipsnews.net/2016/10/the-new-urban-agenda-what-our-cities-can-be/

 

Cities for All? Migration and the New Urban Agenda

DEVELOPMENT & SOCIETY : Governance, Migration, Urban Development

2016•10•10 Megha Amrith United Nations University

This article is part of the United Nations University’s Habitat III series featuring research and commentary related to the UN Conference on Housing and Sustainable Urban Development, 17–20 October 2016 in Quito, Ecuador.

•••

For the first time in history, a majority of the global population lives in cities. The trend toward urbanisation is continuing, and by mid-century city dwellers are expected to account for two-thirds of the world’s people. Migration accounts for a significant, yet often controversial, part of this urban development. Twenty years ago at the Habitat II conference in Istanbul, urban migration was framed as a problem to be tackled. The focus at the time was on addressing the root causes of rural-to-urban migration and finding ways to minimise population movement to cities. As such, Habitat II did not go far enough to emphasise the positive contributions migrants make to urban life.

The legacy of this framing of urban migration has had lasting impacts that have reinforced the socio-economic and spatial marginalisation of migrants (and subsequent generations) in a number of cities, from Paris to Delhi. In the preparations for Habitat III, to be held in Quito from 17–20 October 2016, an issue paper on migrants and refugees points out that “the generic urbanisation model” over the past decades has “fostered segregation over integration”.

The adoption of the New Urban Agenda in Quito will bring in a new narrative on urban migration that centres on promoting migrants’ inclusion in cities and upholding their rights. States, local authorities, intergovernmental and civil society organisations can use this opportunity to collectively develop urban policies that reflect this narrative. More than half of the world’s population now lives in urban areas, and continuing migration is central to urbanisation processes — both in terms of internal migration (movement within the same country) and of international migration (be it voluntary or forced, bearing in mind that the line between the two is increasingly blurred).

“Migration is clearly an urban phenomenon, and especially so in this time of unprecedented global displacement.”

As the above issue paper notes, some 60% of the world’s refugees (and 80% of internally displaced persons) now live in urban areas rather than in camps. Cities, large and small, are where migrants seek to build their livelihoods, futures, and networks, pursue opportunities, and realise their aspirations.

Migration is thus very clearly an urban phenomenon, and especially so in this time of unprecedented global displacement. Even as states reinforce their borders, with security, fences, and walls, cities are opening themselves up to new arrivals. This is why the New Urban Agenda is so relevant to the global debates that are taking place about migration.

Where states are failing to honour the rights and dignity of migrants and refugees, cities in many parts of the world are acting in concrete ways to receive them, provide them with basic services, and find ways to include them in the everyday fabric of the city (including those without documents). This effort offers potential to transform the discourse and politics of migration by recognising the rich social, cultural, and economic contributions of migrants to urban life, while allowing us to imagine the possibilities for migrants to feel a sense of belonging at an urban level.

In New York City, for example, all migrants — regardless of their status — are eligible for an IDNYC (identification card) giving them access to many services in the city. The municipality of Sao Paulo, meanwhile, has created a municipal migration policy developed in accordance with the principles of human rights and non-discrimination, and drawing upon the voices of migrants through participative consultations. And cities in Germany are making novel uses of urban space and infrastructure to house recent arrivals of migrants and refugees, while volunteer-led projects among urban citizenshave emerged over the past year to foster a culture of welcome that, if cultivated in the long term, can lead to sustained forms of inclusion.

“We must also be aware that not all cities are powerful actors with the freedom to make and implement decisions.”

But lest we romanticise this ideal of welcoming cities, it is important to acknowledge that significant challenges remain for migrants in a number of cities: precarious work; language barriers; difficulties in accessing health, education, and justice; poor environmental health conditions and insecure housing; and discrimination.

We must also be aware that not all cities are powerful actors with the freedom to make and implement decisions. Some municipal governments remain poorly resourced and depend upon restrictive state-level policy directives — the experiences of urban refugees in Bangkok who live in a state of limbo and invisibility is a case in point. This is a reminder of the importance of multi-level governance that connects the grassroots and local levels to the national, regional, and global levels. If migration is well-managed throughout all levels, migrants are more likely to have the resources to sustain their livelihoods and the opportunities to make valuable, enduring, and creative contributions.

The New Urban Agenda is grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the need to take a human rights-based approach to migration has thus been recognised, far more than in the past. The draft Agenda includes commitments to support refugees, internally displaced persons, and migrants regardless of their migration status. Yet if the New Urban Agenda is based on a vision of “cities for all”, we need further clarity as to how these lofty statements will translate into practical and implementable projects and policies for social and spatial inclusion that take migration and displacement into consideration.

On this point, the New Urban Agenda remains vague. The points raised during the urban dialogues and thematic consultations in the run-up to Habitat III, which are intended to gather input from diverse stakeholders and citizens in the shaping of the Agenda, call on local and national authorities to include migration as a transversal feature of urban planning, and to promote the civic participation of migrants across urban spaces and institutions.

Indeed, we should see Habitat III as the starting point for developing and implementing inclusive policies and the sharing of good practices on these issues. In this particular moment of time — when the world’s attention is fixed on migration — it is vital that we shape our cities to be inclusive, convivial, and progressive places that embrace cultural pluralism and diversity as a hallmark of sustainable urban development.

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-782

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 739, August 18, 2016, Story 1: Soros and NSA Cracked — Videos — Story 2: Trump Asks Blacks For Their Vote — Story 3: Hillary Clinton’s Health Becomes Issue — It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World; Kick the Bucket– Videos

Posted on August 19, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Ben Carson, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Hillary Clinton, House of Representatives, Legal Drugs, Senate, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

 

Story 1: Soros and NSA Cracked — Videos 

‘Shadow Brokers’ auctioning off NSA hacking tools

NSA hacking tools: ‘Shadow Brokers’ selling ‘stolen’ NSA-developed viruses for $500m – TomoNews

Edward Snowden at New Hampshire Forum

Snowden Says Alleged NSA Hack Could Be Veiled Message From Moscow

Analyzing the coverage of the George Soros hack

Doug Hagmann Talks With Alex Jones About Soros Email Hack

Soros got hacked. Can you guess what we found? #NewWorldNextWeek

[yotuube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gn-RvN54Eos]

Discovery Channel – The Secret History Of Hacking

Introduction to Hacking

Hacking a Car with an Ex-NSA Hacker: CYBERWAR (Clip)

The Silent Order NSA Sees Everything Hears Everything Documentary HD

The NSA’s ‘Hacking Unit’

NSA TAO MST3k

USENIX Enigma 2016 – NSA TAO Chief on Disrupting Nation State Hackers

Watch hackers break into the US power grid

Can you hack it? Hacking Documentary

The Hacker Wonderland: DEFCON Hacking Conference – Documentary Films

America’s Elite Hacking Force: CYBERWAR (Clip)

Shadow Brokers Claim to have Hacked the NSA, Want to be Paid in Bitcoins

Soros Hacked, A New Major Leak: How We Should Respond to Cultural Malaise

BREAKING: The Soros Hack!!

NSA Surveillance and What To Do About It

Introduction to Practical Hacking and Penetration Testing

What you should know for start hacking.

ALGORITHM: The Hacker Movie

The O’Reilly Factor 8/17/16 | Donations From George Soros ‘May Present a Problem’ for Hillary

Soros Revelations in His Own Words

[youtube-=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBHy5hC2lLE]

George Soros exposed!

History of George Soros

Enemy of the State – Will Smith, Gene Hackman, Jon Voight Movies

 

Story 2:  Trump Asks Blacks For Their Vote —

Ann Coulter Explains Why Trump Can Win The Black Vote

Will Trump’s appeal to black voters work?

Donald Trump goes back to his populist approach

Trump looks to sway black vote

Blacks voting and supporting Trump

Can Donald Trump sway African-American voters?

Giuliani: Trump challenged blacks to break Dem monopoly

Farrakhan on Hillary Clinton: ‘That’s a Wicked Woman”

Wicked Woman (1953) Trailer

Donald Trump – Black Muslims support Trump

The ‘First Gay President’ Obama – Louis Farrakhan

The Kelly File 8/18/16 | Trump Rallies In NC Amid Campaign Sake Up

New Bombshell in the Hillary Clinton Deleted Emails and the Wikileaks DNC Email Scandal

Hillary Clinton Lesbian Affair & NSA Spying

NSA Whistleblower: Everyone in US under virtual surveillance, all info stored, no matter the post

NSA Whistleblower William Binney: The Future of FREEDOM

William Binney – The Government is Profiling You (The NSA is Spying on You)

CONFIRMED: NSA Hacked, Information Auctioned At 1 Million Bitcoin

Story 3: Hillary Clinton’s Health Becomes Issue — Videos

How is Hillary Clinton’s health?

Dr. Ben Carson: Clinton’s health records should be public

Hillary Clinton suffering from post-concussion syndrome!?

Questions regarding Clinton’s possible brain damage stem from her 2012 “fall” and subsequent blood clot in her brain. I 2005 she suffered a fainting spell during a speech in Buffalo. According to a book by Edward Klein titled “Unlikeable – The Problem with Hillary” she suffers depression, migraines, insomnia and more. Other reports claim Hillary may have “suffered minor strokes and may have multiple sclerosis.”

What Do Hillary Clinton’s Medical Records Show?

Dr. Drew speaks out on Hillary’s Health (Full Interview)

Hillary Clinton’s Health | Mike Cernovich and Stefan Molyneux

It’s A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World; Kick the Bucket

Jonathan Winters the best of a mad world

Dr. Drew ‘Gravely Concerned’ About Hillary Clinton’s Health

In a rambling radio interview, physician and media personality Dr. Drew Pinsky said he’s ‘gravely concerned’ about Hillary Clinton’s health, and also that ‘It’s not so much that her health is a grave concern.’

THE NSA LEAK IS REAL, SNOWDEN DOCUMENTS CONFIRM

ON MONDAY, A HACKING group calling itself the “ShadowBrokers” announced an auction for what it claimed were “cyber weapons” made by the NSA. Based on never-before-published documents provided by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, The Intercept can confirm that the arsenal contains authentic NSA software, part of a powerful constellation of tools used to covertly infect computers worldwide.

The provenance of the code has been a matter of heated debate this week among cybersecurity experts, and while it remains unclear how the software leaked, one thing is now beyond speculation: The malware is covered with the NSA’s virtual fingerprints and clearly originates from the agency.

The evidence that ties the ShadowBrokers dump to the NSA comes in an agency manual for implanting malware, classified top secret, provided by Snowden, and not previously available to the public. The draft manual instructs NSA operators to track their use of one malware program using a specific 16-character string, “ace02468bdf13579.” That exact same string appears throughout the ShadowBrokers leak in code associated with the same program, SECONDDATE.

SECONDDATE plays a specialized role inside a complex global system built by the U.S. government to infect and monitor what one document estimated to be millions of computers around the world. Its release by ShadowBrokers, alongside dozens of other malicious tools, marks the first time any full copies of the NSA’s offensive software have been available to the public, providing a glimpse at how an elaborate system outlined in the Snowden documents looks when deployed in the real world, as well as concrete evidence that NSA hackers don’t always have the last word when it comes to computer exploitation.

But malicious software of this sophistication doesn’t just pose a threat to foreign governments, Johns Hopkins University cryptographer Matthew Green told The Intercept:

The danger of these exploits is that they can be used to target anyone who is using a vulnerable router. This is the equivalent of leaving lockpicking tools lying around a high school cafeteria. It’s worse, in fact, because many of these exploits are not available through any other means, so they’re just now coming to the attention of the firewall and router manufacturers that need to fix them, as well as the customers that are vulnerable.

So the risk is twofold: first, that the person or persons who stole this information might have used them against us. If this is indeed Russia, then one assumes that they probably have their own exploits, but there’s no need to give them any more. And now that the exploits have been released, we run the risk that ordinary criminals will use them against corporate targets.

The NSA did not respond to questions concerning ShadowBrokers, the Snowden documents, or its malware.

A Memorable SECONDDATE

The offensive tools released by ShadowBrokers are organized under a litany of code names such as POLARSNEEZE and ELIGIBLE BOMBSHELL, and their exact purpose is still being assessed. But we do know more about one of the weapons: SECONDDATE.

SECONDDATE is a tool designed to intercept web requests and redirect browsers on target computers to an NSA web server. That server, in turn, is designed to infect them with malware. SECONDDATE’s existence was first reported by The Intercept in 2014, as part of a look at a global computer exploitation effort code-named TURBINE. The malware server, known as FOXACID, has also been described in previously released Snowden documents.

Other documents released by The Intercept today not only tie SECONDDATE to the ShadowBrokers leak but also provide new detail on how it fits into the NSA’s broader surveillance and infection network. They also show how SECONDDATE has been used, including to spy on Pakistan and a computer system in Lebanon.

The top-secret manual that authenticates the SECONDDATE found in the wild as the same one used within the NSA is a 31-page document titled “FOXACID SOP for Operational Management” and marked as a draft. It dates to no earlier than 2010. A section within the manual describes administrative tools for tracking how victims are funneled into FOXACID, including a set of tags used to catalogue servers. When such a tag is created in relation to a SECONDDATE-related infection, the document says, a certain distinctive identifier must be used:

 

The same SECONDDATE MSGID string appears in 14 different files throughout the ShadowBrokers leak, including in a file titled SecondDate-3021.exe. Viewed through a code-editing program (screenshot below), the NSA’s secret number can be found hiding in plain sight:

All told, throughout many of the folders contained in the ShadowBrokers’ package (screenshot below), there are 47 files with SECONDDATE-related names, including different versions of the raw code required to execute a SECONDDATE attack, instructions for how to use it, and other related files.

.

 

After viewing the code, Green told The Intercept the MSGID string’s occurrence in both an NSA training document and this week’s leak is “unlikely to be a coincidence.” Computer security researcher Matt Suiche, founder of UAE-based cybersecurity startup Comae Technologies, who has been particularly vocal in his analysis of the ShadowBrokers this week, told The Intercept “there is no way” the MSGID string’s appearance in both places is a coincidence.

Where SECONDDATE Fits In

This overview jibes with previously unpublished classified files provided by Snowden that illustrate how SECONDDATE is a component of BADDECISION, a broader NSA infiltration tool. SECONDDATE helps the NSA pull off a “man in the middle” attack against users on a wireless network, tricking them into thinking they’re talking to a safe website when in reality they’ve been sent a malicious payload from an NSA server.

According to one December 2010 PowerPoint presentation titled “Introduction to BADDECISION,” that tool is also designed to send users of a wireless network, sometimes referred to as an 802.11 network, to FOXACID malware servers. Or, as the presentation puts it, BADDECISION is an “802.11 CNE [computer network exploitation] tool that uses a true man-in-the-middle attack and a frame injection technique to redirect a target client to a FOXACID server.” As another top-secret slide puts it, the attack homes in on “the greatest vulnerability to your computer: your web browser.”

One slide points out that the attack works on users with an encrypted wireless connection to the internet.

That trick, it seems, often involves BADDECISION and SECONDDATE, with the latter described as a “component” for the former. A series of diagrams in the “Introduction to BADDECISION” presentation show how an NSA operator “uses SECONDDATE to inject a redirection payload at [a] Target Client,” invisibly hijacking a user’s web browser as the user attempts to visit a benign website (in the example given, it’s CNN.com). Executed correctly, the file explains, a “Target Client continues normal webpage browsing, completely unaware,” lands on a malware-filled NSA server, and becomes infected with as much of that malware as possible — or as the presentation puts it, the user will be left “WHACKED!” In the other top-secret presentations, it’s put plainly: “How do we redirect the target to the FOXACID server without being noticed”? Simple: “Use NIGHTSTAND or BADDECISION.”

The sheer number of interlocking tools available to crack a computer is dizzying. In the FOXACID manual, government hackers are told an NSA hacker ought to be familiar with using SECONDDATE along with similar man-in-the-middle wi-fi attacks code-named MAGIC SQUIRREL and MAGICBEAN. A top-secret presentation on FOXACID lists further ways to redirect targets to the malware server system.

To position themselves within range of a vulnerable wireless network, NSA operators can use a mobile antenna system running software code-named BLINDDATE, depicted in the field in what appears to be Kabul. The software can even be attached to a drone. BLINDDATE in turn can run BADDECISION, which allows for a SECONDDATE attack:

Elsewhere in these files, there are at least two documented cases of SECONDDATE being used to successfully infect computers overseas: An April 2013 presentation boasts of successful attacks against computer systems in both Pakistan and Lebanon. In the first, NSA hackers used SECONDDATE to breach “targets in Pakistan’s National Telecommunications Corporation’s (NTC) VIP Division,” which contained documents pertaining to “the backbone of Pakistan’s Green Line communications network” used by “civilian and military leadership.”

In the latter, the NSA used SECONDDATE to pull off a man-in-the-middle attack in Lebanon “for the first time ever,” infecting a Lebanese ISP to extract “100+ MB of Hizballah Unit 1800 data,” a special subset of the terrorist group dedicated to aiding Palestinian militants.

SECONDDATE is just one method that the NSA uses to get its target’s browser pointed at a FOXACID server. Other methods include sending spam that attempts to exploit bugs in popular web-based email providers or entices targets to click on malicious links that lead to a FOXACID server. One document, a newsletter for the NSA’s Special Source Operations division, describes how NSA software other than SECONDDATE was used to repeatedly direct targets in Pakistan to FOXACID malware web servers, eventually infecting the targets’ computers.

A Potentially Mundane Hack

Snowden, who worked for NSA contractors Dell and Booz Allen Hamilton, has offered some context and a relatively mundane possible explanation for the leak: that the NSA headquarters was not hacked, but rather one of the computers the agency uses to plan and execute attacks was compromised. In a series of tweets, he pointed out that the NSA often lurks on systems that are supposed to be controlled by others, and it’s possible someone at the agency took control of a server and failed to clean up after themselves. A regime, hacker group, or intelligence agency could have seized the files and the opportunity to embarrass the agency.

An Agency in Crisis

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

The Pronk Pops Show 719, July 18, 2016, Story 1: Law and Order Trump vs. Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Clinton and Agent Provocateur Obama — Videos Story 2: Another Black Man Kills Three Cops in Ambush Assassination — Story 3: Soros Bought and Paid For Agent Provacauter Obama and Black Lives Matter Black Racist Baiting — Hands Up — Don’t Shot — Big Lie — Lying Lunatic Left Is About Power and People Control — Americans Arm Themselves Against Tyrants — Black Criminals Killing Law-Abiding Blacks and Police — Obama and Soros Have Blood On Their Hands — Videos

Posted on July 18, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Eugenics, Fast and Furious, Foreign Policy, Government, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Rifles, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Social Networking, Social Science, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, Unemployment, United States Constitution, United States of America, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

UPDATED July 16, 2016

Story 1: Law and Order Trump vs. Crooked Lying Incompetent Progressive Politician Eugenics Racist Clinton and Agent Provocateur Obama — 

Trump: I am the Law and Order candidate, email scandal shows Clinton is deceitful and incompetent

Gavin Eugene Long Kills Three Officers in Baton Rouge Louisiana. Alton Sterling Revenge?

Audio/Video Of Baton Rouge Shooting; 7-17-2016

3 Police Officers Shot And Killed In Baton Rouge!

Islamist YouTuber Shoots 6 Cops 3 Dead In Baton Rouge Ambush.. Live Footage

Baton Rouge, Louisiana LIVE VIDEO POLICE AMBUSHED 3 DEAD 6 SHOT – RAW VIDEO

Footage During Baton Rouge Police Shooting Of 6 Officers Caught On Facebook Live

VIDEO: Baton Rouge police shooting. Louisiana. July 17, 2016.

Black Ex-Marine Sergeant..AMBUSHES and KILLS 3 Baton Rouge POLICE OFFICERS!!

Three Police Officers Killed and Several Wounded in Baton Rouge Shooting. Louisiana

President Obama on the fatal shootings of Alton Sterling and Philando Castile

New video released of Alton Sterling shooting

Store owner on Alton Sterling shooting: Police were very aggressive

Baton Rouge Police Execution Of Alton Sterling (VIDEO)

VIDEO: Minnesota police Shooting, Jul 6, 2016. Louisiana police Shooting, Jul 5, 2016.

Alton Sterling –5 Facts the Media Isn’t Telling You!

3 police officers killed, 3 wounded in Baton Rouge; gunman dead

What we know about the Baton Rouge shooting Embed Share Play Video1:33
A man carrying a rifle outside a Baton Rouge convenience store shot six police officers on July 17, killing three. Here’s what we know so far. (Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)
By Amy Ellis Nutt, Matt Zapotosky and Mark Berman July 18 at 1:05 AM
A lone gunman killed three law enforcement officers and wounded three others in Baton Rouge on Sunday morning, less than two weeks after the death of an African American man at the hands of Baton Rouge police.

The shootings occurred when police responded to a 911 call that a man dressed in black and armed with what appeared to be an ­assault-style rifle was walking near a shopping plaza about a mile from police headquarters. The deaths shocked a nation already on edge over recent killings by police and the slayings of five police officers in Dallas by a lone gunman. The run of violence that began July 5 in Baton Rouge has now left 10 dead, including eight law enforcement officers, as well as two residents killed by police.

Two city police officers and one sheriff’s deputy were fatally wounded, and another sheriff’s deputy was critically injured, Col. Michael Edmonson, the superintendent of the Louisiana State Police, said at a news conference.

The gunman, who was shot and killed during the exchange of gunfire, was later identified as Gavin Long, an African American resident of Kansas City, Mo., who turned 29 on Sunday and was in Baton Rouge celebrating his birthday, according to relatives. In the spring of 2012, Long was named to the dean’s list at the University of Alabama, which he attended for one semester, university officials said.

Long was identified in media reports confirmed by his military record as a Marine who achieved the rank of sergeant and had been deployed to Iraq before leaving service in August, 2010. Under a pseudonym, Long also made videos posted on YouTube, the most recent of which derided demonstrations like those after the shooting by Baton Rouge police of Alton Sterling two weeks ago, and advocated violence instead.

Police investigate suspected Baton Rouge shooter’s home Embed Share Play Video0:54
Gavin Long, a 29-year-old former Marine, is suspected of killing three police officers and wounding three others in Baton Rouge on July 17. Police are investigating his home in Kansas City, Miss., after he was killed in a shootout with police. (Reuters)
[After 10 deaths in two weeks, a weary fear builds among those who protect and serve]

With the circumstances of the shootings unexplained Sunday night, a community already numbed found itself searching for new words to describe its horror and despair.

“Stop this killing. Stop this killing. Stop this killing,” said Veda Washington-Abusaleh, the aunt of Alton Sterling, the 37-year-old man killed by Baton Rouge police on July 5.

“That’s how this all started, with bloodshed. We don’t want no more bloodshed. . . . Because at the end of the day, when these people call these families and they tell them that their daddies and their mommies not coming home no more, I know how they feel, because I got the same phone call,” she said, breaking down in tears during an interview Sunday by a Baton Rouge TV station.

Within minutes of the 911 call, a barrage of gunfire was heard from the vicinity of Airline and Old Hammond highways in East Baton Rouge, a commercial area dottedwith convenience stores, gas stations and discount clothing shops.

Louisiana is an open-carry state, where no permits are required to buy or carry firearms.

Baton Rouge has been besieged in recent years by racial tension between its predominantly black residents and predominately white police officers. Over the past two weeks, protesters marched almost daily over the same streets that police quickly barricaded Sunday morning.

The scene after another shooting in Baton Rouge
View Photos Authorities say 3 officers are dead and several injured after on-duty law enforcement officers were shot.
One of the dead officers was Montrell Jackson, 32, an African American, married and with a baby. Although his name had not yet been released by authorities Sunday evening, multiple people, including relatives, confirmed he was among those killed.

[Montrell Jackson was ‘tired physically and emotionally’ after recent incidents]

[Matthew Gerald was in the Marines and Army before becoming a cop]

[Brad Garafola was 24-year veteran of East Baton Rouge sheriff’s office]

The father of Matthew Gerald, a white officer, also confirmed Sunday that his 41-year-old married son, the father of two daughters, was another police officer killed.

Before joining the Baton Rouge Police Department last year, Gerald served in both the Marines and the Army, according to Ryan D. Cabral, a friend who served with him in Iraq.

“Matt was the kind of guy that you knew immediately when he entered the room,” Cabral said. “Whether it was the energy he carried with him or that Cajun accent he had . . . maybe it was the Marine in him.”

The third fatality was identified by the local newspaper, the Advocate, as Brad Garafola, 45, who served with the East Baton Rouge Parish Sheriff’s Office. He was working extra duty at the B-Quik convenience store on Airline Highway early Sunday morning, according to his wife, Tonja, and was headed home to begin vacation when he was gunned down.
“Everybody on this street depended on him,” Tonja Garafola said.

Jackson’s sister, Jocelyn, was attending Sunday church when she learned that her little brother was among the three officers killed. Her pastor had just asked the congregation to send prayers to her family.

“I didn’t want to break down in church, but it was just something I couldn’t hold,” said Jackson, 49, who felt the weight of the news rush over her. “He was a wonderful person. A wonderful person.”

A cousin of Long’s, who spoke to The Washington Post on the condition of anonymity because he feared for his job, said Long was quiet, smart and had recently written a book about his travels around the world. The man said that Long, as far as he knew, had not expressed any particular outrage over the shootings of young black men by police.

“I can’t see my cousin doing nothing like that,” he said. “Right now, I’m at a loss for words.”

Long served five years in the Marine Corps as a data network specialist, from August 2005 to August 2010. He left active duty as a sergeant. Records released by the Marine Corps on Sunday showed that he deployed once to Iraq from June 2008 to January 2009. He did not experience direct ground combat. He was assigned to units in Miramar, Calif., and Okinawa, Japan, during his military career.

In the hours after the shooting, police warned people living in the area of the gun battle to stay inside as they sought two other potential suspects. By the afternoon, dozens of law enforcement and emergency vehicles were on the scene, and police helicopters hovered overhead. Agents for the FBI and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives were also called to the scene, according to Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch, who said in a statement that “there is no place in the United States for such appalling violence.” President Obama as well as other government and law enforcement officials strongly condemned the shooting.

“It’s just very senseless and tragic,” said Chris Nassif, president of the Louisiana Union of Police, a statewide association of municipal police departments. “You’re seeing law enforcement targeted for doing their jobs.”
Nassif and colleagues from around the state had traveled to Baton Rouge during the protests that roiled the city last week.

“They seemed to have everything under control, and then this happens,” he said. “It just takes the breath out of you.”

Sunday’s gun battle occurred in a subdivision of Baton Rouge known as Tara, about five miles from where Sterling was killed. Protesters have gathered there nightly.

Just 24 hours after Sterling was shot, Philando Castile, a 32-year-old African American, was shot to death during a traffic stop in St. Paul, Minn.

Then, on July 7, during a peaceful protest of those deaths, four policemen and a transit officer were killed by a lone gunman in Dallas.

Across the country, police have been on heightened alert, with many towns and cities mandating that officers not work their beats alone, and residents in places such as East Baton Rouge afraid to spend time outside their homes.

It was a sunny, breezy morning in Baton Rouge when shots were heard around 8:40 a.m. Police reported “officers down” at 8:44, according to Edmonson, the Louisiana State Police superintendent. Minutes later, the alleged gunman was also dead.

One Tara neighborhood woman, who asked that her name not be used, was playing tennis with her husband and two children when she first heard the gunfire.

“We have been in the house so much because of all of this going on, so we wanted to be outside,” she said. “I feel trapped in our own home. . . . I thought we would be safe here because we are close to a police station.”

The three deaths Sunday brought the total number of officers killed in the line of duty to 30 this year — up from about 16 at this point last year. The average mid-year total, according to FBI data, is about 25.

[‘Shooting police is not a civil rights tactic’: Activists condemn killing of officers]

At an annual gathering of the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives in Washington, an educational conference attended by police chiefs around the country, the mood was heavy with the Baton Rouge news. This weekend was the organization’s 40th anniversary celebration.
“It felt like a punch in the gut,” said Vera Bumpers, chief of police for the Houston Metro Police Department. “It resonated with everybody. The room was just like a hush and a rasp, like ‘not again.’ ”

It was a sentiment shared by Wanda Y. Dunham, the chief of police for the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority.

“Here we go again,” she recalled thinking. “Some people are still thinking about what happened in Dallas.” She added: “I don’t want this to be the new normal. So we have to start talking to the community before these things happen.”

President Obama asked the nation to refrain from “overheated” political discourse on the eve of the Republican and Democratic conventions.
“Regardless of race, political party or profession . . . everyone right now, focus on words and actions that can unite this country rather than divide it further,” he said. “We need to temper our words and open our hearts — all of us.”

Black activists also expressed outrage at the Baton Rouge police deaths.

“We’re all grieving. We’re still grieving the loss of Alton Sterling. We don’t value any life more than any other life,” said Ada Goodly, an attorney and activist with the National Lawyers Guild in Baton Rouge who had been involved in the recent protests.

Jocelyn Jackson said she understands the anger behind the Black Lives Matter movement but added that “God gives nobody the right to kill and take another person’s life. . . . It’s coming to the point where no lives matter,” she said, “whether you’re black or white or Hispanic or whatever.”

Peter Holley, Kimberly Kindy, Jessica Contrera, Theresa Vargas and Amy Brittain in Washington; Wesley Lowery in Cleveland; and Bill Lodge and April Capochino Myers in Baton Rouge contributed to this report.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/3-police-officers-killed-3-wounded-in-baton-rouge/2016/07/17/3734a3a6-4c2f-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html

 

Louisiana gunman ‘targeted and assassinated’ officers: police

The black U.S. Marine Corps veteran who shot dead three police officers in Louisiana’s capital targeted them and assassinated them, authorities said on Monday, as the United States reeled from the latest deadly violence involving police and African-Americans.

One of three officers wounded in Sunday’s shootings was hospitalized and fighting for his life, police said at a news conference. They said three guns were recovered from the shooting in Baton Rouge, which has been the scene of repeated protests against police violence following the July 5 fatal shooting by officers of Alton Sterling, a black man, outside a convenience store.

“There is no doubt whatsoever that these officers were intentionally targeted and assassinated,” Louisiana State Police Superintendent Colonel Mike Edmonson said of the Sunday incident at the news conference. “It was a calculated act against those who work to protect this community every single day.”

Edmonson said “the most compelling piece of evidence is the video.”

The gunman has been identified as Gavin Long, a 29-year-old from Kansas City, Missouri, who served in the Marines for five years, including a 2008 deployment in the Iraq war. Long, dressed in black and armed with a rifle, was shot dead on Sunday morning in a gunfight with police.

Racial tension in the United States has been especially high since a black former U.S. Army Reserve soldier fatally shot five Dallas police officers who were patrolling a protest over the police shootings of Sterling and another black man in Minnesota.

The suspect said he wanted to change his name from Gavin Eugene Long to Cosmo Ausar Setepenra in May 2015, according to Jackson County, Missouri, public records. But court officials said he never completed the process of legally changing his name.

A website, social media accounts and YouTube videos that appeared tied to Long include complaints about police treatment of black people and praise for killings of the Dallas policemen.

Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards told Monday’s news conference that Long “came to do harm” and Edwards called the shooting “a diabolical attack” on society.

“It’s just pure, unadulterated evil,” Edwards said.

(Additional reporting by Sam Karlin in Baton Rouge, David Alexander and Eric Walsh in Washington, Laila Kearney in New York; Writing by Will Dunham and Grant McCool; Editing by Bill Trott)

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-police-idUSKCN0ZX0MX

Story 3:  Soros Bought and Paid For Agent Provacauter Obama and Black Lives Matter Black Racists — Hands  Up — Don’t Shot — The Big Lie — Lying Lunatic Left Is About Power and People Control  — Americans Arm Themselves Against Tyrants — Black Criminal Killing Law Abiding Blacks — Videos

 

The Truth About The Alton Sterling and Philando Castile Shootings

Within the span of a single week, two black men were killed during encounters with police sparking massive public outrage. The Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings were both featured in very graphic and disconcerting viral videos – leading to additional Black Lives Matter protests and nationwide violence against police officers.

What are the facts about these shootings? Stefan Molyneux aims to separate the media narrative from reality – what is the truth about the Alton Sterling and Philando Castile shootings?

Sources: http://www.fdrurl.com/castile-sterlin…

Recommended Websites
https://theconservativetreehouse.com
http://www.gotnews.com

Freedomain Radio is 100% funded by viewers like you. Please support the show by signing up for a monthly subscription or making a one time donation at: http://www.freedomainradio.com/donate

Get more from Stefan Molyneux and Freedomain Radio including books, podcasts and other info at: http://www.freedomainradio.com

This Video Will Bring Down Black Lives Matter

The Day Of Rage: Weather Underground 2.0

Did President Obama elevate the Black Lives Matter movement?

Bill O’Reilly – George Soros – Black Lives Matter

Exposed! Who’s REALLY Behind Black Lives Matter, Major Meeting On Funding Groups

Obama & Soros Behind Black Lives Matter Massacre of Police || collection news

George Soros Is About To Overthrow The U.S.

George Soros Ushers in NWO

George Soros exposed!

Exposed! BLM Leader Lives In Home Owned by Soros Open Society Board Member

George Soros, Puppet Master

L’Agent by Agent Provocateur: Autumn Winter 2013 Campaign

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 599, January 6, 2016, Story 1: Soros — Obama — Clintons Support Planned Parenthood’s Baby Killing and Butchering — Democratic Party’s War on Babies — Black Genocide — 7 million Plus Babies Killed in United States During Obama’s Presidency — Videos

Posted on January 6, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, Abortion, American History, Blogroll, Business, Climate Change, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Eugenics, European History, Foreign Policy, Genocide, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Media, Polls, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Security, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Ted Cruz, Terror, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 599: January 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 598: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 597: December 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 596: December 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 595: December 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 594: December 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 593: December 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 592: December 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

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

The Pronk Pops Show 598, January 5, 2016, Story 1: Washington Wrong — Walls Work — Americans Work — Open Borders Does Not Work — Guns Work — Gun Free Zones Do Not Work — Clothes Work — Climate Change Caused By Man Not Happening — Soros Socialism Sinking — Trump vs. Soros Socialist Surrogate (Hillary Clinton) — Videos

Posted on January 4, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Empires, Employment, Energy, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Law, Legal Immigration, Marco Rubio, Media, Natural Gas, News, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Radio, Rand Paul, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religion, Security, Senate, Spying, Success, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Ted Cruz, Terror, Terrorism, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 598: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 597: December 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 596: December 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 595: December 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 594: December 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 593: December 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 592: December 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

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

The Pronk Pops Show 584, December 1, 2014, Story 1: Part 2 World Wide Watermelon Wacko Wealth Wringers — aka Lying Lunatic Left — Protocol Predators Prowl Paris — Climate Changes Cooling Continues — The Ultimate Resource The Human Mind Will Innovate, Invent, and Invest Toward World Peace and Prosperity — Bill Gates Right On Research and Development and Wrong on Warming — Videos

Posted on December 1, 2015. Filed under: Addiction, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Climate Change, Coal, Coal, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Eugenics, Fiscal Policy, Food, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, House of Representatives, Housing, Immigration, Independence, Investments, Labor Economics, Media, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, News, Nuclear, Obama, Oil, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Pro Life, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Scandals, Security, Senate, Solar, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Trade Policy, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

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

The Pronk Pops Show 568, November 4, 2015, Story 1: Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA and Expanded DACA programs Court injunction — Criminal Behavior — Waiting For Court Decision And Action Against Obama’s Department of Homeland Security — Stop The Illegal Alien Invasion Now! — Videos

Posted on November 4, 2015. Filed under: American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Law, Obama, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Security, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 568: November 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 567: November 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 566: November 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 565: October 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 564: October 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 563: October 28, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 562: October 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 561: October 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 560: October 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 559: October 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 558: October 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 557: October 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Story 1: Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA and Expanded DACA programs Court injunction — Criminal Behavior — Waiting For Court Decision And Action Against Obama’s Department of Homeland Security — Stop The Illegal Alien Invasion Now! — Videos

EAD-Frontead_back-features

daca DACA-EXPANSION dapa immigrationesq_infographDAPA-DACA-Injunction

The ten countries with greatest number of foreign born residents.
10. Spain 6.5 million immigrants (13.8% of pop)
9. Australia 6.5 million immigrants (27.7%)
8. Canada 7.3 million immigrants (20.7%)
7. France 7.4 million immigrants (11.6%)
6. United Kingdom 7.8 million immigrants (12.4%)
5. United Arab Emirates 7.8 million immigrants (83.7%)
4. Saudi Arabia 9.1 million immigrants (31.4%)
3. Germany 9.8 million immigrants (11.9%)
2. Russia 11 million immigrants (7.7%)
1. USA 45.7 million immigrants (14.3%)

borderpatrolapprehensionsBorder-Graphs1
DHS’ STRATEGY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER
BorderApprehensions02_citizens apps    CRS_ApprehensionsOverTime

U S House Speaker Ryan rules out work with Obama on immigration

Sheriff Joe Arpaio on ruling that halts immigration order Fox News Video

Ingraham: Trump speaks bluntly about Americans’ concerns

Donald Trump on The Laura Ingraham Radio Show – August 26, 2015

FEDERAL Judge Rips DOJ Lawyer a Liar In OBAMA’s Executive Amnesty

Published on Mar 20, 2015

The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

“This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

“The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3—15 days after the injunction was filed.”

According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.

DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to confusion, but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

“When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

During the hearing Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

Corsi: Illegal Alien Invasion at Brink of Tearing USA Apart

Obama vows to abide by immigration court order

Obama’s Executive Order: Immigration, Amnesty and Contradictions

Advocates demand court decision on Obama’s immigration relief programs

Federal court rules against Obama immigration orders

The U.S Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the Justice Department to allow President Obama’s controversial immigration actions to go into effect pending an appeal.

Illegal Immigrants, Crime And The Media – Laura Ingraham O’Reilly Talking Point – Wake Up America!

Laura Ingraham lights up Special Report

Illegal Immigrant Outrage – Rap Sheet Incl 5 Deportations, 7 Felonies – Laura Ingraham Fox & Friends

Laura Ingraham Confronts Marco Rubio Over Immigration Reform: ‘Stop Dividing The Republican Party’

Published on Jun 4, 2013

6/4/13 – During a segment on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined conservative radio host Laura Ingraham to discuss the scandals surrounding the IRS and the Department of Justice. The conversation quickly turned to Rubio’s efforts to reform the immigration system where Ingraham and Rubio found themselves on opposing sides of that issue. Ingraham implored the junior senator from Florida to drop immigration reform, stop “dividing the Republican Party,” and focus on Americans’ true priorities.

Obama’s Secret Bypass Of The U S Government On Illegal Immigration

Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy

Cloward Piven Strategy

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Roy Beck explains why immigration from third world make no sense

Numbers USA’s Roy Beck on Illegal Aliens Coming to a Town Near You

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

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:

Mark Levin: The Cloward Piven & Obama strategy

Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Obama Immigration Action Lawsuit

Obama Immigration plan blocked

ALERT! Obama Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ of Millions of New Immigrant IDs!

Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive amnesty may have already begun.
Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”
The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.
“The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.
The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.
Jessica Vaughn, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.
The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” Vaughn said.

Employment authorization document

An employment authorization document (EAD, Form I-765), EAD card, known popularly as a “work permit”, is a document issued by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that provides its holder a legal right to work in the US. It is similar to, but should not be confused with the green card.
Certain ‘aliens’ (non-residents) who are temporarily in the United States may file a Form I-765, application for employment authorization, to request an EAD. An EAD is issued for a specific period of time based on alien’s immigration situation. Foreign nationals with an EAD can lawfully work in the United States for any employer.

Immigration Visa LC and EAD Differences Immigration 1 Visa USA

USCIS Form I-765 – Application for Employment Authorization

Deferred Action for Parental Accountability(DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA)

President Obama’s DACA and DAPA Immigration Reform

President Obama’s DACA and DAPA Guidelines

OPT – Optional Practical Training for F1 Students

Optional Practical Training (OPT)

Still Report #443 – Dealing With the Muslim Invasion

Still Report #442 – Sweden Could Collapse

Europeans Begin to Revolt Over Migrant Invasion

Islamic Invasion PROTEST Thousands in Germany, Hungary, Italy

Anti Muslim invasion March in Warsaw, Poland, Sept 12, 2015

Muslim Invasion Being Used To Destroy Western Culture

WHY MUSLIMS IMMIGRATE TO CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES

Europe: Who benefits from Muslim mass migration? Only the elite Left

Europe could sink into chaos due to muslim immigration

Migrant Crisis Signals Next World War

Donald Trump About Europe Migrant Crisis EU Illegal Invader Crisis

Top 10 Immigrant Countries

The ten countries with greatest number of foreign born residents.
10. Spain 6.5 million immigrants (13.8% of pop)
9. Australia 6.5 million immigrants (27.7%)
8. Canada 7.3 million immigrants (20.7%)
7. France 7.4 million immigrants (11.6%)
6. United Kingdom 7.8 million immigrants (12.4%)
5. United Arab Emirates 7.8 million immigrants (83.7%)
4. Saudi Arabia 9.1 million immigrants (31.4%)
3. Germany 9.8 million immigrants (11.9%)
2. Russia 11 million immigrants (7.7%)
1. USA 45.7 million immigrants (14.3%)

The World in 2015: Global population and the changing shape of world demographics

Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family (Full Movie)

Future World Populations (2050)

Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction

A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.

Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADs only to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.
As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

Will the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged the President’s DAPA program bring this memo to the Fifth Circuit’s attention, before they issue their closely-awaited decision? If this document is indeed the cutting edge of Obama’s strategy for DHS to circumvent Judge Hanen’s injunction order, it would confirm the Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law.

Smith is an investigative associate with the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa

Obama set to defy federal court on amnesty

By Rick Moran

Once again, President Obama is looking to defy Congress in implementing its immigration reform proposals.

This time, his administration is looking to also defy a federal court to achieve it.

A judge sitting on the 5th Circuit in Texas issued an injunction last June against the administration’s regulatory plans to legalize millions of aliens in the U.S. illegally.  The injunction was upheld by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, and the president’s plan is now stalled while the administration works through the federal court system.

Except now there are plans afoot to change the regulations pertaining to green cards that would accomplish almost everything the president can’t get from Congress or the courts.  A leaked memo from DHS outlines four plans the administration is considering.

Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute:

The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADsonly to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.

As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

Get a load of what the DHS bureaucrats think about illegals working in the U.S.:

The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

Smith concludes: “Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016.”

I’m not sure that judge in Texas will let the administration get away with this.  When the government began handing out green cards anyway in defiance of the injunction, the judge, Andrew Hanen, threatened to arrest the lot of them for contempt.  He forced the government to recall the green cards immediately.  There will be no circumventing the law in his court.

But the plans may be untouchable because they don’t directly stem from the series of executive orders currently being adjudicated.  Of course, any plan to blanket the country in work permits for illegals will be challenged in court.  But eventually, the administration may find a friendly judge who gives it the go-ahead.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/obama_set_to_defy_federal_court_on_amnesty.html

OBAMA PREPARES GIVE-AWAY OF WHITE-COLLAR JOBS AND CITIZENSHIP TO FOREIGN GRADUATES

President Barack Obama’s deputies are quietly hacking a gap through immigration regulations to allow them to import hundreds of thousands of university-trained foreign workers for jobs sought by American college grads.

By Neil Munro

“They’re bending immigration law until it almost breaks,”  says Ian Smith, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. The Obama-hack, he added, should be fixed by Congress or a judge

The regulatory hack is part of Obama’s broad immigration-boosting alliance with Fortune 500 Companies and the GOP’s establishment. In 2013 and 2014, most — but not all — of his prior amnesty and immigration plans were blocked by voters and judges, despite furious lobbying of the GOP by business.

If Obama succeeds, he would make life tougher for young and middle-aged American graduates, who are already facing wage-cutting competition from the roughly 1 million white-collar guest-workers that the U.S. government allows to live in the United States. The extra foreign graduates would also deter young Americans from high-tech careers, and provide the Democratic Party with more donations and more voters.

But Obama’s hack would also spotlight a large opportunity for any GOP 2016 candidate eager to win votes from America’s young college-grads, their parents and the hard-pressed professional sector. So far, only Donald Trump has seized the opportunity by promising to make foreign guest-workers more expensive to hire. If he is elected, and reforms the H-1B program, he’d likely transfer roughly 600,000 guest-worker jobs to American graduates.

That’s almost equal to the number of Americans who graduate each year from college with skilled degrees.

Basically, Obama’s regulatory hack would convert a long-standing bureaucratic band-aid into a process for printing extra work-permits.

The decision has not been announced, but is being finalized by officials at the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, Smith told Breitbart News.

Currently, the band-aid, dubbed the Employment Authorization Document, is given to people who have been approved for — but have not yet received — their Green Cards.

But there’s no statute that limits how early the EADS can be granted to people who apply for Green Cards.

So the administration now wants to award EADs up to six years before foreign workers can get Green Cards, says Smith.

That change would convert the bureaucratic band-aid EADs into provision

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) 15%

Cards. Early distribution of EADs would allow many guest-workers to become U.S. residents and citizens, even though they’re carrying visas that last only two, four or six years.

“The administration is straying so far beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation that no court would find passing the laugh test,” Smith said. The “willing distortion… turns the standard into an absolute absurdity,” he added.

The number of people who would get EADs and Green Cards via Obama’s hack is unclear.  That’s because outsiders don’t know what how far Obama’s deputies are going to extend the EAD give-away.

Currently, the government awards short-term work-visas — not Green Cards — to roughly 500,000 blue-collar guest workers, 250,000 college grads and roughly 50,000 agricultural workers each year. Those work-visas are in addition to the annual inflow of 1 million legal migrants and roughly 350,000 illegal migrants.

That’s a huge 2 million inflow compared to the 4 million Americans who enter the workforce each year, or the roughly 800,000 Americans who earn skilled four-year college degrees each year.

Every extra inflow of college grads is great for companies because it increases the supply of college-grads — doctors, industrial designers, architects, lawyers, software testers, programmers, scientists, pharmacists, therapists and statisticians. Any increased supply reduces payroll costs, so freeing up more funds for profits and boosting Wall Street Values.

For example, the much-touted H-1B program brings in roughly 100,000 workers each year, partly because the H-1B visas given to non-profit universities, hospitals and research centers don’t count against the much-touted annual limit of 85,000 visas. In 2014, Obama also decided that the spouses of H-1B workers would get work-permits.

Each H1-B worker can stay for six or even 10 years, so the total resident population of H-1B workers and working spouses is roughly 750,000. The H-1B workers have jobs in all parts of the United States, in many types of careers, partly because they’re cheaper that middle-aged Americans.

Few Americans know about the Optional Practical Training Program, which allows foreign graduates of American universities to work for a year in the United States for every degree they get from a for-profit or non-profit university. The uncapped program has grown from roughly 80,000 workers in 2009 to 120,000 in 2013, and is expected to grow if colleges can recruit foreign students by offering them Americans jobs and — Obama permitting — EADs and eventual citizenship.

At the request of companies, Obama has recently doubled the amount of time each foreign graduate can work in the United States, or up to roughly four and half years for people who earn undergraduate and post-graduate technology degrees. However, a judge may block that move following a lawsuit by Smith’s legal group.

Obama’s deputies have also been handing out roughly 70,000 L visas per year. These visas allow foreign companies to transfer workers from their home-country jobs into the U.S., where they work at home-country wages. If each L-visa worker stays for five years, there’s a resident population of 350,000 L-visa workers. There is no cap to this program, so the number would likely increase if Obama’s EAD-hack allows foreign L-visa workers to get citizenship. Obama’s deputies are already expanding the L program to let foreign companies bring in a wider range of L-visa workers.

Together, these three programs — H-1B, OPT and L Visa — have created a resident population of more than 1 million lower-wage foreign college grads who are working in jobs sought by American graduates, all around the country.

If Obama’s deputies annually provide EADs to 125,000 foreign workers — that’s roughly half the current annual inflow of guest-worker graduates— they will further glut the labor market by adding one foreign worker for every six American college graduates.

Roughly 800,000 Americans annually graduate from college with skilled degrees in medicine, business, science, computers, architecture or math. Many do not find full-time jobs in their specialties.

In numerous actions and speeches, Obama has made clear that he does not think Americans have any right to restrict immigration — and the establishment GOP has not pushed back.

For example, since 2011, he’s allowed more than 240,000 unskilled Central American migrants to cross into the United States in search of jobs and government support. In September, his deputies said he wants to bring in 100,000 refugees a year. He’s also rolled back enforcement of immigration law so much that’s he’s released more than 30,000 foreign criminals back into lower-income neighborhoods.

On September 28, 2015, for example, he told the United Nations that “our most basic bond—our common humanity—compels us to act” against so-called “climate change.” That “most basic bond” claim dismissed the long-standing view that Americans’ “most basic bond” is to their families and to their fellow Americans.

In November 2014, Obama told a Chicago audience that “there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.”

“Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently… that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration,” Obama said in the same Chicago speech, which was intended to just his decision to grant work-permits to roughly 5 million foreign migrants living illegally in the United States.

That give-away was later stopped — perhaps temporarily — by federal courts.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/obama-prepares-give-away-white-collar-jobs-citizenship-foreign-graduates/

The Myth of the “Otherwise Law-Abiding” Illegal Alien

By Jon Feere 

For years advocates of amnesty and high levels of immigration have described the illegal alien population as one made up of “otherwise law-abiding” people who have committed no violation other than the simple act of crossing a border illegally or overstaying a visa.1Journalists routinely invoke this language when writing about amnesty, conspicuously avoiding any discussion of the various crimes the average working illegal alien commits. Many politicians have also embraced the myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien in an effort to promote amnesty, arguing that illegal aliens are no threat to the United States.2

But the average illegal alien violates numerous statutes, often creating real victims.

This Backgrounder details the many statutes the average illegal alien who is simply “here to work” may be violating. The violations include laws involving the entry, presence, and travel of illegal aliens as well as laws related to employment such as perjury and identity theft. Examples of oft-violated but under-enforced laws include:

  • False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911). Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer.
  • Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment.
  • Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example. Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

This Backgrounder does not address crimes of violence, property crimes like vandalism, or other acts like gang activity and drunk driving. The focus is on statutes that come into play when a person enters the country illegally or overstays a visa and becomes employed.

Over the past several years, the Obama administration has narrowed the scope of immigration enforcement, promising to focus on what President Obama considers “the worst of the worst” violent offenders.3 But just because an illegal alien isn’t a violent threat to society, it does not follow that his or her presence is not a threat to the rule of law, taxpayers, and society generally. Despite the opinion of amnesty advocates — namely, that the United States can give a pass to violations of law without suffering any repercussions — our nation’s immigration laws do serve a variety of purposes and are ultimately meant to protect those who are in the United States lawfully.

Nevertheless, illegal aliens who violate the statutes listed in this report remain a low priority under the guidelines set forth by the Obama administration.

Obama’s Administrative Amnesty. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency “prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators.” Although low-level illegal aliens engaged in basic identity theft do pose a threat to the public, the Obama administration has directed ICE to ignore such criminality and to focus on the “worst of the worst”. Often called the White House’s “administrative amnesty”, the immigration agenda pursued by the Obama administration is often referred to as a “prioritization” scheme, but it is largely a decision to not deport illegal aliens unless or until a crime of violence has occurred. The policy came into shape through what are known as the “Morton Memos”, a series of directives from former ICE director John Morton.4 The directives resulted in the union for ICE agents taking a vote of “no confidence” against Morton in June 2011.5

The Obama administration extended its plan to not enforce some immigration laws on June 15, 2012, announcing that most illegal aliens purporting to be under age 31 and claiming to have come to the United States prior to age 16 would be granted a renewable two-year legalization known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program excludes illegal aliens convicted of felonies, “significant misdemeanors” (e.g. domestic violence, sexual abuse), or three or more non-significant misdemeanors (one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or less). Put another way, illegal aliens applying for DACA can commit misdemeanors and create real victims and still qualify for the Obama administration’s amnesty program — a program never approved by Congress, creating conflicts within federal law. These conflicts led to ICE agents suing the Obama administration, claiming that they were being forced to choose between enforcing federal law and abiding by political priorities.6 In the 15 months DACA has been in operation, over 400,000 illegal aliens have received legal status through the program.7

The fallout from releasing or not detaining so-called low-priority aliens has inflicted serious damage on American society, as detailed in a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. CRS is the non-partisan public policy research arm of the United States Congress. CRS studied an approximately 30-month period and found that ICE took no action against more than 159,000 non-citizens who were arrested by local officers and flagged by the federal Secure Communities program.8 Of these 159,000 criminal aliens, nearly 47,000 were illegal aliens, 16,000 had temporary visas, 87,000 had green cards, and 9,000 had another legal status such as refugee or temporary protected status.

Upon release, more than 26,000 of the criminal aliens — about one in six — were arrested again within the time period studied (October 27, 2008 through July 31, 2011). They were charged with nearly 58,000 new crimes during this time period. The 58,000 new crimes included more than 5,000 major or violent criminal offenses, including 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, and 542 sex crimes. In addition, they were charged with more than 6,000 drug violations and nearly 8,500 DUI violations.9

Presumably some of the criminal aliens were jailed, fined, and deported after committing the murders and sex crimes, but many of the aliens were deportable prior to their acts of violence. Victimization of American citizens, it seems, is all too often a prerequisite for immigration enforcement.

Removing illegal immigrants at the first instance of illegal activity, no matter how small the crime, could prevent larger crimes in the future. This type of enforcement — opposite the approach taken by the Obama administration — might be considered the “broken windows” theory of immigration enforcement. A commitment to immigration enforcement could prevent tens of thousands of Americans from becoming victims.

Violations in the Context of Legislative Amnesty. If Congress were to pass an amnesty it would immediately give illegal aliens a pass for their violations of immigration law, ranging from illegal entry to overstaying a visa. Many illegal aliens who might benefit from an amnesty have been ordered to leave the country, and they have 90 days to do so from the final removal order. It is incorrect to refer to an alien in the United States 90 days after a removal order as “law-abiding”. The alien faces a fine and imprisonment for the violation. Any amnesty or administrative pass for an alien’s lawlessness would not be a pass for just the illegal entry or overstay of a visa, it would also be a pass for the alien’s decision to ignore the order of removal. It would be a literal get-out-of-jail-free card since the alien would not have to pay a fine or face imprisonment as current law requires.

But an amnesty would also likely give illegal aliens a pass for the other crimes listed in this report. As written, violation of any of the dozens of laws listed below, such as those involving identity theft, could result in an illegal alien being deported after paying a fine or serving time in jail for the violation. However, proposed amnesties have been written so as to not render an applicant ineligible even if he has violated certain statutes and committed some misdemeanors. And due to political priorities in the Obama administration, many of the laws listed below are not being enforced anyway. Taken together, these policy prescriptions make the concept of conducting background checks on illegal aliens applying for amnesty somewhat absurd. Nevertheless, some of these crimes currently being committed by illegal aliens can amount to aggravated felonies and would prevent an alien from being deemed to have “good moral character”, permanently barring them from naturalization under existing immigration law.10

Millions of illegal aliens have engaged in identity fraud, a crime that creates real victims. Yet it is unlikely that the White House would require aliens applying for amnesty to declare the names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past. The original application for the DACA amnesty did require applicants to list the Social Security numbers they had previously used; after amnesty advocates complained, the Obama administration removed the requirement, leaving the American victims — the true owners of the numbers — completely in the dark as to the crimes committed against them.11 Real victims have been created yet amnesty gives these violations a pass, putting the interests of the illegal alien before the interests of the U.S. citizen. This is a fact rarely addressed by amnesty advocates or journalists who perpetuate the myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien.

It is important to remember that, ultimately, an amnesty is a free pass not only for the basic immigration violations, but also a free pass for many other crimes committed during the alien’s stay in the United States.

What about Detention? The myth of the law-abiding illegal alien is also important in the context of detention. In 2002, Congress tasked ICE with creating an “Alternatives to Detention Program”, which allows aliens “who present a low risk of flight, and who pose no danger to the community” to be released without detention as they await deportation proceedings.12 The threshold of posing “no danger” should be a difficult one to meet considering the numerous criminal statutes the average illegal alien may be violating, but non-violent crimes generally are not considered a bar to alternative detention. In the period studied by ICE between 2002 and 2009, most of the nearly 40,000 aliens granted an alternative to detention only had to meet limited requirements such as calling ICE at certain times throughout the day or being present for unannounced home visitations. Over 2,000 of these aliens simply disappeared. It is unclear how many crimes the aliens committed while in “alternative detention” and whether those who absconded are continuing to commit crimes today, crimes that the Obama administration considers too insignificant to justify deportation.

What Is a Criminal? Many illegal aliens are potential “criminal aliens” as many have violated a number of criminal statutes (e.g. identity theft).13 Some illegal aliens are “violent criminal aliens” and have committed more serious crimes (e.g. murder).14 It is important that language is used cautiously and that illegal aliens are never referred to as “non-criminal” or “otherwise law-abiding” unless it is clear that they have violated no criminal statutes on the local, state, or federal levels.

Additionally, it is important to think about what it means to be a criminal. In the legal sense, only after one is found guilty of a legal violation is one considered to be a “criminal”. In the colloquial sense, a person who has broken a law, but has not yet been prosecuted or convicted, is often considered to be a “criminal.” Black’s Law Dictionary, for example, explains that the word “criminal” can be used to describe a person “who has been convicted of a crime” or a person “who has committed a criminal offense”. While those writing on the subject of immigrant criminality are justified in being cautious about referring to an individual as a criminal, writers should be equally cautious about using the phrases “non-criminal” and “law-abiding” when referring to illegal immigrants.

Simply because a person has not been brought before a court, prosecuted, and found guilty, it does not necessarily follow that the individual has not engaged in criminal activity. This is often true in immigration enforcement where ICE will encounter, for example, a number of illegal aliens using false documents at a worksite. ICE will often make the decision to deport the individuals based on their illegal status without filing identity fraud or perjury charges, for example, even though it is understood that fraud was used to acquire the jobs. The decision to not go after the alien on perjury or fraud charges is a way of avoiding the expenditure of resources on detention and a trial. Such a decision is also advantageous to the alien because he avoids the punishment (a fine or imprisonment) associated with the criminal violation. Of course, deportation without punishment for crimes committed here is arguably a loss to the United States (and to individual victims) because the fines are never collected. It also has the effect of making an illegal alien appear “non-criminal” and “otherwise law-abiding”.

Discussion

The statutes below are grouped into four different sections. Section I focuses on laws involving the entry, presence, and travel of illegal aliens. Section II focuses on laws employed illegal aliens may be violating, including identity theft laws. Section III lists additional document laws that illegal aliens often violate. Finally, Section IV lists miscellaneous laws and addresses the issue of state law.

While the list below may seem lengthy, it is only a sampling of the statutes an average illegal alien may be violating. It is not to be interpreted as a comprehensive list. Whether or not a statute applies to an illegal alien will depend on that individual’s circumstances.

I. Laws Involving Entry, Presence, and Travel

Improper Entry by Alien (8 U.S.C. § 1325). While some illegal aliens entered the United States legally and then overstayed a visa, the majority of illegal aliens in the United States have violated this entry-focused statute.15This statute is aimed at any alien who “(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.” The first time an alien is convicted, he faces a fine and/or up to six months in prison. A second violation results in another fine and/or imprisonment up to two years.16

Also, any alien who is “apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” is subject to a civil penalty of $50 to $250 for each such entry (or attempt). If the alien is apprehended again making or attempting such an entry, the amounts can be doubled.17

Registration of Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1302). Advocates of amnesty often argue that a mass legalization program is necessary so that we can determine the identities of illegal aliens in the country. But federal law already requires all aliens, even those in the country illegally, to register their presence if they remain in the United States for 30 days or longer. Specifically,

It shall be the duty of every alien…in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted [during the visa process], and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.18

Aliens under the age of 14 are not exempt from registration, but the duty to make sure it happens falls on the parent or guardian:

It shall be the duty of every parent or legal guardian of any alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is less than fourteen years of age, (2) has not been registered [during the visa process], and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for the registration of such alien before the expiration of such thirty days.19

If an illegal alien is unregistered and has been in the country for 30 days or longer, the alien is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $1,000 and a jail term of up to six months.20 Since failing to register is a continuing violation, the statute of limitations does not apply and the alien is liable for as long as he remains unregistered in the country.21

Interestingly, this provision could be applied to millions of illegal aliens today. DHS estimates of 11.5 million illegal aliens as of January 2011 are based the American Community Survey. The survey uses a two-month rule for calculating residency; those here for less than two months are not counted. This means that the 11.5 million illegal immigrants as estimated by DHS are by definition people who have been in the United States illegally for more than 60 days. There is simply no question that the border-hopping portion of the illegal immigrant population is comprised largely of people who are violating this registration statute.22

Additionally, if an alien procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, he is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $1,000 and/or a jail term of up to six months.23

Counterfeiting is also a potential issue here. Any person “who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof” faces a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.24

Reporting Requirements for Individuals (19 U.S.C. § 1459). Any illegal alien who has walked across the U.S. border and entered illegally at a location that is not a designated crossing point has violated this statute. The statute requires those “individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft” to “enter the United States only at a border crossing point” and “immediately… report the arrival, and… present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection” to a customs officer.25

People arriving by a reported conveyance — like a cruise ship, bus, or train — “shall remain aboard the conveyance until authorized to depart the conveyance by the appropriate customs officer.” After leaving the conveyance, “passengers and crew members shall immediately report to the designated customs facility with all articles accompanying them.”26

People arriving by an unreported conveyance — like a private vehicle — “shall immediately notify a customs officer and report their arrival, together with appropriate information concerning the conveyance on or in which they arrived, and present their property for customs examination and inspection.”

Penalties for violation of this law are quite serious and include “a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation” as well as a criminal penalty of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year.

High Speed Flight from Immigration Checkpoint (18 U.S.C. § 758). Depending on how an illegal alien enters the United States, if he came across the border and evaded law enforcement at a checkpoint, he may have violated this statute. To violate this statute, the alien must be in a motor vehicle traveling in excess of the legal speed limit and must be fleeing federal, state, or local law enforcement officers. Such offense is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years.27

Unlawful Bringing of Aliens into United States (8 U.S.C. § 1323). Oftentimes illegal aliens will enter the United States with other illegal aliens, and if the alien was involved in helping to bring in other aliens, he has violated this law. Put simply, it is unlawful for an illegal alien to bring to the United States from any place outside of the country any alien without valid travel documents. The government can levy a fine of $3,300 for each unlawful alien brought into the country.28

The sentencing guidelines take into account the severity of the violation, which depends on a number of factors, including how many people were smuggled, whether it was done for profit, and whether it was done recklessly (e.g. no seatbelts for those being smuggled, overcrowding of a vehicle, children smuggled in trunk on hot day, use of a vehicle with bald tires).29

Some illegal immigrants bring family members into the United States illegally, a fact much-discussed during the recent debate over the failed DREAM Act and President Obama’s Deferred Action program. If the amnesty were to become law, it is interesting to think about how this violation may never be punished; it seems more likely that the parent smugglers of DREAM Act recipients would be able to obtain legal status as a result of existing chain migration laws. But every illegal alien who brought a child across the border is likely liable under this statute.

Human traffickers are also often charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371, “Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States”, discussed later.

Overstaying Duration of Stay (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) & (C)(i)). Approximately 40 percent of illegal aliens currently in the United States entered legally and overstayed their authorized duration of stay. The actual annual number of overstayers is quite significant; the government estimated that in 2008 alone, 2.9 million foreign visitors on temporary visas were admitted but never officially checked out and that perhaps several hundred thousand of them overstayed.30 Though Congress has requested a working Exit system for nearly two decades, the United States still has no way of determining whether or not a legal immigrant actually leaves when his duration of stay expires.31

An alien who overstays becomes an illegal alien and is deportable.32 If the alien overstays a by more than 180 days, but less than one year, and then departs the United States voluntarily, he is barred from reentering the United States for a period of three years. If he leaves after having been in the country illegally for one year or more, then the alien is barred from reentering for ten years.33 It is inaccurate to label as “law-abiding” a person who fails to uphold their end of an agreement to visit the United States on a temporary basis and chooses to remain in the country illegally.

Reentry of Removed Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1326). Many illegal aliens in the United States have either been previously deported or at least denied admission. This statute addresses the alien who has reentered, or attempted to reenter, the United States after having been previously denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed. It is also aimed at the alien who has reentered, or attempted to reenter, after earlier departing the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding. An alien who violates this statute faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to two years. If the deportation was the result of certain criminal convictions, the alien faces imprisonment up to 20 years.34

Willful Failure or Refusal to Depart (8 U.S.C. § 1253). Many illegal aliens have already been ordered to leave the country by immigration authorities, and they have 90 days to do so from the final removal order. If an alien has had a final order of removal issued against him and he either willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States, make timely application in good faith for necessary travel documents, or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper his departure, he faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to four years. The alien faces the same penalties for willfully failing or refusing to present himself for removal at the time and place required by the government. If the alien is involved in smuggling, high-speed flight from a checkpoint, or other serious crimes outlined in the statute, the alien faces up to 10 years imprisonment.35 It is incorrect to refer to an alien in the United States 90 days after a removal order as “law-abiding.”

Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart (8 U.S.C. § 1324d). Any alien subject to a final order of removal who “willfully fails or refuses” to depart from the United States pursuant to the order, make timely application for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or present themselves for removal at the time and place required by the government, is required to pay a civil penalty up to $500 for each day he is in violation of this statute.36 The same penalty applies for an alien who conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper his own departure. Over the course of a year, an illegal alien could rack up a fine of up to $182,500. As of March 2013, ICE estimates that over 851,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered removed are still living in the United States.37The Senate amnesty bill (S.744) would effectively waive these penalties and replace them with a waiverable fine of only $500 for provisional legal status.

Failure to Comply with Terms of Release under Supervision (8 U.S.C. § 1253(b)). In some instances, an illegal alien ordered deported is not repatriated due to unique circumstances. For example, some countries refuse to take back their nationals.38 If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the removal period, the alien, pending removal, is to be subject to supervision under regulations prescribed by the DHS secretary. The regulations can include, for example, a requirement that the alien not commit any crimes.39 The regulations “shall” include provisions requiring the alien to appear before an immigration officer periodically for identification; to submit, if necessary, to a medical and psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States government; to give information under oath about the alien’s nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities, and other information the secretary considers appropriate; and to obey reasonable written restrictions on the alien’s conduct or activities that the secretary prescribes for the alien.40

An alien who willfully fails to comply with the regulations or requirements issued pursuant to the supervised release or knowingly gives false information in response to an inquiry under this release, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.41

Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324). This statute is aimed at an individual who “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry.” The statute is also aimed at the person who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law”; or with the same knowledge “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection” such an alien; or “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” An individual is liable under this statute if they engage in any conspiracy to commit any of these acts, or if they aid or abet the commission the acts.42

Punishment ranges from one to 10 years, but can reach up to 20 years if the alien places a person’s life in jeopardy during the process, if the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States, or if aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more, for example.43

Any alien who is participating in the smuggling can be charged as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2, as aiding and abetting the illegal entry of an alien is a not a lesser included offense of concealing, harboring, shielding, and illegally transporting aliens as described in §1324.44

Aiding or Assisting Certain Aliens to Enter (8 U.S.C. § 1327). If a person knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible because of an aggravated felony conviction, he faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to 10 years. This is the case even if he simply “connives or conspires” with any person to “allow, procure, or permit” any such alien to enter the United States.45 To be found liable, the individual does not need to have knowledge of the alien’s felony record; he simply needs to have knowledge that the individual is inadmissible. For example, a defendant was found liable under this statute even though he was unaware that the alien he helped enter the country illegally had previously been convicted of possession of a narcotic substance for sale, an aggravated felony, which made the alien inadmissible to the United States.46

Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud the United States (18. U.S.C. § 371). Oftentimes an illegal alien will work with other aliens in order to enter the United States or commit some other type of fraud. In such an instance, each party might be violating a conspiracy offense related to defrauding the United States. Specifically, if two or more individuals “conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof” and one or more of the individuals makes even one small act in furtherance of the conspiracy, each can be fined and/or imprisoned up to five years.47 This statute has been invoked where illegal aliens have conspired to falsify entry documents,48 and in the context of illegal aliens transporting and harboring illegal aliens,49 for example. The government can charge the alien with both conspiracy and the underlying, substantive offense.

Civil Penalty for Failure to Depart under Voluntary Departure (8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)). Some illegal aliens are given the opportunity to voluntarily leave the United States in a manner that does not include a legal order of removal. They are allowed to leave at their own expense within a specified period of time. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a fine and a ten-year bar of certain forms of relief from deportation. In addition, the alien “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000.”50

Driving without a License. It is increasingly unlikely that an illegal alien who operates a motor vehicle will have a valid driver’s license.51 Driving without a license is a violation of state-level statutes, and the penalties vary from state to state.52 Generally, an illegal alien driving without a license will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will face fines. It is important to remember that some states grant temporary driver’s licenses to legal, temporary aliens which expire at the end of an alien’s visa period.53 Depending on state laws, driving with an expired license can be a greater offense than driving without a license.

Driving without Insurance. Illegal aliens who drive without a license are very unlikely to carry car insurance. Driving without insurance is a violation of state-level statutes. Generally, driving a car without insurance is a misdemeanor and the penalty is usually either a fine or imprisonment, depending on state law.54

Driving without a Valid Vehicle Registration. It is likely that millions of illegal aliens across the United States drive unregistered vehicles, a violation that may be either a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances and state law.55 When Ohio recently cancelled nearly 50,000 suspected fraudulent registrations, amnesty advocates at the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) seemed to admit that this violation is common among illegal aliens, calling Ohio’s efforts “a thinly veiled and inappropriate attempt to enforce federal immigration policy at the state level.”56 Although a lawsuit filed by LULAC failed, it remains unclear how many illegal aliens continue to drive in the state without a valid registration.57

False Statement to Law Enforcement. When an illegal alien is stopped or arrested as part of an investigation, particularly if it involves one of the travel-based offenses listed above, it is not uncommon for the alien to make a false statement as to the alien’s identity.58 Depending on circumstances and state law, false statements to a law enforcement officer may be considered a misdemeanor or a felony.59

II. Laws Involving the Workplace

Since the comprehensive amnesty of 1986 — the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — it has been illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens are subject to fines that range from $250 to $2,500 for the first violation, to $3,000 to $10,000 for a third violation. If such illegal employment becomes a pattern or practice, the employer can also face imprisonment.60 Any type of amnesty would give employers a pass for such violations and make their illegal hires permanent.

Illegal aliens who seek out employment often violate many laws themselves, some of which are listed below. Many of these crimes create real victims for which there is often little restitution. American victims face years of correcting problems associated with identity theft and have tremendous difficulty re-establishing their credit.61 It has been reported that every year, nearly nine million people pay their taxes using the wrong Social Security number and that many if not most are the result of illegal aliens using numbers that do not belong to them.62Despite this, amnesties generally give such lawlessness a pass leaving American victims to fend for themselves.

Under federal law, aliens engaged in certain identity crimes face civil and criminal penalties under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the U.S. Criminal Code. Those found guilty of such crimes can also be denied certain immigration benefits, including the ability to enter and/or remain in the United States.63

An Interview with William Riley
on Identity Theft:View the Full Interview

False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911).Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable as a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer. It may also involve an illegal alien claiming to be a citizen for purposes of voting, receiving some government benefit, or an alien attempting to avoid deportation by presenting a fake U.S. birth certificate to an ICE agent during an investigation.64An alien who “falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States” faces a fine and imprisonment up to three years.65

Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to immigration officials during investigations, and to misrepresent themselves to the government, generally. Any false statement or fraudulent act may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as a felony. The falsification does not have to be made directly to a government official; it must simply relate to and affect a relationship “within the jurisdiction” of the federal government.66 It is broad in scope, and as the courts have noted, §1001 is “intended to serve the vital public purpose of protecting governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices, and it must not be construed as if its object were narrow and technical.”67

There are a number of ways in which a person may violate §1001. For example, a false statement on an I-9 employment eligibility verification form is a violation of this law.68 Other examples include providing fake identification or orally misrepresenting oneself to a border agent,69 falsely telling a border agent that all vehicle occupants are U.S. citizens,70 and concealing the fact that a marriage was entered into solely for purposes of obtaining legal status.71

All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire. This includes citizens and noncitizens. The purpose is to document that each new employee is authorized to work in the United States. The form must be completed within three days of the hiring, but if the job is to last less than three days the form must be completed at the time employment begins.72

Any illegal alien who has filled out an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form is likely guilty of perjury. One section requires an attestation of employability and reads as follows:

I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am:

__ A citizen of the United States

__ A noncitizen national of the United States

__ A lawful permanent resident

__ An alien authorized to work.

The I-9 form also requires employees to attest to the following:

I am aware that federal law provides for imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents in connection with the completion of this form.73

A person faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully “in any matter within the jurisdiction” of the United States (1) falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.74

It is likely that an amnesty will provide illegal aliens a pass for I-9 perjury. Additionally, businesses that have been violating federal law by not maintaining I-9 forms will also likely face no repercussions.

Interestingly, “an alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit” under the INA or any other federal or state law, or for the purpose of employment, is inadmissible.75 Yet an amnesty could grant a person who would normally be denied admission for such violations the ability to adjust their status to that of a legal resident and eventually to that of a U.S. citizen.

Falsely Claiming Citizenship (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and § 1227(a)(3)(D)). Violations of these statutes make an alien inadmissible to the United States, can make an illegal alien ineligible to adjust his immigration status, and renders an alien deportable. Specifically “any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit [under the Immigration and Nationality chapter of the U.S. Code] or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.”76

Similarly, “any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit [under the Immigration and Nationality chapter of the U.S. Code] or any Federal or State law is deportable.”

Claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an employment I-9 Form is a violation of these statutes.77

This statute is taken quite seriously and courts have held that a violation cannot be waived by the U.S. Attorney General.78 Yet an amnesty would have the effect of waiving these violations and would allow violators to adjust their status to U.S. citizen.

Since nearly half of working illegal aliens have filled out I-9 Forms and are likely in violation of these statutes, it is incorrect to claim that such individuals are “law-abiding”.

An interview with USCIS FDNS
Architect Don Crocetti on Fraud:View the Full Interview

Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents (18 U.S.C. § 1546). Illegal immigrants often use fraudulent documentation as a means to enter the United States, procure a job, or to obtain certain benefits. As such, this law is frequently used in immigration prosecutions.79

If the goal is procuring illegal employment and a person uses an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully to him, or uses an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or makes a false attestation, the person faces fines and up to five years imprisonment.80

This statute is broad and is aimed at anyone who “knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card”, or other identification document for entry into the United States or for the purpose of either proving permission to stay or work in the United States. It is also aimed at anyone who “utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives” such a document if the person knows it to be “forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained.”81 Foreign-issued passports that are fraudulently used are covered under this statute.82

The law also is aimed at anyone who possesses and/or brings into the United States materials used for manufacturing fake documents (e.g. blank permits, distinctive paper adopted by immigration authorities, printing plates). It is also aimed at anyone who sells such items.83

The law also is aimed at aliens applying for a visa, permit, or other entry document who “personates another, or falsely appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity.”84

A person also is liable under this law for selling or disposing (or simply offering) such a document to a person not authorized to receive such a document.

A perjury statute is also found in this section of law and it applies to anyone who uses a false statement with respect to a material fact in any application or other document required under immigration laws. For example, it has been invoked where a previously deported alien answered “no” to a question on an entry form asking whether he had ever been previously arrested and deported.85 Similarly, the statute can be invoked where an alien denies existence of an earlier criminal conviction.86

A basic violation of this law can result in a 10-year jail sentence and/or fine, provided it does not involve terrorism or a drug trafficking. If the violation is in furtherance of terrorism, the penalty can range up to 25 years imprisonment.87

Every state has its own laws aimed at preventing identity theft. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides a detailed list of some of these laws.88 Depending on the state statute, when an illegal alien uses another person’s identity, he may be guilty of a misdemeanor or felony, may face fines and/or jail time, and may be required to provide restitution to any victims of the ID theft. Even if an illegal alien does not use another’s ID personally, any illegal aliens who facilitates the fraudulent use of IDs belonging to another may face repercussions, as many states provide penalties for individuals who sell, transfer, or convey misappropriated identity information to others. However, any federal legislation aimed at shielding illegal aliens from prosecution (i.e. an amnesty) may also prevent victims of identity theft from having their identities and credit corrected.

Penalties for Document Fraud (8 U.S.C. § 1324c). This statute makes it illegal for any person or entity to knowingly “forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document” for the purpose of satisfying a requirement or obtaining a benefit under the “Immigration and Nationality” section of the U.S. Code.89 It also makes it illegal for a person “to use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, or receive or to provide any forged, counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document”, or “to use or attempt to use or to provide or attempt to provide any document lawfully issued to or with respect to a person other than the possessor (including a deceased individual)” for the purpose of satisfying a requirement or obtaining a benefit under the “Immigration and Nationality” section.

The statute also makes it illegal to “accept or receive” or “provide” any document to a person that was lawfully issued to someone else for the purpose of employment verification, or some other benefit.90 A person who assists someone to knowingly prepare and/or submit a false application for benefits under the “Immigration and Nationality” section of the U.S. Code can be prosecuted under this statute as well.

Violators face a fine from $250 to $2,000 for each document that is the subject of the violation. Repeat offenders face a fine from $2,000 to $5,000 for each document confiscated during the second violation.

Penalties for Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). As might be expected, this statute is aimed primarily at preventing individuals from defrauding the Social Security Administration. Much of the statute focuses on unauthorized payments and falsified employment information. However, the statute is broad and can apply in a number of different situations. For example, when it comes to a person illegally receiving government benefits through use of a fraudulent Social Security card, such benefits do not need to be pursuant to the Social Security Act; other governmental benefits such as subsidized housing would trigger this statute.91 Furthermore, any use of a false SSN on nonfederal documents is actionable as the statute reaches private transactions.92

As examples, this statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job.93 The statute has been invoked where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license.94 In another instance, an illegal alien was found liable under this statute when she used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing.95

This statute can likely be invoked against many illegal aliens who are working. After the 2008 ICE effort against Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa, federal officials alleged that about 76 percent of the company’s nearly 1,000 workers were using fraudulent Social Security numbers.96 ICE filed almost 700 complaints against the workers for Social Security fraud and other crimes.97 Not surprisingly, ICE explained that their investigation started when the victims of this identity theft came forward after being unable to get credit reports and having problems with their taxes.98

In 2012 alone, the Internal Revenue Service identified nearly 1.8 million incidents of identity theft.99 The Federal Trade Commission notes that children are prime targets for ID theft since their identities are “blank slate[s] that can be used to obtain goods and services over a long time” and are not generally monitored by their parents. The FTC points out that more than 140,000 instances of identity fraud per year are perpetrated on children in the United States.100

Specifically, the statute is aimed at anyone who “willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a Social Security account number” acquired through false information provided to the SSA by either the individual himself or any other person. It is also aimed at anyone who “with intent to deceive, falsely represents” a number as a number validly assigned to him. The statute is also aimed at a person who “knowingly alters a Social Security card” issued by the federal government, or “buys or sells a card” that is, or purports to be a Social Security card issued by the federal government, or “counterfeits a Social Security card”, or “possesses a Social Security card or counterfeit Social Security card with intent to sell or alter it.” Finally, the statute is aimed at anyone who “discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the Social Security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States.” Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). This statute applies when certain felonies occur during and in relation to an act that constitutes knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another. The list of applicable felonies is lengthy and includes a number of immigration-related crimes involving nationality, citizenship, passports, visas, and “False Personation of U.S. Citizen”, (18 U.S.C. § 911). The penalty is a mandatory two years imprisonment. The penalty rises to five years if the act involves terrorism. The sentence can only be served consecutively to any other sentence.101 And since there will often be an imprisonment for the underlying felony, this statute can result in lengthy imprisonment due to the fact that the two years cannot be served concurrently with any other sentence.

Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax (26 U.S.C. § 7203). According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an illegal alien who passes a “Substantial Presence Test” (a tax law formula that measures length of stay in the United States) is to be treated for tax purposes as a resident alien. Specifically, illegal aliens who are present in the United States for at least 183 days over the past three years (31 days of which must be during the current year) in accordance with an IRS formula, are generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen.102 The IRS explains, an “undocumented (illegal) alien under the immigration laws who passes the Substantial Presence Test will be treated for tax purposes as a RESIDENT ALIEN.”103

Approximately seven to eight million illegal aliens are holding jobs, and approximately 45 to 50 percent of them are estimated to be working off the books.104 This means that millions of illegal aliens are likely violating this statute.

In order to collect taxes owed, the government can place a levy on the violator’s bank account, place a lien on his home, and/or seize any personal or real property of value (e.g. a vehicle).

In addition, under § 7203, a person who fails to pay his taxes is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year, or both.

Many advocates of the recently passed Senate amnesty bill S.744 frequently claim that the bill would require illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they worked off the books. However, such a requirement was never included in the final version of the bill. Instead, it provides that amnesty applicants must have “satisfied any applicable federal tax liability” that has previously been “assessed” by the IRS. A tax is “assessed” only when the IRS officially records that it is owed, which occurs after a tax return has been submitted or after the IRS has conducted an audit. Since illegal immigrants working off the books do not submit tax returns and are generally not the subjects of IRS audits, it is unlikely that this provision will have any impact on the majority of amnesty applicants.105

The lack of specific language on a back taxes requirement was not an accident. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the architects of S.744, has previously worked to prohibit the IRS from requiring amnesty applicants to pay back taxes. Two weeks before the 1986 amnesty bill (IRCA) was enacted, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which required aliens applying for permanent residence to pay back taxes. Only months after IRCA’s passage, Schumer, then a member of the House of Representatives, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury urging the government to “immediately” issue a regulation declaring that illegal aliens applying for permanent residence pursuant to IRCA were exempt. According to Schumer: “Obviously, we could not have a successful legalization program if by submitting an application an alien became vulnerable to an enforcement action by the IRS.” While the IRS declined, a year later Congress amended the tax law to prohibit the INS from providing the IRS any tax information of amnesty applicants.106

Similarly, the amnesty bill of 2007 originally included a requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. But the Bush administration persuaded Congress to remove the provision, arguing that it would have been too difficult to administer. The National Taxpayers Union estimated the change would mean a loss of tens of billions of dollars, and argued that most law-abiding Americans would find the change “totally distasteful”.107

If an amnesty bill were to become law, it will send the message that only citizens and legal residents are responsible for paying taxes, and that illegal immigrants are above the law.

III. Additional Document Laws

Misuse of Evidence of Citizenship or Naturalization (18 U.S.C. § 1423). This is aimed at a person who knowingly uses any unlawfully issued or made “order, certificate, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship, judgment, decree, or exemplification . . . or copies or duplicates thereof” that shows any person to be naturalized or admitted to be a citizen. A violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.108

Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully (18 U.S.C. § 1425). Although invoked often in cases involving legal immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship, this statute covers any alien who illegally obtains or attempts to obtain naturalization or citizenship, such as through marriage fraud.109 It also covers any alien who illegally procures or attempts to procure certain documents. Specifically, the law is aimed at anyone who “knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship” and also anyone who, “whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly issues, procures, or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing.” A violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.110

Reproduction of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers (18 U.S.C. § 1426). This statute is broad in scope and addresses a number of issues related to identity fraud and illegal entry into the United States. It is aimed at anyone who “falsely makes, forges, alters, or counterfeits” documents such as certificates of arrival, certificates of evidence of naturalization or citizenship, and a number of other such records, including anything “required or authorized by any law relating to naturalization or citizenship or registry of aliens.”111 It is also aimed at anyone who “utters, sells, disposes of or uses as true or genuine, any false, forged, altered, antedated, or counterfeited” naturalization or citizenship papers.113 The law also criminalizes possession of such documents with the intent to use them.113 Additionally, the law is aimed at anyone who, without lawful authority, engraves or possesses a plate designed for creating naturalization or citizenship papers, or who brings into the United States any document printed therefrom, or who possesses blank naturalization or citizenship papers or distinctive paper used by immigration authorities for citizenship and naturalization purposes.114 The law is also aimed at anyone who without lawful authority “prints, photographs, makes, or executes any print or impression in the likeness of a certificate of arrival, declaration of intention to become a citizen, or certificate of naturalization or citizenship,” or any part thereof.115 Violations of this law result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.116

Sale of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers (18 U.S.C. § 1427). Not only do Illegal aliens often carry false identification, they also often sell such identification to other illegal aliens. This statute is aimed at the individual who “unlawfully sells or disposes of a declaration of intention to become a citizen, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or copies or duplicates or other documentary evidence of naturalization or citizenship.”117A U.S. birth certificate is one example of the type of paper referenced here.118 A simple violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to 10 years for the first or second offense. If it was committed to facilitate drug trafficking or terrorism, the imprisonment term can go up to 20 or 25 years, respectively.119

Naturalization, Citizenship, or Alien Registry (18 U.S.C. § 1015). This statute criminalizes the act of making false statements under oath regarding matters relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens. It also criminalizes the use and attempted use of any certificate of arrival, naturalization, or other documentary evidence of naturalization or citizenship with knowledge that the document was procured by fraud or otherwise unlawfully obtained. The statute also criminalizes false statements, affirmations, attestations and the like that are required as part of the immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry process.

Additionally, this statute is aimed at aliens who knowingly make a false statement or claim that they are or have been a citizen or national of the United States for the purpose of obtaining any federal or state benefit for themselves or any other persons, welfare being a significant focus. It is also a violation to make such a statement or claim for the purpose of illegally acquiring employment in the United States.120 For example, the statute has come into play where an illegal alien claimed to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Form.1121

Finally, the statute criminalizes false statement or claims of U.S. citizenship made for the purpose of registering to vote or to vote in a federal, state, or local election. Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.122

Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information (18 U.S.C. § 1028). In 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, which prohibits knowingly transferring or using without lawful authority, another person’s identification with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or a felony under applicable state and local laws. The statute is also aimed at the production and simple possession of false identification as well as trafficking of false identification documents or document-making implements.123 The statute covers fraudulent use of both U.S. and foreign identification. Depending on the violation, an alien violating this law faces a fine and up to 15 years imprisonment; the jail sentence increases if the violation involves drug trafficking or terrorism.

Possession of False Papers to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1002). This statute is aimed at individuals who “knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money.” Violation of this statute results in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.

False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1542). There are a number of reasons why an illegal alien may attempt to obtain a passport, not the least of which is to create the appearance of legal status. This statute is aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in applying for a passport with intent to “induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another.” It is also aimed at anyone who “knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport” that was obtained through use of a false statement.124 As examples, the law has been invoked where an alien attempted to enter the United States by showing a false passport to an inspector125and where an alien used false statements in applying for a passport — a passport that she planned to provide to her prospective employer as proof of employment eligibility.126

Forgery or False Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1543). Oftentimes illegal aliens will enter the United States using a phony passport. This statute is aimed at anyone who “makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters” a passport with the intent that it be used. It is also aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly “uses, or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use” any such passport. Passports that have become void as a result of certain occurrences are also covered.127 This law covers forgery and false use of both U.S.-issued and foreign passports.128 A violation of this nature can also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

Misuse of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1544). This statute is aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly “uses, or attempts to use, any passport issued or designed for the use of another” or “any passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions therein contained, or of the rules prescribed pursuant to the laws regulating the issuance of passports.” It also aimed at anyone who “willfully and knowingly furnishes, disposes of, or delivers a passport to any person” for use by a person other than the person to whom it was originally issued. Violations of this law result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.129

IV. Additional Laws

Selective Service Registration. In the United States, all males must register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday for the purpose of preparing for a national military draft. This requirement is not limited to U.S. citizens. Illegal alien males are also required to register, as are permanent resident aliens, seasonal agricultural workers, and refugee, parolee, and asylee aliens.130 In fact, the front page of the Selective Service website includes a special notice to illegal aliens:

ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES & IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS! Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today. 131

The agency will accept late registrations but not after the age of 26. At that point, an unregistered male can be denied federal student financial aid, federal job training, federal employment, and may have difficulty obtaining U.S. citizenship. 132 Citizenship applicants who fail to register for the Selective Service may not meet the statutory requirement of “good moral character.” Additionally, failure to register may result in a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.133 Illegal aliens who do not register may also find themselves unable to obtain state benefits as 41 states have passed legislation that requires registration for certain benefits like driver’s licenses, state financial aid, and employment with a state agency.134

Voting by Aliens (18 U.S.C. § 611). While it is unclear to what extent illegal aliens have voted in national elections, federal law make it unlawful for “any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.” An alien who violates this statute faces a fine and up to a year in jail, or both.135 This is a general intent crime meaning that the act of voting, even without malicious intent, is sufficient for a conviction.136

Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), any alien who “makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)” faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.137

It is interesting to note that the attestation required on a ballot — a statement that the person filling it out is a U.S. citizen — is identical to the attestation required on an I-9 Form; it is well-established that illegal aliens are willing to violate this legal requirement and lie about their identities.

Violations of State Laws. Any amnesty put into law by Congress only operates as a pardon for violations of federal law. Illegal aliens would still liable for any violations of state and local laws that occurred prior to the amnesty. For example, states have their own identity theft, forgery, and tax laws that many illegal aliens may be violating.

Many states have also created immigration-related statutes that may become more relevant after an amnesty, particularly if an alien’s identity and background becomes better understood through the amnesty application process. Amnesties written by Congress have often included a requirement that applicants prove they were in the country for a period of years, and that requirement can be fulfilled by evidence of employment. Such evidence may indicate that the alien and his employer are violating not only federal law, but state law as well. For example, a state government may determine that the employer referenced on the application was engaged in illegal hiring practices such as a failure to abide by state-level E-Verify laws, for example. An investigation could further uncover instances of identity theft that could be prosecuted on the state level depending on the circumstances.

In fact, some in the business community raised their concern about such liability to the Obama administration after President Obama decreed his “Deferred Action” (DACA) program into existence. The DACA program grants legal status to illegal aliens under 31 years of age if they meet certain requirements. After some business owners voiced concern about facing prosecution as a result of being named in an amnesty application, the pro-amnesty organization Migration Policy Institute demanded that the Obama administration protect law-breaking businesses and bury evidence of any related identity theft. The organization wrote:

Since 58 percent of potential applicants are currently employed, employer documentation will be vital in establishing eligibility for many applicants. But employers may be reluctant to provide documentation if they suspect that the information may subject them to investigations and sanctions for hiring unauthorized workers. Their fear could be partially addressed if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a specific policy statement that any information presented by a DACA applicant will, by itself, not trigger an employer sanctions investigation. 138

Within a month of this request, the Obama administration amended its guidelines and promised to n