The Pronk Pops Show 996, Story 1: Atheist Security Guard Dressed In Black and Wearing Body Armor, Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, Entered The First Baptist Church and Shot and Killed 26, Including 8 Members of A Single Family with Pregnant Mother, Victims Range in Age From 18 Months to 77 Years and Wounded 20, in The Texas Small Town of Sutherland Springs, Population 400,  A Nearby Neighbor, Stephen Willeford, 55, Shot Killer With His Rifle,Three Times, Twice in The Neck and Once in The Side, Killer Died of Wounds, After Brief High Speed Car Chase — The Times They Are A Changin — Blowing In The Wind — Videos

Posted on November 7, 2017. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Autos, Blogroll, Breaking News, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Education, Elections, Employment, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Independence, Killing, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Life, Lying, Media, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Senate, Surveillance/Spying, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Trump Surveillance/Spying, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 996, November 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 995, November 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 994, November 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 993, November 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 992, October 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 991, October 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 990, October 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 989, October 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 988, October 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 987, October 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 986, October 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 985, October 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 984, October 16, 2017 

Pronk Pops Show 983, October 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 982, October 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 981, October 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Image result for mass shooting in texasImage result for mass shooting in sutherland Springs, texasImage result for mass shooting in sutherland Springs, texas, November 5, 2017Image result for mass shooting in sutherland Springs, texas, November 5, 2017Image result for Mass shootings and SSRI druga

Image result for Mass shootings and SSRI druga

 

 

Story 1: Atheist Security Guard Dressed In Black and Wearing Body Armor, Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, Entered The First Baptist Church and Shot and Killed 26, Including 8 Members of A Single Family with Pregnant Mother, Victims Range in Age From 18 Months to 77 Years and Wounded 20, in The Texas Small Town of Sutherland Springs, Population 400,  A Nearby Neighbor, Stephen Willeford, 55, Shot Killer With His Rifle,Three Times, Twice in The Neck and Once in The Side, Killer Died of Wounds, After Brief High Speed Car Chase — Videos

 

Stephen Willeford shot church shooting suspect Devin Kelley.

Texas Church Shooting: At Least Two Dozen Parishioners Killed | NBC Nightly News

18-Month-Old Among TX Church Shooting Victims

Suspected Texas gunman identified as Devin Patrick Kelley

Texas church shooting survivor played dead to stay alive

A woman who was shot several times during the Texas church shooting played dead to survive, according to her daughter. Farida Brown, 73, was rushed to the hospital with four gunshot wounds to her legs after the attack during Sunday morning services. Adi Guajardo of CBS affiliate KENS-TV reports.

Sen. Ted Cruz reflects on the Texas church massacre

Questions arise about suspected gunman’s motives in Texas church shooting

Trump Thinks Guns Helped Stop ‘Hundreds’ From Being Killed In Texas Church Shooting | TIME

Police: Church Shooting Suspect Sent Threatening Texts To Mother In Law

At least 26 killed in shooting at South Texas church

Witnesses Describe Mass Shooting in Texas Church

Families reflect on losing loved ones in Texas shooting

Texas governor responds to church shooting

Gov. Abbott: Texas church shooter was denied carry permit

Officials Provide Update On Texas Church Shooting

Story of Texas massacre Hero who returned fire barefoot and scored three hits through body armour

Pastor Of Church In Texas Mass Shooting Speaks About Losing Daughter

Pastor asks Americans to pray for victims of church massacre

Alex Jones Church Shooting In Sutherland Springs Texas

Law enforcement officials hold news conference on Texas church shooting

Small Texas Town Grieves After Deadly Church Shooting | NBC News

Hero describes chasing alleged Texas church shooter

Johnnie Langendorff tells “GMA” how he helped stop the suspect, Devin Kelley, who authorities believe killed 26 people and injured at least 20 at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs.

‘It was act now, ask questions later’: hero on car chase after Texas shooting

BREAKING: Church Mass Shooting: TEXAS 28+ Dead Sutherland Springs Baptist Church

Mass Shooting at Small Texas Church! Lone Gunman!

Deadly mass shooting at Texas church: ABC Radio

Who Was Devin Kelley? | Texas Church Mass Shooter

Bob Dylan The Times They Are A Changin’ 1964

“The Times They Are A-Changin'”

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you
Is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’
Or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’.Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who
That it’s namin’
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’.Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside
And it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’.Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one
If you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’.The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin’
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’.

Blowing In The Wind (Live On TV, March 1963)

Bob Dylan – Blowin’ In The Wind Lyrics

How many roads must a man walk down
Before you can call him a man?
How many seas must a white dove sail
Before she sleeps in the sand?
Yes, how many times must the cannon balls fly
Before they’re forever banned?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.Yes, how many years can a mountain exist
Before it’s washed to the sea?
Yes, how many years can some people exist
Before they’re allowed to be free?
Yes, how many times can a man turn his head
Pretending he just doesn’t see?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.Yes, how many times must a man look up
Before he can really see the sky?
Yes, how many ears must one man have
Before he can hear people cry?
Yes, how many deaths will it take till he knows
That too many people have died?
The answer my friend is blowin’ in the wind
The answer is blowin’ in the wind.

Top 10 Bob Dylan Songs

Violence followed Texas church gunman after high school

Wherever Devin Patrick Kelley went after graduating from high school, a trail of violence followed.

In New Mexico, Kelley was kicked out of the Air Force following a court-martial two years after he enlisted for abusing his wife and reportedly hitting her child hard enough to fracture his skull. In Colorado, he was charged with misdemeanour animal cruelty after someone saw him punch a dog several times. And in Texas, sheriff’s deputies were called to his parents’ house after his girlfriend told a friend he was abusing her.

Authorities say Kelley opened fire Sunday at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 people and wounding 20 others.

According to their investigation, Kelley entered the small church during worship services dressed in black tactical gear and carrying an assault rifle. He fired it as he walked down the centre aisle, shooting people who had no way to escape.

Authorities have said the suspect’s mother-in-law attended the church and she’d gotten threatening texts from him. Kelley’s parents and other relatives did not return numerous messages from The Associated Press seeking comment. But according to military officials and authorities in three states, the 26-year-old Kelley had a history of threatening loved ones with violence.

A native of the San Antonio suburb of New Braunfels, Kelley graduated from high school in 2009, according to a district spokeswoman. He enlisted in the Air Force the following year and was assigned to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, with the responsibility of moving passengers, cargo and personal property in military transportation. He got married for the first time in 2011.

But according to Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek, Kelley faced a court-martial in 2012 on allegations that he abused his wife and a child. According to court-martial documents the Air Force released Monday, Kelley was accused of choking his wife, pulling her hair and kicking her. He also hit the child on the head and body, according to the documents. The Air Force’s former chief prosecutor, Don Christensen, told The New York Times that Kelley fractured the child’s skull.

Kelley also was accused of pointing a loaded firearm and an unloaded firearm at the woman, according to the court-martial documents, but he pleaded not guilty to those allegations and they were “withdrawn and dismissed with prejudice after arraignment.”

Kelley was sentenced to 12 months of confinement and ultimately removed from the military with a bad-conduct discharge and a reduction of rank.

The Air Force acknowledged Monday that it didn’t enter Kelley’s criminal history into the federal database used to conduct background checks on citizens looking to purchase a firearm. Authorities recovered a Ruger AR-556 rifle at the church and two handguns from Kelley’s vehicle. They say all three were purchased by Kelley.

His wife, Tessa Kelley, filed for divorce in 2012, the same year as the court-martial. In paperwork associated with the divorce, Tessa Kelley said she was working at Taco Bell for $7.50 an hour while Devin Kelley was in detention.

The divorce was finalized in October 2012.

Kelley’s discharge was complete in 2014, Stefanek said. That February, sheriff’s deputies arrived at his family’s home in New Braunfels just after 10 p.m. one night to investigate a potential domestic violence case.

Citing a sheriff’s office report, Comal County spokesman Paul Anthony said a friend of Kelley’s girlfriend told authorities she received a text message from the girlfriend that indicated “her boyfriend was abusing her.” The report identifies the girlfriend as Danielle Shields and says Shields reported that “her arms were red.” It includes no additional details about what caused them to be red.

Shields said Kelley had “told her to pack a bag,” according to the report.

When sheriff’s deputies arrived, people at the home said there was a “misunderstanding,” according to the report. It doesn’t make clear who spoke to deputies. No arrests were made.

Kelley married Shields two months later.

Kelley registered to vote in Colorado in 2014, with an address traced to a mobile home park in Colorado Springs, home to the U.S. Air Force Academy and other Air Force installations. But in August of that year, he was charged with misdemeanour animal cruelty. One neighbour told a deputy that Kelley chased a dog, jumped on top of it and struck the dog with a closed fist several times, according to an incident report released Monday. Another neighbour says Kelley grabbed the young husky, threw it into the air, then onto the ground and dragged it to his camper.

According to local court records, he was given a deferred probationary sentence and ordered to pay $368 in restitution. A protection order was also issued against him in 2015 on behalf of the local Humane Society, according to court records.

He apparently moved back to Texas and sought work as a security guard, obtaining a state private security license in June and getting a job at the Schlitterbahn water park in New Braunfels. But he was fired after less than six weeks, the water park said in a statement.

He then was hired as a security guard at the Summit Vacation Resort, also in New Braunfels. A manager there, Claudia Varjabedian, told the AP that Kelley “seemed like a nice guy” and didn’t cause her any problems.

A motive for the mass shooting remains unclear, but Kelley appears to have targeted a church that was long attended by his wife’s family.

Leading up to the shooting, authorities say, Kelley had sent threatening text messages to his mother-in-law, who attended the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, about 30 miles (48 kilometres ) southeast of San Antonio. Texas Department of Public Safety Regional Director Freeman Martin said there was a domestic situation going on within the family.

According to online records, Danielle Kelley’s mother has an address in Sutherland Springs and a Facebook account linked to her lists several members of the church as friends, including the pastor’s wife.

A resume posted online linked to an email address associated with Danielle Kelley identifies her as a teacher at the church from 2009 to 2013. Among the responsibilities it listed at the church were to “teach the children about GOD” and “be a positive influence in their life.”

The dead inside the church ranged from 18 months to 77 years old. About 20 other people were wounded, 10 of whom were still hospitalized Monday in critical condition.

___

Bajak and Merchant reported from Houston. Associated Press reporters Jim Anderson in Denver, Douglass K. Daniel in Washington, Reese Dunklin and Jamie Stengle in Dallas, and Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed along with AP investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York.

Frank Bajak, Nomaan Merchant And Paul J. Weber, The Associated Press

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/church-gunman-court-martialed-discharged-090646952.html

 

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Creepy, crazy and weird’: Former classmates say Texas gunman was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online before killing 26 in the state’s worst ever mass shooting

  • Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others in Texas
  • Walked into First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas and opened fire 
  • He was wearing black, tactical gear and carrying a military style assault rifle
  • Kelley was shot by local Stephen Willeford, 55, and died after a car chase
  • Former classmates have described him as an ‘outcast’, ‘creepy’ and ‘weird’
  • Another said he talked ‘about how people who believe in God were stupid’
  • LinkedIn reveals Kelley was an Air Force veteran and ex-Bible studies teacher
  • He was court martialed in 2014 for two counts of assault on his spouse and child
  • He was living in New Braunfels, a suburb of San Antonio, and was married 
  • Did you know Devin Patrick Kelley? Please contact Jenny Stanton by emailing jenny.stanton@mailonline.com 
Devin Patrick Kelley (pictured) walked into the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, dressed in full combat gear, and began shooting, according to local law enforcement sources

The Texas church shooter who shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others was an ‘outcast’ who ‘preached his atheism’ online.

Former classmates say Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, who stormed First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs in Texas and opened fire on Sunday, was ‘creepy’, ‘crazy’ and ‘weird’.

Patrick Boyce, who attended New Braunfels High School with the killer, told DailyMail.com: ‘He had a kid or two, fairly normal, but kinda quiet and lately seemed depressed.

‘He was the first atheist I met. He went Air Force after high school, got discharged but I don’t know why.

‘I was just shocked [to hear the news]. Still haven’t quite processed how he could have done that.’

Nina Rose Nava, who went to school with the gunman, wrote on Facebook: ‘In (sic) in complete shock! I legit just deleted him off my fb cause I couldn’t stand his post.

‘He was always talking about how people who believe in God we’re stupid and trying to preach his atheism’

Christopher Leo Longoria replied: ‘I removed him off FB for those same reasons! He was being super nagtive (sic) all the timd (sic).’

Kelley, (pictured in a yearbook photo)

Kelley (pictured recently)

Kelley, (pictured in a yearbook photo, left, and recently, right) 26, of New Braunfels, shot dead 26 people and injured 24 others

Devin Patrick Kelley is pictured here in a New Braunfels High School 2009 yearbook photo

Devin Patrick Kelley is pictured here in a New Braunfels High School 2009 yearbook photo

The shooting happened at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs (pictured), where around 50 people usually attend service

Michael Goff added: ‘He was weird but never that damn weird, always posting his atheist sh** like Nina wrote, but damn he always posted pics of him and his baby – crazy.’

Nava added to DailyMail.com: ‘I went to school with him. We had a few conversations here and there. It’s not something I expected from him.

‘He was an outcast but not a loner. He was popular among other outcast. I haven’t spoke to him since high school.’

Another former classmate, who asked to remain anonymous, told DailyMail.com: ‘I grew up going to school with him… Always creeped me out and was different.’

She said she moved away from the area while she was in junior high and lost touch with a lot of people.

Kelley, who was married, had recently posted a photo of an AR-15 style gun on his Facebook page with the caption: 'She's a bad b***h'

Kelley, who was married, had recently posted a photo of an AR-15 style gun on his Facebook page with the caption: ‘She’s a bad b***h’

Investigators work at the scene of a deadly shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sunday 

Investigators work at the scene of a deadly shooting at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sunday

However, Kelley recently commented on one of her Facebook posts.

‘I said I just want to move back to Texas,’ she said. ‘And he said something along the lines of “Texas isn’t any better”. Pretty much said he didn’t like Texas.

Former classmates say Devin Patrick Kelley as 'creepy', 'crazy' and 'weird'

‘I think he had one kid, she/he is still a baby. He was married but I don’t know to who. It’s crazy to think I grew up with him. Same town. Same school. Same classes.

‘He was different in school and creeped me out but never would I have thought he would do such a horrific thing.’

A former friend wrote on Facebook: ‘It’s scary to know this psychopath has been in my house. I can’t believe I was friends with this guy and I literally would stay the night at his place when we were kids.’

He added: ‘I ended up distancing myself from him in high school after he got in an argument with me in school and he tried punching me several times. Dude was crazy man.’

Cord Eubank Brown wrote on social media: ‘I cannot believe this. I went to high school with this maniac.

‘There were people I knew who stayed away from this guy for many reasons, which all make sense now. He just requested me on facebook recently.’

Annabelle Pomeroy was killed in the tragic shooting Sunday morning

She 'was one very beautiful, special child,' the pastor said. His wife, Sherri Pomeroy, said her husband was out of town at the time of the shooting. Pictured: Annabelle

Kelley walked into the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs on Sunday, dressed in black, tactical gear with a ballistics belt and an assault rifle, and began shooting, according to local law enforcement sources.

Kelley of New Braunfels, a suburb of San Antonio, was shot by Stephen Willeford, 55, before he climbed in an SUV to flee the scene, a local resident told DailyMail.com.

Another local resident, Johnnie Langendorff, who had witnessed the confrontation refused to let the shooter get away. Both he and Willeford, a local plumber, jumped in his truck and gave chase.

In a Facebook post, Langendorff’s girlfriend Summer Caddel described how the pair had ‘jumped in my boyfriend’s truck and they chased that sick b*****d down in pursuit until the cops could catch up. He was able to run the shooter off of the road on 539!’

As they approached a sharp curve in the road, near the 307 and 539, Kelley appeared to lose control and his car swerved off the road.

Kelley was already dead when they found him. It’s unclear if he committed suicide or died from his pursuers’ gunshots.

Cops discovered multiple weapons and possible explosives in his vehicle.

San Antonio police also raided Kelley’s home on Sunday evening, with K9 and bomb squad units.

Kelley, who was married, had recently posted a photo of an AR-15 style gun on his Facebook page with the caption: ‘She’s a bad b***h.’

He reportedly purchased the Ruger AR-556 rifle in April last year from an Academy Sports & Outdoors store in San Antonio, according to CNN.

When he filled out the background check paperwork, he checked a box that indicated he didn’t have a past criminal history, an official told said, adding that he listed an address in Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Texas Sheriff Joe Tackitt said that the shooter was not known to law enforcement.

A LinkedIn account which appears to be Kelley’s states that he joined the US Air Force after graduating New Braunfels High School in 2009.

An Air Force official said the gunman was court-martialed in 2012 and discharged two years later.

Spokeswoman Ann Stefanek said Kelley was court-martialed on one count of assault on his spouse and another count of assault on their child. He received a bad conduct discharge, 12 months’ confinement and a reduction in rank.

Vigil held after dozens are killed in a church shooting in Texas

Sunday school teacher Karla Holcolmbe and her husband Bryan also died in the rampage, their family confirmed. A local resident says their pregnant daughter-in-law was also killed

Sunday school teacher Karla Holcolmbe and her husband Bryan also died in the rampage, their family confirmed. A local resident says their pregnant daughter-in-law was also killed

Mother-of-four, Joann Ward, is said to have died in the wake of the shooting, according to her family

Six-year-old Brooke was shot and died according to family

Sisters six-year-old Brooke (left) and eight-year-old Emily Garza (pictured, right, sitting on the right, next to her sister Rihanna) were killed in the shooting according to her family. Nine-year-old Rihanna (sitting next to Emily) had her glasses shot off her face but survived

Stefanek also said Kelley served in Logistics Readiness at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico from 2010 until his discharge.

Kelley volunteered as a teacher for Bible studies at Kingsville First Baptist Church, according to his LinkedIn which shows him posing which a young child.

He was married to Danielle Shields, and they appear to have a child together. She was previously a teacher at the First Baptist Church.

Kelley lived at his parents’ home with his wife and child and neighbor Mark Moravitz told ABC News he would sometimes hear gunshots coming from near that house late at night.

The gunman’s mother-in-law, Michelle Shields, also appears to have been a parishioner at the church and was friends on social media with the pastor’s wife.

It is not clear whether they were at the church at the time of the shooting.

Local law enforcement say the gunman had a relatively clean criminal record, with just a traffic offenses in recent years.

The names of the victims are now emerging and include a mother-of-four and her two young daughters, a 14-year-old pastor’s daughter and Sunday’s stand-in preacher, his wife, and eight-months-pregnant daughter-in-law.

The first victim to be identified was Annabelle Pomeroy, whose father – First Baptist Church Pastor Frank Pomeroy – had been out of town during the attack. The grieving dad told ABC he’s lost ‘one beautiful girl, and a ‘special child.’

Bryan Holcombe had been standing in for Frank Pomeroy when Kelley opened fire. Witnesses say he was the first victim to be struck by the shooter’s gunfire.

‘Bryan was filling in,’ the witness, who did not want to be named, told DailyMail.com. ‘He was walking up to the pulpit when he was shot in the back.’

He was killed, alongside his wife of 25 years, Sunday school teacher Karla Holcombe, as well as their eight-months-pregnant daughter-in-law Crystal, local residents reported.

‘The family is just devastated,’ the witness added.

The couple ran a canvas repair shop before retiring and had attended the church for 25 years.

Mother-of-four Joann Ward and three of her children were also shot. Family have since told the Dallas News that Joann and two of her daughters, six-year-old Brooke and eight-year-old Emily have died.

Ward’s six-year-old stepson Rylan, who was shot four times, is still in hospital after undergoing emergency surgery. The mom’s eldest daughter Rihanna, nine, had the glasses shot off her face but escaped injury by hiding under a pew as shots rang out.

The shooting took place at the church, which is located about 30 miles from San Antonio.  Sutherland Springs is a community of about 400 people

The victims ranged in age from five to 72, with two killed outside the church, 23 killed inside, and one person who died after medical transport, officials said.

And 34-year-old Amanda Mosel told MySA that her 13-year-old goddaughter was killed during the shooting. She said she was sad she skipped church this morning, but she normally attends that sermon. ‘It’s a small, tight-knit church,’ she said.

Many of the dead remained inside the small rural church Sunday evening, as crime scene investigators worked to reconstruct the scene.

Authorities declined to officially name any of the deceased victims on Sunday evening, as they worked to secure the crime scene and notify victims’ families.

‘We don’t know names of any of the victims at this time because we’re still trying to work the crime scene,’ said Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt.

Residents of the community gathered for an emotional candlelight vigil on Sunday night as the names of the victims began to emerge.

Pictured: The two heroic locals who exchanged gunfire with shooter

Two heroic locals have been praised for stopping the worst mass shooting in Texas which left at least 27 dead.

Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, was leaving First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs after he opened fire on parishioners during mass when Stephen Willeford, 55, confronted him.

Texas Department of Public Safety Regional Director Freeman Martin said Willeford, a keen biker, had ‘grabbed his rifle and engaged the suspect.’

A local resident told DailyMail.com that Willeford, who attends a different church, was first alerted to the shooting when his daughter called him saying there was a man in body armor gunning down church goers.

Stephen Willeford
Johnnie Langendorff

Stephen Willeford, 55, (left) and Johnnie Langendorff (right) have been praised as heroes after they were able to stop Texas gunman Devin Kelley’s rampage

He grabbed his gun and bravely headed down to confront the killer.

The local said that while Willeford has no military experience, he is an excellent shot, and when he came face to face with Kelley, he didn’t hesitate; he shot in between Kelley’s body armor, hitting him in his side.

The 26-year-old had dropped his Ruger assault rifle and climbed in an SUV to flee the scene.

He said that Kelley had taken a hostage in the passenger seat as he fled.

But another local resident, Johnnie Langendorff, who had witnessed the confrontation refused to let the shooter get away. Both he and Willeford, a local plumber, jumped in his truck and gave chase.

In a Facebook post, Langendorff’s girlfriend Summer Caddel described how the pair had ‘jumped in my boyfriend’s truck and they chased that sick b*****d down in pursuit until the cops could catch up. He was able to run the shooter off of the road on 539!’

Langendorff told KSAT 12 that he’d been speeding at 95mph, while on the phone to dispatch, while Willeford kept his rifle trained on the gunman’s car.

As they approached a sharp curve in the road, near the 307 and 539, he said Kelley appeared to lose control and his car swerved off the road.

‘That’s when I put the truck in park,’ he said. ‘The other gentleman jumped out, and had his rifle on him. He didn’t move after that.’

Texas man describes chasing after the Sutherland Springs gunman

The local, who is familiar with the heroes, said that Willeford made sure the passenger Kelley had taken hostage was on the ground out of the way when they approached the car.

But he claims that Kelley was already dead when they found him, having succumb to blood loss from the gunshot wound he suffered at the church.

Martin confirmed that police had found Kelley dead, saying that: ‘We are not sure if it was self inflicted or if he was shot by a local resident.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5053013/Devin-Kelley-outcast-preached-atheism.html#ixzz4xhEviDcy

 

rump says Texas church shooting caused by ‘mental health problem’ not guns

  • When asked whether U.S. gun control measures could have been the key to the Texas shooting, Trump replied, “Mental health is your problem here”
  • Trump — who has received political support from the National Rifle Association — has consistently been against implementing more rigorous domestic gun control laws
  • “Fortunately … somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction,” Trump said at the press conference

President Donald Trump speaks during a news conference with Shinzo Abe, Japan's prime minister, not pictured, at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, Japan, November 6, 2017.

Trump: Texas shooting is a ‘mental health problem,’ not about guns  

President Donald Trump said Monday he believed the Texas church shooting was caused by a “mental health problem,” and not because of a problem with domestic gun laws.

When asked whether U.S. gun control measures could have been the key to the Texas shooting, Trump replied, “Mental health is your problem here.”

“This isn’t a guns situation,” he said, before adding, “This is a mental health problem at the highest level. It’s a very, very sad event.”

At least 26 people were killed and about 20 others were wounded after a gunman opened fire during a Sunday service at a Texas church. The victims ranged in age from 5 to 72-years-old.

Speaking at a joint press conference in Tokyo, Japan, alongside Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, Trump described the shooter as “a very deranged individual.”

US President Donald Trump (C) and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (not seen) hold a joint press conference after holding an inter-delegation meeting at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, Japan on November 6, 2017.

Kiyoshi Ota | Pool/Anadolu Agency | Getty Images
US President Donald Trump (C) and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (not seen) hold a joint press conference after holding an inter-delegation meeting at Akasaka Palace in Tokyo, Japan on November 6, 2017.

Trump — who has received political support from the National Rifle Association — has consistently been against implementing more rigorous domestic gun control laws. Indeed, in February Trump quietly signed a bill into law that rolled back an Obama-era regulation that made it harder for people with mental illnesses to buy a gun.

“Fortunately … somebody else had a gun that was shooting in the opposite direction,” Trump said at the press conference.

Devin Patrick Kelley, 26, was identified by authorities as the gunman who killed more than two dozen people in a hail of gunfire at a rural Texas church. Law enforcement officials identified Kelley, who was killed following the incident at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, hours after news of the shooting first broke. The church’s pastor and his wife lost their teenage daughter in the massacre, according to a report by the Associated Press.

— CNBC’s Everett Rosenfeld, Javier E. David, and Terri Cullen contributed to this report.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/06/trump-says-texas-church-shooting-caused-by-mental-health-problem-not-guns.html

 

Sharpshooting plumber fired shot that took down Texas church gunman

‘Hero’ neighbor got his rifle, shot at Texas church gunman

 

 

 

Stephen Willeford managed to shoot Devin Kelley before jumping in another man’s truck and chasing him down, the Daily Mail reported.

Kelley blew himself away after wiping out in his SUV, according to Wilson County Sheriff Joe Tackitt.

Texas Department of Public Safety chief Freeman Martin said Willeford “grabbed his rifle and engaged the suspect” after Kelley left the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, where he opened fire with an assault rifle and killed 26 people.

An area resident told the paper that Willeford, an avid biker who attends another church, learned about the shooting when his daughter called to say a man clad in body armor was shooting worshipers.

The local said that although Willeford has no military background, he didn’t hesitate when he came face to face with the suspect — and managed to squeeze off a round that struck the gunman, who had dropped his Ruger AR-15 variant.

Willeford jumped into a truck driven by another local, Johnnie Langendorff, who witnessed the confrontation, and the pair gave chase.

Langendorff later told reporters about the dramatic pursuit.

“I pulled up to the intersection where the shooting happened and I saw two men exchanging gunfire, the other being a citizen of the community,” he said.

“The shooter of the church had taken off, fled in his vehicle, and the other gentleman came and he said, ‘We need to pursue him,’ that he just shot up the church. So that’s what I did. I just acted.”

He said he didn’t know who the heroic citizen was at the time.

“He was just a member of the community, and whenever he came to my vehicle in distress with his weapon, he explained very quickly what happened and he got in the truck and I knew it was just time [to go],” he said, KSAT reported.

“So we were doing about 95 mph, going around traffic and everything,” he added.

“Eventually he came to kind of a slowdown and after that, we got within just a few feet of him and he got off the road … He just lost control and that’s whenever I put the vehicle in park … The other gentleman jumped out and had his rifle drawn on him and he didn’t move after that,” he said.

Langendorff’s girlfriend, Summer Caddel, said Kelley died a few feet away from Langendorff.

The local man said Kelley was already dead when they found him.

“He was bleeding pretty bad,” the resident told the news outlet of Kelley while he was driving. “He didn’t live much longer than that.”

Martin confirmed that police had found Kelley dead.

“We are not sure if it was self-inflicted or if he was shot by a local resident,” the police official said.

http://nypost.com/2017/11/06/sharpshooting-plumber-fired-shot-that-took-down-texas-church-gunman/

 

Violence followed Texas church gunman after high school

NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas (AP) — Wherever Devin Patrick Kelley went after graduating from high school, a trail of violence followed.

In New Mexico, Kelley was kicked out of the Air Force following a court-martial two years after he enlisted for abusing his wife and reportedly hitting her child hard enough to fracture his skull. In Colorado, he was charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty after someone saw him punch a dog several times. And in Texas, sheriff’s deputies were called to his parents’ house after his girlfriend told a friend he was abusing her.

Authorities say Kelley opened fire Sunday at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, Texas, killing 26 people and wounding 20 others.

According to their investigation, Kelley entered the small church during worship services dressed in black tactical gear and carrying an assault rifle. He fired it as he walked down the center aisle, shooting people who had no way to escape.

Authorities have said the suspect’s mother-in-law attended the church and she’d gotten threatening texts from him. Kelley’s parents and other relatives did not return numerous messages from The Associated Press seeking comment. But according to military officials and authorities in three states, the 26-year-old Kelley had a history of threatening loved ones with violence.

A native of the San Antonio suburb of New Braunfels, Kelley graduated from high school in 2009, according to a district spokeswoman. He enlisted in the Air Force the following year and was assigned to Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico, with the responsibility of moving passengers, cargo and personal property in military transportation. He got married for the first time in 2011.

But according to Air Force spokeswoman Ann Stefanek, Kelley faced a court-martial in 2012 on allegations that he abused his wife and a child. According to court-martial documents the Air Force released Monday, Kelley was accused of choking his wife, pulling her hair and kicking her. He also hit the child on the head and body, according to the documents. The Air Force’s former chief prosecutor, Don Christensen, told The New York Times that Kelley fractured the child’s skull.

Kelley was sentenced to 12 months of confinement and ultimately removed from the military with a bad-conduct discharge and a reduction of rank.

The Air Force acknowledged Monday that it didn’t enter Kelley’s criminal history into the federal database used to conduct background checks on citizens looking to purchase a firearm. Authorities recovered a Ruger AR-556 rifle at the church and two handguns from Kelley’s vehicle. They say all three were purchased by Kelley.

His wife, Tessa Kelley, filed for divorce in 2012, the same year as the court-martial. In paperwork associated with the divorce, Tessa Kelley said she was working at Taco Bell for $7.50 an hour while Devin Kelley was in detention.

The divorce was finalized in October 2012.

Kelley’s discharge was complete in 2014, Stefanek said. That February, sheriff’s deputies arrived at his family’s home in New Braunfels just after 10 p.m. one night to investigate a potential domestic violence case.

Citing a sheriff’s office report, Comal County spokesman Paul Anthony said a friend of Kelley’s girlfriend told authorities she received a text message from the girlfriend that indicated “her boyfriend was abusing her.” The report identifies the girlfriend as Danielle Shields and says Shields reported that “her arms were red.” It includes no additional details about what caused them to be red.

Shields said Kelley had “told her to pack a bag,” according to the report.

When sheriff’s deputies arrived, people at the home said there was a “misunderstanding,” according to the report. It doesn’t make clear who spoke to deputies. No arrests were made.

Kelley married Shields two months later.

Kelley registered to vote in Colorado in 2014, with an address traced to a mobile home park in Colorado Springs, home to the U.S. Air Force Academy and other Air Force installations. But in August of that year, he was charged with misdemeanor animal cruelty. One neighbor told a deputy that Kelley chased a dog, jumped on top of it and struck the dog with a closed fist several times, according to an incident report released Monday. Another neighbor says Kelley grabbed the young husky, threw it into the air, then onto the ground and dragged it to his camper.

According to local court records, he was given a deferred probationary sentence and ordered to pay $368 in restitution. A protection order was issued against him in January 2015, The Denver Post reported.

He apparently moved back to Texas and sought work as a security guard, obtaining a state private security license in June and getting a job at the Schlitterbahn water park in New Braunfels. But he was fired after less than six weeks, the water park said in a statement.

He then was hired as a security guard at the Summit Vacation Resort, also in New Braunfels. A manager there, Claudia Varjabedian, told the AP that Kelley “seemed like a nice guy” and didn’t cause her any problems.

A motive for the mass shooting remains unclear, but Kelley appears to have targeted a church that was long attended by his wife’s family.

Leading up to the shooting, authorities say, Kelley had sent threatening text messages to his mother-in-law, who attended the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, about 30 miles (48 kilometers) southeast of San Antonio. Texas Department of Public Safety Regional Director Freeman Martin said there was a domestic situation going on within the family.

According to online records, Danielle Kelley’s mother has an address in Sutherland Springs and a Facebook account linked to her lists several members of the church as friends, including the pastor’s wife.

A resume posted online linked to an email address associated with Danielle Kelley identifies her as a teacher at the church from 2009 to 2013. Among the responsibilities it listed at the church were to “teach the children about GOD” and “be a positive influence in their life.”

The dead inside the church ranged from 18 months to 77 years old. About 20 other people were wounded, 10 of whom were still hospitalized Monday in critical condition.

___

Bajak and Merchant reported from Houston. Associated Press reporters Jim Anderson in Denver, Douglass K. Daniel in Washington, Reese Dunklin and Jamie Stengle in Dallas, and Morgan Lee in Santa Fe, New Mexico, contributed along with AP investigative researcher Randy Herschaft in New York.

https://apnews.com/02c834a1095045d8add78d6bc16e8923/Texas-resort-manager-says-church-gunman-was-security-guard

The Thirteen Stories You’ll Read After Every Mass Shooting

gettyimages870692276
A candlelight vigil in Sutherland Springs, Texas on Sunday.

Suzanne Cordeiro/AFP/Getty Images

1. Inaccurate initial reports are corrected as accounts converge and death tolls rise. Breaking reports of multiple shooters, for instance, almost never turn out to be true. In the case of the Oct. 31 vehicle attack in lower Manhattan that happened to take place near a school, an event that wasn’t a mass shooting at all was initially described as one. Eventually, though, law enforcement officials release confirmed details, including gradually increasing official death counts.

2. Details about the shooter trickle out. The profile that’s discovered is almost always one of a socially isolated male whose background involves domestic violence.

3. There’s controversy over whether the incident constitutes “terrorism” and whether the “terrorism” label is racially reductive. Here’s a discussion of the issue in the New Yorker.

4. Conservatives say they are “sending thoughts and prayers” to the victims and are subsequently criticized by liberals for prioritizing prayer over public policy as a response to gun violence. House Speaker Paul Ryan launched Sunday’s version of this mini-cycle.

5. Elected Democrats make emotional cases for passing gun control laws.Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, who represented the House district that included Sandy Hook Elementary, is one such figure who’s made a point of being willing to immediately “politicize” mass shootings by advocating for legislative action in their aftermath.

6. The city/town where the shooting took place holds a vigil as heartbreaking details about the victims are reported. Here, for example, is a gut-wrenching Washington Post story about two strangers who met at the Route 91 festival in Las Vegas before shots broke out.

7. Reporters and law-enforcement officials find out where and how the shooter got his weapons. The details of these cases typically invite further scrutiny of gun-control measures. The Trace, for example, found that Sunday’s Texas shooter should have been prohibited from buying a gun because he convicted by court martial of domestic violence while serving in the military—but that his conviction was never entered into the National Criminal Instant Background Check System.

8. Gun manufacturers’ stocks rise in price. The idea is that sales spike after shootings, making gun manufacturers a more appealing investment, because of buyers’ fears of impending gun control legislation. However, recent reporting indicates that sales are slow under our current president, who often disparages the idea of gun control. (Which therefore suggests we might also stop seeing stock-price surges.)

9. It’s observed that countries which are otherwise comparable to the United States have much lower rates of gun violence. Here are some very striking illustrations of the phenomenon in Vox.

10. Experts explain why new gun control legislation never passes Congress even though polls find that the public generally supports it. The version of the explanation that the Atlantic wrote in 2012 still seems to hold true: That gun-rights supporters, though outnumbered, are well-organized single-issue voters who will punish/reward candidates for their stances on gun issues in a way that gun-control supporters don’t.

11. The idea that better mental health treatment could help limit mass violence is considered. As another Atlantic piece points out, though, the anecdotal/common-sense notion that mass killers must suffer from diagnosable mental illness is not necessarily borne out by the data. An examination of the issues in Slate, meanwhile, echoes that caveat but also suggests that the mental health community could help address mass violence by developing a deeper understanding of anger and promoting methods for its management.

12. The notion that a “good guy with a gun” can help prevent shootings is raised. In the case of the Sunday Texas shooting this concept was cited by Donald Trump, who alluded to the efforts of a man named Stephen Willeford to confront shooter Devin Patrick Kelley. (Willeford, however, was only able to intervene after 26 victims had already been fatally wounded.)

13. Someone points out that mass shootings have begun to seem numbingly repetitive and that there’s no reason to believe another one won’t happen again soonAnd here we are.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/11/06/thirteen_stories_you_see_after_every_mass_shooting.html

Photo

Law enforcement officials set up a cordon after a mass shooting in Sutherland Springs, Tex., on Sunday.CreditMohammad Khursheed/Reuters

About 70 years ago, Beulah Wilson and her husband, Jonah, set out to find a new place to call home outside San Antonio. They searched for seven years, looking for a safe area with good schools and friendly neighbors, before they found the perfect community: Sutherland Springs.

When they arrived, the area’s most promising days in south-central Texas had come and gone. The Great Depression had ended the wintertime flow of wealthy northern tourists who came to bathe in the sulfur springs on the Cibolo Creek. A 52-room luxury hotel had been deserted.

But Ms. Wilson saw something special in Sutherland Springs.

“Everybody knew everybody,” Ms. Wilson, 88, said on Sunday evening. “You didn’t keep your doors locked or your cars locked, unless you lived on the main street. We had no crime here.”

But everything in Sutherland Springs changed around 11:20 a.m. on Sunday, when a 26-year-old man wearing all black and a ballistic vest opened fire with a military-style rifle at the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs. The gunman, identified by law enforcement officials as Devin Patrick Kelley, killed 26 people and injured about 20 more.

There are few landmarks to welcome visitors to Sutherland Springs, an unincorporated area of about 360 people that is 30 miles east of San Antonio on Highway 87. There is a yellow blinking light where the highway intersects Farm Road 539, the main street in the area, as well as a post office, a Dollar General and a couple of convenience stores.

Photo

People gathered at a community center in Sutherland Springs on Sunday night. CreditTodd Heisler/The New York Times

Residents have petitioned to turn the blinking light into a traffic light, hoping to cut down on deadly accidents. Joseph Silva, 49, who lives about five miles northeast of Sutherland Springs, called it “a one-blinking-light town.”

“There is a gas station and a post office,” he said. “That’s about all there really is.”

Sutherland Springs took its name from Dr. John Sutherland Jr., a settler who opened a post office and a stop for stagecoaches in his home in 1851. The area attracted agriculture business and trade but transformed in the late 1800s into a tourist destination.

The area gained a stop on the railroad coming out of San Antonio, which brought visitors from that city and the north who sought relaxation in the sulfur springs and the 52-room Hotel Sutherland. But the travel destination did not survive long after the turn of the century, and few buildings remain from that period.

Since 1926, First Baptist Church has served as a mainstay in Sutherland Springs. It opened as a small wooden building just west of Highway 87 and grew over the years, adding new wings and a fellowship hall.

Almost everyone in the area has some connection to the church, Ms. Wilson said. Her family attended the church for years. Her children were baptized there. Family members were married there. And she knew at least several people killed at the church on Sunday.

“This hurts everybody,” Ms. Wilson said.

 

Sutherland Springs, Texas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sutherland Springs, Texas
Unincorporated community
Historic building in Sutherland Springs

Historic building in Sutherland Springs

Map of Texas

Map of Texas
Sutherland Springs

Show map of TexasShow map of the USShow all

Coordinates: 29°16′24″N 98°03′24″WCoordinates29°16′24″N 98°03′24″W
Country United States
State Texas
County Wilson
Established 1854
Founded by John Sutherland
Elevation[1] 469 ft (143 m)
Population (2000)
 • Total 362
Time zone CST (UTC-6)
ZIP code 78161
Website Handbook of Texas

Sutherland Springs is an unincorporated community located on the old Spanish land grant of Manuel Tarin in northern Wilson County, Texas, United States. It is on U.S. Highway 87 at the intersection of Farm Road 539, about 21 miles (34 km) east of downtown San Antonio. Old Sutherland Springs occupies a portion of the South bank of the Cibolo Creek, with New Sutherland Springs (which is mostly in ruins) on the north bank of the Cibolo Creek. According to the Handbook of Texas, the population was 362 in 2000.[2]

History

Texas Historical Commision marker, Linne Oil Field

Sutherland Springs was platted in 1854, and named after John Sutherland Jr., a pioneer citizen.[2] A post office has been in operation at Sutherland Springs since 1851.[3]

On November 5, 2017, Devin Patrick Kelley shot and killed at least 26 people and injured 24 at the First Baptist Church. Kelley died afterwards. It is the deadliest mass shooting in Texas history.[4]

Bibliography

  • “The Good Old Days a history of LaVernia,” published by members of the Civic Government class at LaVernia High School for the 1936-37 academic school year.
  • “Wilson County Centennial 1860-1960,” published by the Wilson County Library; official centennial program handed out by the local community for the “100-year celebration” of the county’s establishment.

References

  1. Jump up^ “Sutherland Springs”Geographic Names Information SystemUnited States Geological Survey.
  2. Jump up to:a b McCaslin, Richard. “Sutherland Springs, TX”tshaonline.orgTexas State Historical Association. Retrieved August 3, 2016.
  3. Jump up^ “Post Offices”. Retrieved 6 November 2017.
  4. Jump up^ “Texas church shooting leaves many dead”. November 5, 2017. Retrieved November 5, 2017 – via bbc.co.uk.

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sutherland_Springs,_Texas

Bob Dylan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bob Dylan
Bob Dylan plays a guitar and sings into a microphone.

Dylan at Azkena Rock Festival in Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain, in June 2010
Born Robert Allen Zimmerman
May 24, 1941 (age 76)
Duluth, Minnesota, U.S.
Residence Malibu, California, U.S.
Other names
  • Elston Gunnn
  • Blind Boy Grunt
  • Bob Landy
  • Robert Milkwood Thomas
  • Tedham Porterhouse
  • Lucky Wilbury
  • Boo Wilbury
  • Jack Frost
  • Sergei Petrov
Occupation
  • Singer-songwriter
  • artist
  • writer
Years active 1959–present[1]
Home town Hibbing, Minnesota, U.S.
Spouse(s) Sara Dylan
(m.1965div.1977)
Carolyn Dennis
(m.1986div.1992)
Children 6, including Jesse and Jakob Dylan
Awards Nobel Prize in Literature(2016)
(For others, see List)
Musical career
Genres
Instruments
  • Vocals
  • guitar
  • keyboards
  • harmonica
Labels
Associated acts
Website bobdylan.com

Bob Dylan (/ˈdɪlən/; born Robert Allen Zimmerman, May 24, 1941) is an American singer-songwriter, musician, author and painter, who has been an influential figure in popular music and culture for more than five decades. Much of his most celebrated work dates from the 1960s, when he became a reluctant “voice of a generation”[2] with songs such as “Blowin’ in the Wind” and “The Times They Are a-Changin’“, which became anthems for the Civil Rights Movement and anti-war movement. Leaving behind his initial base in the American folk music revival, his six-minute single “Like a Rolling Stone“, recorded in 1965, enlarged the range of popular music.

Dylan’s lyrics incorporate a wide range of political, social, philosophical, and literary influences. They defied existing pop music conventions and appealed to the burgeoning counterculture. Initially inspired by the performances of Little Richard and the songwriting of Woody GuthrieRobert Johnson, and Hank Williams, Dylan has amplified and personalized musical genres. His recording career, spanning more than 50 years, has explored the traditions in American song—from folkblues, and country to gospelrock and roll, and rockabilly to EnglishScottish, and Irish folk music, embracing even jazz and the Great American Songbook. Dylan performs with guitar, keyboards, and harmonica. Backed by a changing lineup of musicians, he has toured steadily since the late 1980s on what has been dubbed the Never Ending Tour. His accomplishments as a recording artist and performer have been central to his career, but his songwriting is considered his greatest contribution. Since 1994, Dylan has also published seven books of drawings and paintings, and his work has been exhibited in major art galleries.

As a musician, Dylan has sold more than 100 million records, making him one of the best-selling artists of all time. He has also received numerous awards including eleven Grammy Awards, a Golden Globe Award, and an Academy Award. Dylan has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of FameMinnesota Music Hall of FameNashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, and Songwriters Hall of Fame. The Pulitzer Prize jury in 2008 awarded him a special citation for “his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power.” In May 2012, Dylan received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from President Barack Obama. In 2016, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”.[3]

Life and career

Origins and musical beginnings

The Zimmerman family home in Hibbing, Minnesota

Bob Dylan was born Robert Allen Zimmerman (Hebrew name שבתאי זיסל בן אברהם [Shabtai Zisl ben Avraham])[4][5] in St. Mary’s Hospital on May 24, 1941, in Duluth, Minnesota,[6][7] and raised in Hibbing, Minnesota, on the Mesabi Range west of Lake Superior. He has a younger brother, David. Dylan’s paternal grandparents, Zigman and Anna Zimmerman, emigrated from Odessa, in the Russian Empire (now Ukraine), to the United States following the anti-Semitic pogroms of 1905.[8] His maternal grandparents, Ben and Florence Stone, were Lithuanian Jews who arrived in the United States in 1902.[8] In his autobiography, Chronicles: Volume One, Dylan wrote that his paternal grandmother’s maiden name was Kirghiz and her family originated from Kağızman district of Kars Province in northeastern Turkey.[9]

Dylan’s father, Abram Zimmerman – an electric-appliance shop owner – and mother, Beatrice “Beatty” Stone, were part of a small, close-knit Jewish community. They lived in Duluth until Robert was six, when his father had polioand the family returned to his mother’s hometown, Hibbing, where they lived for the rest of Robert’s childhood. In his early years he listened to the radio—first to blues and country stations from Shreveport, Louisiana, and later, when he was a teenager, to rock and roll.[10][11]

He formed several bands while attending Hibbing High School. In the Golden Chords, he performed covers of songs by Little Richard[12] and Elvis Presley.[13] Their performance of Danny & the Juniors‘ “Rock and Roll Is Here to Stay” at their high school talent show was so loud that the principal cut the microphone.[14] On January 31, 1959, three days before his death, Buddy Holly performed at the Duluth Armory.[15] Seventeen year old Zimmerman was in the audience; in his Nobel Prize lecture, Dylan remembered: “He looked me right straight dead in the eye, and he transmitted something. Something I didn’t know what. And it gave me the chills.”[16]

In 1959, his high school yearbook carried the caption “Robert Zimmerman: to join ‘Little Richard‘.”[12][17] The same year, as Elston Gunnn, he performed two dates with Bobby Vee, playing piano and clapping.[18][19][20] In September 1959, Zimmerman moved to Minneapolis and enrolled at the University of Minnesota.[21] His focus on rock and roll gave way to American folk music. In 1985, he said:

The thing about rock’n’roll is that for me anyway it wasn’t enough… There were great catch-phrases and driving pulse rhythms… but the songs weren’t serious or didn’t reflect life in a realistic way. I knew that when I got into folk music, it was more of a serious type of thing. The songs are filled with more despair, more sadness, more triumph, more faith in the supernatural, much deeper feelings.[22]

Living at the Jewish-centric fraternity Sigma Alpha Mu house Zimmerman began to perform at the Ten O’Clock Scholar, a coffeehouse a few blocks from campus, and became involved in the Dinkytownfolk music circuit.[23][24]

During his Dinkytown days, Zimmerman began introducing himself as “Bob Dylan”.[25][a 1] In his memoir, he said he hit upon using this less common variant for Dillon – a surname he had considered adopting – when he unexpectedly saw some poems by Dylan Thomas.[26] Explaining his change of name in a 2004 interview, Dylan remarked, “You’re born, you know, the wrong names, wrong parents. I mean, that happens. You call yourself what you want to call yourself. This is the land of the free.”[27]

1960s

Relocation to New York and record deal

In May 1960, Dylan dropped out of college at the end of his first year. In January 1961, he traveled to New York City, to perform there and visit his musical idol Woody Guthrie,[28] who was seriously ill with Huntington’s disease in Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital.[29]Guthrie had been a revelation to Dylan and influenced his early performances. Describing Guthrie’s impact, he wrote: “The songs themselves had the infinite sweep of humanity in them… [He] was the true voice of the American spirit. I said to myself I was going to be Guthrie’s greatest disciple.”[30] As well as visiting Guthrie in hospital, Dylan befriended Guthrie’s protégé Ramblin’ Jack Elliott. Much of Guthrie’s repertoire was channeled through Elliott, and Dylan paid tribute to Elliott in Chronicles: Volume One.[31]

From February 1961, Dylan played at clubs around Greenwich Village, befriending and picking up material from folk singers there, including Dave Van RonkFred NeilOdetta, the New Lost City Ramblers and Irish musicians the Clancy Brothers and Tommy Makem.[32]New York Times critic Robert Shelton first noted Dylan in a review of Izzy Young‘s production for WRVR of a live twelve-hour Hootenanny on July 29, 1961: “Among the newer promising talents deserving mention are a 20-year-old latter-day Guthrie disciple named Bob Dylan, with a curiously arresting mumbling, country-steeped manner”. This was Dylan’s first live radio performance.[33] In September, Shelton boosted Dylan’s career further with a very enthusiastic review of his performance at Gerde’s Folk City.[34] The same month Dylan played harmonica on folk singer Carolyn Hester‘s third album. This brought his talents to the attention of the album’s producer, John Hammond,[35] who signed Dylan to Columbia Records.[36]

The performances on his first Columbia album, Bob Dylan, released March 19, 1962,[37] consisted of familiar folk, blues and gospel with two original compositions. The album sold only 5,000 in its first year, just enough to break even.[38] Within Columbia Records, some referred to the singer as “Hammond’s Folly”[39] and suggested dropping his contract, but Hammond defended Dylan and was supported by Johnny Cash.[38] In March 1962, Dylan contributed harmonica and back-up vocals to the album Three Kings and the Queen, accompanying Victoria Spivey and Big Joe Williams on a recording for Spivey Records.[40] While working for Columbia, Dylan recorded under the pseudonym Blind Boy Grunt[41] for Broadside, a folk magazine and record label.[42] Dylan used the pseudonym Bob Landy to record as a piano player on The Blues Project, a 1964 anthology album by Elektra Records.[41] As Tedham Porterhouse, Dylan played harmonica on Ramblin’ Jack Elliott‘s 1964 album Jack Elliott.[41]

Dylan is seated, singing and playing guitar. Seated to his right is a woman gazing upwards and singing with him.

Dylan with Joan Baez during the civil rights “March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom“, August 28, 1963

Dylan with his guitar onstage, laughing and looking downwards.

Bob Dylan in November 1963

Dylan made two important career moves in August 1962: he legally changed his name to Robert Dylan,[44] and he signed a management contract with Albert Grossman.[45] (In June 1961, Dylan had signed an agreement with Roy Silver. In 1962, Grossman paid Silver $10,000 to become sole manager.)[46] Grossman remained Dylan’s manager until 1970, and was notable for his sometimes confrontational personality and for protective loyalty.[47] Dylan said, “He was kind of like a Colonel Tom Parker figure … you could smell him coming.”[24] Tensions between Grossman and John Hammond led to Hammond’s being replaced as producer of Dylan’s second album by the young African-American jazz producer, Tom Wilson.[48]

Dylan made his first trip to the United Kingdom from December 1962 to January 1963.[49] He had been invited by TV director Philip Saville to appear in a drama, Madhouse on Castle Street, which Saville was directing for BBC Television.[50] At the end of the play, Dylan performed “Blowin’ in the Wind”, one of its first public performances.[50] The film recording of Madhouse on Castle Street was destroyed by the BBC in 1968.[50] While in London, Dylan performed at London folk clubs, including the TroubadourLes Cousins, and Bunjies.[49] He also learned material from UK performers, including Martin Carthy.[50]

By the time of Dylan’s second album, The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan, in May 1963, he had begun to make his name as a singer and a songwriter. Many songs on this album were labeled protest songs, inspired partly by Guthrie and influenced by Pete Seeger‘s passion for topical songs.[51] “Oxford Town”, for example, was an account of James Meredith‘s ordeal as the first black student to risk enrollment at the University of Mississippi.[52]

The first song on the Freewheelin album, “Blowin’ in the Wind“, partly derived its melody from the traditional slave song, “No More Auction Block”,[53] while its lyrics questioned the social and political status quo. The song was widely recorded by other artists and became a hit for Peter, Paul and Mary.[54] Another Freewheelin’ song, “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” was based on the folk ballad “Lord Randall“. With veiled references to an impending apocalypse, the song gained more resonance when the Cuban Missile Crisis developed a few weeks after Dylan began performing it.[55][a 2] Like “Blowin’ in the Wind”, “A Hard Rain’s a-Gonna Fall” marked a new direction in songwriting, blending a stream-of-consciousnessimagist lyrical attack with traditional folk form.[56]

Dylan’s topical songs enhanced his early reputation, and he came to be seen as more than just a songwriter. Janet Maslin wrote of Freewheelin: “These were the songs that established [Dylan] as the voice of his generation—someone who implicitly understood how concerned young Americans felt about nuclear disarmament and the growing Civil Rights Movement: his mixture of moral authority and nonconformity was perhaps the most timely of his attributes.”[57][a 3]Freewheelin also included love songs and surreal talking blues. Humor was an important part of Dylan’s persona,[58] and the range of material on the album impressed listeners, including the BeatlesGeorge Harrison said of the album, “We just played it, just wore it out. The content of the song lyrics and just the attitude—it was incredibly original and wonderful.”[59]

The rough edge of Dylan’s singing was unsettling to some but an attraction to others. Joyce Carol Oates wrote: “When we first heard this raw, very young, and seemingly untrained voice, frankly nasal, as if sandpaper could sing, the effect was dramatic and electrifying.”[60] Many early songs reached the public through more palatable versions by other performers, such as Joan Baez, who became Dylan’s advocate as well as his lover.[61] Baez was influential in bringing Dylan to prominence by recording several of his early songs and inviting him on stage during her concerts.[62][63] “It didn’t take long before people got it, that he was pretty damned special,” says Baez.[64]

Others who had hits with Dylan’s songs in the early 1960s included the ByrdsSonny & Cherthe HolliesPeter, Paul and Marythe AssociationManfred Mann and the Turtles. Most attempted a pop feel and rhythm, while Dylan and Baez performed them mostly as sparse folk songs. The covers became so ubiquitous that CBS promoted him with the slogan “Nobody Sings Dylan Like Dylan.”[65]

Mixed-Up Confusion“, recorded during the Freewheelin’ sessions with a backing band, was released as a single and then quickly withdrawn. In contrast to the mostly solo acoustic performances on the album, the single showed a willingness to experiment with a rockabilly sound. Cameron Crowe described it as “a fascinating look at a folk artist with his mind wandering towards Elvis Presley and Sun Records.”[66]

Protest and Another Side

In May 1963, Dylan’s political profile rose when he walked out of The Ed Sullivan Show. During rehearsals, Dylan had been told by CBS television’s head of program practices that “Talkin’ John Birch Paranoid Blues” was potentially libelous to the John Birch Society. Rather than comply with censorship, Dylan refused to appear.[67]

By this time, Dylan and Baez were prominent in the civil rights movement, singing together at the March on Washington on August 28, 1963.[68] Dylan’s third album, The Times They Are a-Changin’, reflected a more politicized and cynical Dylan.[69] The songs often took as their subject matter contemporary stories, with “Only a Pawn in Their Game” addressing the murder of civil rights worker Medgar Evers; and the Brechtian “The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll” the death of black hotel barmaid Hattie Carroll, at the hands of young white socialite William Zantzinger.[70] On a more general theme, “Ballad of Hollis Brown” and “North Country Blues” addressed despair engendered by the breakdown of farming and mining communities. This political material was accompanied by two personal love songs, “Boots of Spanish Leather” and “One Too Many Mornings“.[71] During the Nashville Skyline sessions in 1969, Dylan and Johnny Cash recorded a duet of the song which has not been released.[72][73]

By the end of 1963, Dylan felt both manipulated and constrained by the folk and protest movements.[74] Accepting the “Tom Paine Award” from the National Emergency Civil Liberties Committee shortly after the assassination of John F. Kennedy, an intoxicated Dylan questioned the role of the committee, characterized the members as old and balding, and claimed to see something of himself and of every man in Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald.[75]

A spotlight shines on Dylan as he performs onstage.

Bobby Dylan, as the college yearbook lists him: St. Lawrence University, upstate New York, November 1963

Another Side of Bob Dylan, recorded on a single evening in June 1964,[77] had a lighter mood. The humorous Dylan reemerged on “I Shall Be Free No. 10” and “Motorpsycho Nightmare”. “Spanish Harlem Incident” and “To Ramona” are passionate love songs, while “Black Crow Blues” and “I Don’t Believe You (She Acts Like We Never Have Met)” suggest the rock and roll soon to dominate Dylan’s music. “It Ain’t Me Babe“, on the surface a song about spurned love, has been described as a rejection of the role of political spokesman thrust upon him.[78] His newest direction was signaled by two lengthy songs: the impressionistic “Chimes of Freedom“, which sets social commentary against a metaphorical landscape in a style characterized by Allen Ginsberg as “chains of flashing images,”[79] and “My Back Pages“, which attacks the simplistic and arch seriousness of his own earlier topical songs and seems to predict the backlash he was about to encounter from his former champions as he took a new direction.[80]

In the latter half of 1964 and 1965, Dylan moved from folk songwriter to folk-rock pop-music star. His jeans and work shirts were replaced by a Carnaby Street wardrobe, sunglasses day or night, and pointed “Beatle boots“. A London reporter wrote: “Hair that would set the teeth of a comb on edge. A loud shirt that would dim the neon lights of Leicester Square. He looks like an undernourished cockatoo.”[81] Dylan began to spar with interviewers. Appearing on the Les Crane television show and asked about a movie he planned, he told Crane it would be a cowboy horror movie. Asked if he played the cowboy, Dylan replied, “No, I play my mother.”[82]

Going electric

Bob Dylan making an impromptu guest appearance with the Byrds at Ciro‘s nightclub, March 26, 1965

Dylan’s late March 1965 album Bringing It All Back Home was another leap,[83] featuring his first recordings with electric instruments. The first single, “Subterranean Homesick Blues“, owed much to Chuck Berry‘s “Too Much Monkey Business“;[84] its free association lyrics described as harkening back to the energy of beat poetry and as a forerunner of rap and hip-hop.[85] The song was provided with an early video, which opened D. A. Pennebaker‘s cinéma vérité presentation of Dylan’s 1965 tour of Great Britain, Dont Look Back.[86] Instead of miming, Dylan illustrated the lyrics by throwing cue cards containing key words from the song on the ground. Pennebaker said the sequence was Dylan’s idea, and it has been imitated in music videos and advertisements.[87]

The second side of Bringing It All Back Home contained four long songs on which Dylan accompanied himself on acoustic guitar and harmonica.[88] “Mr. Tambourine Man” became one of his best known songs when the Byrds recorded an electric version that reached number one in the US and UK .[89][90] “It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue” and “It’s Alright Ma (I’m Only Bleeding)” were two of Dylan’s most important compositions.[88][91]

In 1965, headlining the Newport Folk Festival, Dylan performed his first electric set since high school with a pickup group featuring Mike Bloomfield on guitar and Al Kooper on organ.[92] Dylan had appeared at Newport in 1963 and 1964, but in 1965 met with cheering and booing and left the stage after three songs. One version has it that the boos were from folk fans whom Dylan had alienated by appearing, unexpectedly, with an electric guitar. Murray Lerner, who filmed the performance, said: “I absolutely think that they were booing Dylan going electric.”[93] An alternative account claims audience members were upset by poor sound and a short set. This account is supported by Kooper and one of the directors of the festival, who reports his recording proves the only boos were in reaction to the MC’s announcement that there was only enough time for a short set.[94][95]

Nevertheless, Dylan’s performance provoked a hostile response from the folk music establishment.[96][97] In the September issue of Sing Out!Ewan MacColl wrote: “Our traditional songs and ballads are the creations of extraordinarily talented artists working inside disciplines formulated over time …’But what of Bobby Dylan?’ scream the outraged teenagers … Only a completely non-critical audience, nourished on the watery pap of pop music, could have fallen for such tenth-rate drivel.”[98] On July 29, four days after Newport, Dylan was back in the studio in New York, recording “Positively 4th Street“. The lyrics contained images of vengeance and paranoia,[99] and it has been interpreted as Dylan’s put-down of former friends from the folk community—friends he had known in clubs along West 4th Street.[100]

Highway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde

In July 1965, the single “Like a Rolling Stone” peaked at two in the U.S. and at four in the UK charts. At over six minutes, the song altered what a pop single could convey. Bruce Springsteen, in his speech for Dylan’s inauguration into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, said that on first hearing the single, “that snare shot sounded like somebody’d kicked open the door to your mind”.[102] In 2004 and in 2011, Rolling Stone listed it as number one of “The 500 Greatest Songs of All Time“.[101][103] The song opened Dylan’s next album, Highway 61 Revisited, named after the road that led from Dylan’s Minnesota to the musical hotbed of New Orleans.[104] The songs were in the same vein as the hit single, flavored by Mike Bloomfield‘s blues guitar and Al Kooper‘s organ riffs. “Desolation Row“, backed by acoustic guitar and understated bass,[105] offers the sole exception, with Dylan alluding to figures in Western culture in a song described by Andy Gill as “an 11-minute epic of entropy, which takes the form of a Fellini-esque parade of grotesques and oddities featuring a huge cast of celebrated characters, some historical (EinsteinNero), some biblical (Noah, Cain and Abel), some fictional (Ophelia, Romeo, Cinderella), some literary (T.S. Eliot and Ezra Pound), and some who fit into none of the above categories, notably Dr. Filth and his dubious nurse.”[106]

In support of the album, Dylan was booked for two U.S. concerts with Al Kooper and Harvey Brooks from his studio crew and Robbie Robertson and Levon Helm, former members of Ronnie Hawkins‘s backing band the Hawks.[107] On August 28 at Forest Hills Tennis Stadium, the group was heckled by an audience still annoyed by Dylan’s electric sound. The band’s reception on September 3 at the Hollywood Bowl was more favorable.[108]

From September 24, 1965, in Austin, Texas, Dylan toured the U.S. and Canada for six months, backed by the five musicians from the Hawks who became known as the Band.[109] While Dylan and the Hawks met increasingly receptive audiences, their studio efforts floundered. Producer Bob Johnston persuaded Dylan to record in Nashville in February 1966, and surrounded him with top-notch session men. At Dylan’s insistence, Robertson and Kooper came from New York City to play on the sessions.[110] The Nashville sessions produced the double album Blonde on Blonde (1966), featuring what Dylan called “that thin wild mercury sound”.[111] Kooper described it as “taking two cultures and smashing them together with a huge explosion”: the musical world of Nashville and the world of the “quintessential New York hipster” Bob Dylan.[112]

On November 22, 1965, Dylan secretly married 25-year-old former model Sara Lownds.[113] Robertson writes in his memoir about receiving a phone call that morning to accompany the couple to the court, and then later to a reception hosted by Al Grossman at the Algonquin Hotel. Some of Dylan’s friends, including Ramblin’ Jack Elliott, say that, immediately after the event, Dylan denied he was married.[113] Journalist Nora Ephron made the news public in the New York Post in February 1966 with the headline “Hush! Bob Dylan is wed.”[114]

Dylan toured Australia and Europe in April and May 1966. Each show was split in two. Dylan performed solo during the first half, accompanying himself on acoustic guitar and harmonica. In the second, backed by the Hawks, he played electrically amplified music. This contrast provoked many fans, who jeered and slow handclapped.[115] The tour culminated in a raucous confrontation between Dylan and his audience at the Manchester Free Trade Hall in England on May 17, 1966.[116] A recording of this concert was released in 1998: The Bootleg Series Vol. 4: Bob Dylan Live 1966. At the climax of the evening, a member of the audience, angered by Dylan’s electric backing, shouted: “Judas!” to which Dylan responded, “I don’t believe you … You’re a liar!” Dylan turned to his band and said, “Play it fucking loud!”[117] as they launched into the final song of the night—”Like a Rolling Stone”.

During his 1966 tour, Dylan was described as exhausted and acting “as if on a death trip”.[118]D. A. Pennebaker, the film maker accompanying the tour, described Dylan as “taking a lot of amphetamine and who-knows-what-else.”[119] In a 1969 interview with Jann Wenner, Dylan said, “I was on the road for almost five years. It wore me down. I was on drugs, a lot of things … just to keep going, you know?”[120] In 2011, BBC Radio 4 reported that, in an interview that Robert Shelton taped in 1966, Dylan said he had kicked heroin in New York City: “I got very, very strung out for a while … I had about a $25-a-day habit and I kicked it.”[121] Some journalists questioned the validity of this confession, pointing out that Dylan had “been telling journalists wild lies about his past since the earliest days of his career.”[122][123]

Motorcycle accident and reclusion

After his tour, Dylan returned to New York, but the pressures increased. ABC Television had paid an advance for a TV show.[124] His publisher, Macmillan, was demanding a manuscript of the poem/novel Tarantula. Manager Albert Grossman had scheduled a concert tour for the latter part of the year.

On July 29, 1966, Dylan crashed his 500cc Triumph Tiger 100 motorcycle near his home in Woodstock, New York, and was thrown to the ground. Though the extent of his injuries was never disclosed, Dylan said that he broke several vertebrae in his neck.[125] Mystery still surrounds the circumstances of the accident since no ambulance was called to the scene and Dylan was not hospitalized.[125][126] Dylan’s biographers have written that the crash offered Dylan the chance to escape the pressures around him.[125][127] Dylan confirmed this interpretation in his autobiography: “I had been in a motorcycle accident and I’d been hurt, but I recovered. Truth was that I wanted to get out of the rat race.”[128] Dylan withdrew from public and, apart from a few appearances, did not tour again for almost eight years.[126][129]

Once Dylan was well enough to resume creative work, he began to edit D. A. Pennebaker‘s film of his 1966 tour. A rough cut was shown to ABC Television and rejected as incomprehensible to a mainstream audience.[130] The film was subsequently titled Eat the Document on bootleg copies, and it has been screened at a handful of film festivals.[131][132] In 1967 he began recording with the Hawks at his home and in the basement of the Hawks’ nearby house, “Big Pink”.[133] These songs, initially demos for other artists to record, provided hits for Julie Driscoll and the Brian Auger Trinity (“This Wheel’s on Fire“), The Byrds (“You Ain’t Goin’ Nowhere“, “Nothing Was Delivered”), and Manfred Mann (“Mighty Quinn“). Columbia released selections in 1975 as The Basement Tapes. Over the years, more songs recorded by Dylan and his band in 1967 appeared on bootleg recordings, culminating in a five-CD set titled The Genuine Basement Tapes, containing 107 songs and alternative takes.[134] In the coming months, the Hawks recorded the album Music from Big Pinkusing songs they worked on in their basement in Woodstock, and renamed themselves the Band,[135] beginning a long recording and performing career of their own.

In October and November 1967, Dylan returned to Nashville.[136] Back in the studio after 19 months, he was accompanied by Charlie McCoy on bass,[136]Kenny Buttrey on drums,[136] and Pete Drake on steel guitar.[136] The result was John Wesley Harding, a contemplative record of shorter songs, set in a landscape that drew on the American West and the Bible. The sparse structure and instrumentation, with lyrics that took the Judeo-Christian tradition seriously, departed from Dylan’s own work and from the psychedelic fervor of the 1960s.[137] It included “All Along the Watchtower“, with lyrics derived from the Book of Isaiah (21:5–9). The song was later recorded by Jimi Hendrix, whose version Dylan acknowledged as definitive.[22] Woody Guthrie died on October 3, 1967, and Dylan made his first live appearance in twenty months at a Guthrie memorial concert held at Carnegie Hall on January 20, 1968, where he was backed by the Band.[138]

Dylan’s next release, Nashville Skyline (1969), was mainstream country featuring Nashville musicians, a mellow-voiced Dylan, a duet with Johnny Cash, and the hit single “Lay Lady Lay“.[140]Variety wrote, “Dylan is definitely doing something that can be called singing. Somehow he has managed to add an octave to his range.”[141] During one recording session, Dylan and Cash recorded a series of duets but only their version of Dylan’s “Girl from the North Country” was released on the album.[72][73]

In May 1969, Dylan appeared on the first episode of Johnny Cash’s television show and sang a duet with Cash of “Girl from the North Country“, with solos of “Living the Blues” and “I Threw It All Away“.[142] Dylan next traveled to England to top the bill at the Isle of Wight festival on August 31, 1969, after rejecting overtures to appear at the Woodstock Festival closer to his home.[143]

1970s

In the early 1970s, critics charged that Dylan’s output was varied and unpredictable. Rolling Stone writer Greil Marcus asked “What is this shit?” on first listening to Self Portrait, released in June 1970.[144][145] It was a double LP including few original songs, and was poorly received.[146] In October 1970, Dylan released New Morning, considered a return to form.[147] This album included “Day of the Locusts”, a song in which Dylan gave an account of receiving an honorary degree from Princeton University on June 9, 1970.[148] In November 1968, Dylan had co-written “I’d Have You Anytime” with George Harrison;[149] Harrison recorded “I’d Have You Anytime” and Dylan’s “If Not for You” for his 1970 solo triple album All Things Must Pass. Dylan’s surprise appearance at Harrison’s 1971 Concert for Bangladesh attracted media coverage, reflecting that Dylan’s live appearances had become rare.[150]

Between March 16 and 19, 1971, Dylan reserved three days at Blue Rock, a small studio in Greenwich Village, to record with Leon Russell. These sessions resulted in “Watching the River Flow” and a new recording of “When I Paint My Masterpiece“.[151] On November 4, 1971, Dylan recorded “George Jackson“, which he released a week later. For many, the single was a surprising return to protest material, mourning the killing of Black PantherGeorge Jackson in San Quentin State Prison that year.[152] Dylan contributed piano and harmony to Steve Goodman‘s album, Somebody Else’s Troubles, under the pseudonym Robert Milkwood Thomas (referencing the play Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas and his own previous name) in September 1972.[153]

In 1972, Dylan signed to Sam Peckinpah‘s film Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, providing songs and backing music for the movie, and playing “Alias”, a member of Billy’s gang with some historical basis.[154] Despite the film’s failure at the box office, the song “Knockin’ on Heaven’s Door” became one of Dylan’s most covered songs.[155][156]

Also in 1972, Dylan protested the move to deport John Lennon and Yoko Ono, who had been convicted of possessing cannabis, by sending a letter to the U.S. Immigration Service, in part: “Hurray for John & Yoko. Let them stay and live here and breathe. The country’s got plenty of room and space. Let John and Yoko stay!”[157]

Return to touring

Dylan together with three musicians from The Band onstage. Dylan is third from left, wearing a black jacket and pants. He is singing and playing an electric guitar.

Bob Dylan and the Band touring in Chicago, 1974

Dylan began 1973 by signing with a new label, David Geffen‘s Asylum Records (and Island in the UK), when his contract with Columbia Records expired. On his next album, Planet Waves, he used the Band as backing group, while rehearsing for a tour. The album included two versions of “Forever Young”, which became one of his most popular songs.[158] As one critic described it, the song projected “something hymnal and heartfelt that spoke of the father in Dylan”,[159] and Dylan himself commented: “I wrote it thinking about one of my boys and not wanting to be too sentimental.”[22]

Columbia Records simultaneously released Dylan, a collection of studio outtakes (almost exclusively covers), widely interpreted as a churlish response to Dylan’s signing with a rival record label.[160] In January 1974, Dylan returned to touring after seven years; backed by the Band, he embarked on a North American tour of 40 concerts. A live double album, Before the Flood, was on Asylum Records. Soon, according to Clive Davis, Columbia Records sent word they “will spare nothing to bring Dylan back into the fold”.[161] Dylan had second thoughts about Asylum, miffed that while there had been millions of unfulfilled ticket requests for the 1974 tour, Geffen had sold only 700,000 copies of Planet Waves.[161] Dylan returned to Columbia Records, which reissued his two Asylum albums.

After the tour, Dylan and his wife became estranged. He filled a small red notebook with songs about relationships and ruptures, and recorded an album entitled Blood on the Tracks in September 1974.[162] Dylan delayed the release and re-recorded half the songs at Sound 80 Studios in Minneapolis with production assistance from his brother, David Zimmerman.[163]

Released in early 1975, Blood on the Tracks received mixed reviews. In the NMENick Kent described “the accompaniments [as] often so trashy they sound like mere practice takes.”[164] In Rolling StoneJon Landauwrote that “the record has been made with typical shoddiness.”[164] Over the years critics came to see it as one of Dylan’s greatest achievements. In Salon.com, Bill Wyman wrote: “Blood on the Tracks is his only flawless album and his best produced; the songs, each of them, are constructed in disciplined fashion. It is his kindest album and most dismayed, and seems in hindsight to have achieved a sublime balance between the logorrhea-plagued excesses of his mid-1960s output and the self-consciously simple compositions of his post-accident years.”[165] Novelist Rick Moody called it “the truest, most honest account of a love affair from tip to stern ever put down on magnetic tape.”[166]

Dylan, wearing a hat and leather coat, plays guitar and sings, seated. Crouched next to him is a bearded man, listening to him with head bent.

Bob Dylan with Allen Ginsberg on the Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975. Photo: Elsa Dorfman

In the middle of that year, Dylan wrote a ballad championing boxer Rubin “Hurricane” Carter, imprisoned for a triple murder in Paterson, New Jersey, in 1966. After visiting Carter in jail, Dylan wrote “Hurricane“, presenting the case for Carter’s innocence. Despite its length—over eight minutes—the song was released as a single, peaking at 33 on the U.S. Billboard chart, and performed at every 1975 date of Dylan’s next tour, the Rolling Thunder Revue.[a 4][167] The tour featured about one hundred performers and supporters from the Greenwich Village folk scene, including T-Bone Burnett, Ramblin’ Jack Elliott, Joni Mitchell,[168][169]David MansfieldRoger McGuinnMick Ronson, Joan Baez, and Scarlet Rivera, whom Dylan discovered walking down the street, her violin case on her back.[170]Allen Ginsbergaccompanied the troupe, staging scenes for the film Dylan was shooting. Sam Shepard was hired to write the screenplay, but ended up accompanying the tour as informal chronicler.[171]

Running through late 1975 and again through early 1976, the tour encompassed the release of the album Desire, with many of Dylan’s new songs featuring a travelogue-like narrative style, showing the influence of his new collaborator, playwright Jacques Levy.[172][173] The 1976 half of the tour was documented by a TV concert special, Hard Rain, and the LP Hard Rain; no concert album from the better-received and better-known opening half of the tour was released until 2002’s Live 1975.[174]

Dylan performing in the Feyenoord Football Club Stadium, Rotterdam, June 23, 1978

The 1975 tour with the Revue provided the backdrop to Dylan’s nearly four-hour film Renaldo and Clara, a sprawling narrative mixed with concert footage and reminiscences. Released in 1978, the movie received poor, sometimes scathing, reviews.[175][176] Later in that year, a two-hour edit, dominated by the concert performances, was more widely released.[177]

In November 1976, Dylan appeared at the Band’s “farewell” concert, with Eric ClaptonJoni MitchellMuddy WatersVan Morrison and Neil YoungMartin Scorsese‘s cinematic chronicle, The Last Waltz, in 1978 included about half of Dylan’s set.[178] In 1976, Dylan wrote and duetted on “Sign Language” for Eric Clapton‘s No Reason To Cry.[179]

In 1978, Dylan embarked on a year-long world tour, performing 114 shows in Japan, the Far East, Europe and the US, to a total audience of two million. Dylan assembled an eight-piece band and three backing singers. Concerts in Tokyo in February and March were released as the live double album, Bob Dylan At Budokan.[180] Reviews were mixed. Robert Christgau awarded the album a C+ rating, giving the album a derisory review,[181] while Janet Maslin defended it in Rolling Stone, writing: “These latest live versions of his old songs have the effect of liberating Bob Dylan from the originals.”[182] When Dylan brought the tour to the U.S. in September 1978, the press described the look and sound as a ‘Las Vegas Tour’.[183] The 1978 tour grossed more than $20 million, and Dylan told the Los Angeles Times that he had debts because “I had a couple of bad years. I put a lot of money into the movie, built a big house  … and it costs a lot to get divorced in California.”[180]

In April and May 1978, Dylan took the same band and vocalists into Rundown Studios in Santa Monica, California, to record an album of new material: Street-Legal.[184] It was described by Michael Gray as, “after Blood On The Tracks, arguably Dylan’s best record of the 1970s: a crucial album documenting a crucial period in Dylan’s own life”.[185] However, it had poor sound and mixing (attributed to Dylan’s studio practices), muddying the instrumental detail until a remastered CD release in 1999 restored some of the songs’ strengths.[186]

Christian period

In the late 1970s, Dylan converted to Evangelical Christianity,[187][188] undertaking a three month discipleship course run by the Association of Vineyard Churches;[189][190] and released two albums of contemporary gospel musicSlow Train Coming (1979) featured the guitar accompaniment of Mark Knopfler (of Dire Straits) and was produced by veteran R&B producer Jerry Wexler. Wexler said that Dylan had tried to evangelize him during the recording. He replied: “Bob, you’re dealing with a 62-year-old Jewish atheist. Let’s just make an album.”[191] Dylan won the Grammy Award for Best Male Rock Vocal Performance for the song “Gotta Serve Somebody“. His second Christian-themed album, Saved (1980), received mixed reviews, described by Michael Gray as “the nearest thing to a follow-up album Dylan has ever made, Slow Train Coming II and inferior”[192] When touring in late 1979 and early 1980, Dylan would not play his older, secular works, and he delivered declarations of his faith from the stage, such as:

Years ago they … said I was a prophet. I used to say, “No I’m not a prophet” they say “Yes you are, you’re a prophet.” I said, “No it’s not me.” They used to say “You sure are a prophet.” They used to convince me I was a prophet. Now I come out and say Jesus Christ is the answer. They say, “Bob Dylan’s no prophet.” They just can’t handle it.[193]

Dylan’s Christianity was unpopular with some fans and musicians.[194] Shortly before his murderJohn Lennon recorded “Serve Yourself” in response to Dylan’s “Gotta Serve Somebody”.[195] By 1981, Stephen Holden wrote in the New York Times that “neither age (he’s now 40) nor his much-publicized conversion to born-again Christianity has altered his essentially iconoclastic temperament.”[196]

1980s

Dylan, onstage and with eyes closed, plays a chord on an electric guitar.

Dylan in Toronto April 18, 1980

In late 1980, Dylan briefly played concerts billed as “A Musical Retrospective”, restoring popular 1960s songs to the repertoire. Shot of Love, recorded early the next year, featured his first secular compositions in more than two years, mixed with Christian songs. “Every Grain of Sand” reminded some of William Blake‘s verses.[197]

In the 1980s, reception of Dylan’s recordings varied, from the well-regarded Infidels in 1983 to the panned Down in the Groove in 1988. Michael Gray condemned Dylan’s 1980s albums for carelessness in the studio and for failing to release his best songs.[198] As an example of the latter, the Infidels recording sessions, which again employed Knopfler on lead guitar and also as the album’s producer, resulted in several notable songs that Dylan left off the album. Best regarded of these were “Blind Willie McTell“, a tribute to the dead blues musician and an evocation of African American history,[199] “Foot of Pride” and “Lord Protect My Child“. These three songs were released on The Bootleg Series Volumes 1–3 (Rare & Unreleased) 1961–1991.[200]

Between July 1984 and March 1985, Dylan recorded Empire Burlesque.[201]Arthur Baker, who had remixed hits for Bruce Springsteen and Cyndi Lauper, was asked to engineer and mix the album. Baker said he felt he was hired to make Dylan’s album sound “a little bit more contemporary”.[201]

In 1985 Dylan sang on USA for Africa‘s famine relief single “We Are the World“. He also joined Artists United Against Apartheid providing vocals for their single “Sun City“.[202] On July 13, 1985, he appeared at the climax at the Live Aid concert at JFK Stadium, Philadelphia. Backed by Keith Richards and Ronnie Wood, he performed a ragged version of “Hollis Brown”, his ballad of rural poverty, and then said to the worldwide audience exceeding one billion people: “I hope that some of the money … maybe they can just take a little bit of it, maybe … one or two million, maybe … and use it to pay the mortgages on some of the farms and, the farmers here, owe to the banks.”[203] His remarks were widely criticized as inappropriate, but they did inspire Willie Nelson to organize a series of events, Farm Aid, to benefit debt-ridden American farmers.[204]

In April 1986, Dylan made a foray into rap music when he added vocals to the opening verse of “Street Rock”, featured on Kurtis Blow‘s album Kingdom Blow.[205] Dylan’s next studio album, Knocked Out Loaded, in July 1986 contained three covers (by Little Junior ParkerKris Kristofferson and the gospel hymn “Precious Memories“), plus three collaborations with (Tom PettySam Shepard and Carole Bayer Sager), and two solo compositions by Dylan. One reviewer commented that “the record follows too many detours to be consistently compelling, and some of those detours wind down roads that are indisputably dead ends. By 1986, such uneven records weren’t entirely unexpected by Dylan, but that didn’t make them any less frustrating.”[206] It was the first Dylan album since Freewheelin’(1963) to fail to make the Top 50.[207] Since then, some critics have called the 11-minute epic that Dylan co-wrote with Sam Shepard, “Brownsville Girl“, a work of genius.[208]

In 1986 and 1987, Dylan toured with Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, sharing vocals with Petty on several songs each night. Dylan also toured with the Grateful Dead in 1987, resulting in a live album Dylan & The Dead. This received negative reviews: Allmusic said, “Quite possibly the worst album by either Bob Dylan or the Grateful Dead.”[209] Dylan then initiated what came to be called the Never Ending Tour on June 7, 1988, performing with a back-up band featuring guitarist G. E. Smith. Dylan continued to tour with a small, evolving band for the next 20 years.[210]

Dylan plays his guitar and sings into a microphone onstage.

Dylan in Barcelona, Spain, 1984

In 1987, Dylan starred in Richard Marquand‘s movie Hearts of Fire, in which he played Billy Parker, a washed-up rock star turned chicken farmer whose teenage lover (Fiona) leaves him for a jaded English synth-pop sensation played by Rupert Everett.[211] Dylan also contributed two original songs to the soundtrack—”Night After Night”, and “I Had a Dream About You, Baby”, as well as a cover of John Hiatt‘s “The Usual”. The film was a critical and commercial flop.[212]Dylan was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in January 1988, with Bruce Springsteen’s introduction declaring, “Bob freed your mind the way Elvis freed your body. He showed us that just because music was innately physical did not mean that it was anti-intellectual.”[213]

The album Down in the Groove in May 1988 sold even more unsuccessfully than his previous studio album.[214] Michael Gray wrote: “The very title undercuts any idea that inspired work may lie within. Here was a further devaluing of the notion of a new Bob Dylan album as something significant.”[215] The critical and commercial disappointment of that album was swiftly followed by the success of the Traveling Wilburys. Dylan co-founded the band with George HarrisonJeff LynneRoy Orbison, and Tom Petty, and in late 1988 their multi-platinum Traveling Wilburys Vol. 1 reached three on the US album chart,[214] featuring songs that were described as Dylan’s most accessible compositions in years.[216]Despite Orbison’s death in December 1988, the remaining four recorded a second album in May 1990 with the title Traveling Wilburys Vol. 3.[217]

Dylan finished the decade on a critical high note with Oh Mercy produced by Daniel Lanois. Michael Gray wrote that the album was: “Attentively written, vocally distinctive, musically warm, and uncompromisingly professional, this cohesive whole is the nearest thing to a great Bob Dylan album in the 1980s.”[215][218] The track “Most of the Time”, a lost love composition, was later prominently featured in the film High Fidelity, while “What Was It You Wanted?” has been interpreted both as a catechism and a wry comment on the expectations of critics and fans.[219] The religious imagery of “Ring Them Bells” struck some critics as a re-affirmation of faith.[220]

1990s

Dylan’s 1990s began with Under the Red Sky (1990), an about-face from the serious Oh Mercy. The album contained several apparently simple songs, including “Under the Red Sky” and “Wiggle Wiggle”. The album was dedicated to “Gabby Goo Goo”, a nickname for the daughter of Dylan and Carolyn Dennis, Desiree Gabrielle Dennis-Dylan, who was four.[221]Sidemen on the album included George Harrison, Slash from Guns N’ RosesDavid CrosbyBruce HornsbyStevie Ray Vaughan, and Elton John. Despite the line-up, the record received bad reviews and sold poorly.[222]

In 1991, Dylan received a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award from American actor Jack Nicholson.[223] The event coincided with the start of the Gulf War against Saddam Hussein, and Dylan performed “Masters of War“. Dylan then made a short speech, saying “My daddy once said to me, he said, ‘Son, it is possible for you to become so defiled in this world that your own mother and father will abandon you. If that happens, God will believe in your ability to mend your own ways.'”[223][224] This sentiment was subsequently revealed to be a quote from 19th-century German Jewish intellectual, Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch.[225]

Over the next few years Dylan returned to his roots with two albums covering folk and blues numbers: Good as I Been to You (1992) and World Gone Wrong (1993), featuring interpretations and acoustic guitar work. Many critics and fans commented on the quiet beauty of the song “Lone Pilgrim”,[226] written by a 19th-century teacher. In November 1994 Dylan recorded two live shows for MTV Unplugged. He said his wish to perform traditional songs was overruled by Sony executives who insisted on hits.[227] The album from it, MTV Unplugged, included “John Brown”, an unreleased 1962 song of how enthusiasm for war ends in mutilation and disillusionment.[228]

Dylan and members of his band perform onstage. Dylan, wearing a red shirt and black pants, plays an electric guitar and sings.

Dylan performs during the 1996 Lida Festival in Stockholm

Dylan’s longtime road managerVictor Maymudes has claimed that the singer quit drinking alcohol in 1994.[229] Maymudes felt that Dylan sobering up made him “more introverted and a little less social.”[229]

With a collection of songs reportedly written while snowed in on his Minnesota ranch,[230] Dylan booked recording time with Daniel Lanois at Miami’s Criteria Studios in January 1997. The subsequent recording sessions were, by some accounts, fraught with musical tension.[231] Before the album’s release Dylan was hospitalized with a life-threatening heart infection, pericarditis, brought on by histoplasmosis. His scheduled European tour was cancelled, but Dylan made a speedy recovery and left the hospital saying, “I really thought I’d be seeing Elvis soon.”[232] He was back on the road by mid-year, and performed before Pope John Paul II at the World Eucharistic Conference in Bologna, Italy. The Pope treated the audience of 200,000 people to a homily based on Dylan’s lyric “Blowin’ in the Wind”.[233]

In September Dylan released the new Lanois-produced album, Time Out of Mind. With its bitter assessment of love and morbid ruminations, Dylan’s first collection of original songs in seven years was highly acclaimed. One critic wrote: “the songs themselves are uniformly powerful, adding up to Dylan’s best overall collection in years.”[234] This collection of complex songs won him his first solo “Album of the Year” Grammy Award.[235]

In December 1997, U.S. President Bill Clinton presented Dylan with a Kennedy Center Honor in the East Room of the White House, paying this tribute: “He probably had more impact on people of my generation than any other creative artist. His voice and lyrics haven’t always been easy on the ear, but throughout his career Bob Dylan has never aimed to please. He’s disturbed the peace and discomforted the powerful.”[236]

In 1999, Dylan embarked on a North American tour with Paul Simon, where each alternated as headline act with a “middle” section where they performed together, starting on the first of June and ending September 18. The collaboration was generally well-received.

2000s

Dylan commenced the 2000s by winning the Polar Music Prize in May 2000 and his first Oscar; his song “Things Have Changed“, written for the film Wonder Boys, won an Academy Award in March 2001.[238] The Oscar, by some reports a facsimile, tours with him, presiding over shows perched atop an amplifier.[239]

“Love and Theft” was released on September 11, 2001. Recorded with his touring band, Dylan produced the album himself under the pseudonym Jack Frost.[240] The album was critically well received and earned nominations for several Grammy awards.[241] Critics noted that Dylan was widening his musical palette to include rockabilly, Western swing, jazz, and even lounge ballads.[242]“Love and Theft” generated controversy when The Wall Street Journal pointed out similarities between the album’s lyrics and Japanese author Junichi Saga’s book Confessions of a Yakuza.[243][244]

In 2003, Dylan revisited the evangelical songs from his Christian period and participated in the CD project Gotta Serve Somebody: The Gospel Songs of Bob Dylan. That year Dylan also released the film Masked & Anonymous, which he co-wrote with director Larry Charles under the alias Sergei Petrov.[245] Dylan played the central character in the film, Jack Fate, alongside a cast that included Jeff BridgesPenélope Cruz and John Goodman. The film polarised critics: many dismissed it as an “incoherent mess”;[246][247] a few treated it as a serious work of art.[248][249]

In October 2004, Dylan published the first part of his autobiography, Chronicles: Volume One. Confounding expectations,[250] Dylan devoted three chapters to his first year in New York City in 1961–1962, virtually ignoring the mid-1960s when his fame was at its height. He also devoted chapters to the albums New Morning (1970) and Oh Mercy (1989). The book reached number two on The New York Times’ Hardcover Non-Fiction best seller list in December 2004 and was nominated for a National Book Award.[251]

No Direction HomeMartin Scorsese‘s acclaimed film biography of Dylan,[252] was first broadcast on September 26–27, 2005, on BBC Two in the UK and PBS in the US.[253] The documentary focuses on the period from Dylan’s arrival in New York in 1961 to his motorcycle crash in 1966, featuring interviews with Suze RotoloLiam ClancyJoan BaezAllen GinsbergPete SeegerMavis Staples, and Dylan himself. The film received a Peabody Award in April 2006[254] and a Columbia-duPont Award in January 2007.[255] The accompanying soundtrack featured unreleased songs from Dylan’s early career.[256]

Dylan earned yet another distinction in a 2007 study of US legal opinions and briefs that found his lyrics were quoted by judges and lawyers more than those of any other songwriter, 186 times versus 74 by the Beatles, who were second. Among those quoting Dylan were US Supreme CourtChief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia, both conservatives. The most widely cited lines included “you don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” from “Subterranean Homesick Blues” and “when you ain’t got nothing, you got nothing to lose” from “Like a Rolling Stone“.[257][258]

Modern Times

May 3, 2006, was the premiere of Dylan’s radio presenting career, hosting a weekly radio program, Theme Time Radio Hour, for XM Satellite Radio, with song selections revolving around a chosen theme.[259][260] Dylan played classic and obscure records from the 1930s to the present day, including contemporary artists as diverse as BlurPrinceL.L. Cool J and the Streets. The show was praised by fans and critics as “great radio,” as Dylan told stories and made eclectic references with his sardonic humor, while achieving a thematic beauty with his musical choices.[261][262] In April 2009, Dylan broadcast the 100th show in his radio series; the theme was “Goodbye” and the final record played was Woody Guthrie’s “So Long, It’s Been Good to Know Yuh”. This led to speculation that Dylan’s radio excursion had ended.[263]

Dylan together with five members of his band onstage. Dylan, dressed in a white shirt and black pants, is second from right.

Dylan, the Spectrum, 2007

On August 29, 2006, Dylan released his Modern Times album. Despite some coarsening of Dylan’s voice (a critic for The Guardian characterised his singing on the album as “a catarrhal death rattle”[264]) most reviewers praised the album, and many described it as the final installment of a successful trilogy, embracing Time Out of Mind and “Love and Theft”.[265]Modern Times entered the U.S. charts at number one, making it Dylan’s first album to reach that position since 1976’s Desire.[266]The New York Times published an article exploring similarities between some of Dylan’s lyrics in Modern Times and the work of the Civil War poet Henry Timrod.[267]

Nominated for three Grammy Awards, Modern Times won Best Contemporary Folk/Americana Album and Bob Dylan also won Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance for “Someday Baby”. Modern Times was named Album of the Year, 2006, by Rolling Stone magazine,[268] and by Uncut in the UK.[269] On the same day that Modern Times was released the iTunes Music Store released Bob Dylan: The Collection, a digital box set containing all of his albums (773 tracks in total), along with 42 rare and unreleased tracks.[270]

In August 2007, the award-winning film biography of Dylan I’m Not There, written and directed by Todd Haynes, was released—bearing the tagline “inspired by the music and many lives of Bob Dylan”.[271][272] The movie used six different actors to represent different aspects of Dylan’s life: Christian BaleCate BlanchettMarcus Carl FranklinRichard GereHeath Ledger and Ben Whishaw.[272][273] Dylan’s previously unreleased 1967 recording from which the film takes its name[274] was released for the first time on the film’s original soundtrack; all other tracks are covers of Dylan songs, specially recorded for the movie by a diverse range of artists, including Sonic YouthEddie VedderMason JenningsStephen MalkmusJeff TweedyKaren OWillie NelsonCat PowerRichie Havens, and Tom Verlaine.[275]

Dylan, dressed in a black western outfit with red highlights, stands onstage and plays the keyboards. He gazes to the left of the photo. Behind him is a guitar player, dressed in black.

Bob Dylan performs at Air Canada Centre, Toronto, November 7, 2006

On October 1, 2007, Columbia Records released the triple CD retrospective album Dylan, anthologising his entire career under the Dylan 07 logo.[276] As part of this campaign, Mark Ronson produced a re-mix of Dylan’s 1966 tune “Most Likely You Go Your Way and I’ll Go Mine“, which was released as a maxi-single. This was the first time Dylan had sanctioned a re-mix of one of his classic recordings.[277]

The sophistication of the Dylan 07 marketing campaign was a reminder that Dylan’s commercial profile had risen considerably since the 1990s. This first became evident in 2004, when Dylan appeared in a TV advertisement for Victoria’s Secret lingerie.[278] Three years later, in October 2007, he participated in a multi-media campaign for the 2008 Cadillac Escalade.[279][280] Then, in 2009, he gave the highest profile endorsement of his career, appearing with rapper will.i.am in a Pepsi ad that debuted during the telecast of Super Bowl XLIII.[281] The ad, broadcast to a record audience of 98 million viewers, opened with Dylan singing the first verse of “Forever Young” followed by will.i.am doing a hip hop version of the song’s third and final verse.[282]

In October 2008, Columbia released The Bootleg Series Vol. 8 – Tell Tale Signs as both a two-CD set and a three-CD version with a 150-page hardcover book. The set contains live performances and outtakes from selected studio albums from Oh Mercy to Modern Times, as well as soundtrack contributions and collaborations with David Bromberg and Ralph Stanley.[283] The pricing of the album—the two-CD set went on sale for $18.99 and the three-CD version for $129.99—led to complaints about “rip-off packaging” from some fans and commentators.[284][285] The release was widely acclaimed by critics.[286] The abundance of alternative takes and unreleased material suggested to one reviewer that this volume of old outtakes “feels like a new Bob Dylan record, not only for the astonishing freshness of the material, but also for the incredible sound quality and organic feeling of everything here.”[287]

Together Through Life and Christmas in the Heart

Bob Dylan released his album Together Through Life on April 28, 2009. In a conversation with music journalist Bill Flanagan, published on Dylan’s website, Dylan explained that the genesis of the record was when French film director Olivier Dahan asked him to supply a song for his new road movieMy Own Love Song; initially only intending to record a single track, “Life Is Hard,” “the record sort of took its own direction”.[288] Nine of the ten songs on the album are credited as co-written by Bob Dylan and Robert Hunter.[289]

The album received largely favorable reviews,[290] although several critics described it as a minor addition to Dylan’s canon of work. Andy Gill wrote in The Independent that the record “features Dylan in fairly relaxed, spontaneous mood, content to grab such grooves and sentiments as flit momentarily across his radar. So while it may not contain too many landmark tracks, it’s one of the most naturally enjoyable albums you’ll hear all year.”[291]

In its first week of release, the album reached number one in the Billboard 200 chart in the U.S.,[292] making Bob Dylan (67 years of age) the oldest artist to ever debut at number one on that chart.[292] It also reached number one on the UK album chart, 39 years after Dylan’s previous UK album chart topper New Morning. This meant that Dylan currently holds the record for the longest gap between solo number one albums in the UK chart.[293]

On October 13, 2009, Dylan released a Christmas album, Christmas in the Heart, comprising such Christmas standards as “Little Drummer Boy“, “Winter Wonderland” and “Here Comes Santa Claus“.[294] Dylan’s royalties from the sale of this album will benefit the charities Feeding America in the USA, Crisis in the UK, and the World Food Programme.[295]

The album received generally favorable reviews.[296]The New Yorker commented that Dylan had welded a pre-rock musical sound to “some of his croakiest vocals in a while”, and speculated that Dylan’s intentions might be ironic: “Dylan has a long and highly publicized history with Christianity; to claim there’s not a wink in the childish optimism of ‘Here Comes Santa Claus’ or ‘Winter Wonderland’ is to ignore a half-century of biting satire.”[297] In USA TodayEdna Gundersen pointed out that Dylan was “revisiting yuletide styles popularized by Nat King ColeMel Tormé, and the Ray Conniff Singers.” Gundersen concluded that Dylan “couldn’t sound more sentimental or sincere”.[298]

In an interview published in The Big Issue, journalist Bill Flanagan asked Dylan why he had performed the songs in a straightforward style, and Dylan responded: “There wasn’t any other way to play it. These songs are part of my life, just like folk songs. You have to play them straight too.”[299]

2010s

Tempest

On October 18, 2010, Dylan released Volume 9 of his Bootleg Series, The Witmark Demos. This comprised 47 demo recordings of songs taped between 1962 and 1964 for Dylan’s earliest music publishers: Leeds Music in 1962, and Witmark Music from 1962 to 1964. One reviewer described the set as “a hearty glimpse of young Bob Dylan changing the music business, and the world, one note at a time.”[300] The critical aggregator website Metacritic awarded the album a Metascore of 86, indicating “universal acclaim”.[301] In the same week, Sony Legacy released Bob Dylan: The Original Mono Recordings, a box set that for the first time presented Dylan’s eight earliest albums, from Bob Dylan (1962) to John Wesley Harding (1967), in their original mono mix in the CD format. The CDs were housed in miniature facsimiles of the original album covers, replete with original liner notes. The set was accompanied by a booklet featuring an essay by music critic Greil Marcus.[302][303]

On April 12, 2011, Legacy Recordings released Bob Dylan in Concert – Brandeis University 1963, taped at Brandeis University on May 10, 1963, two weeks prior to the release of The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. The tape was discovered in the archive of music writer Ralph J. Gleason, and the recording carries liner notes by Michael Gray, who says it captures Dylan “from way back when Kennedy was President and the Beatles hadn’t yet reached America. It reveals him not at any Big Moment but giving a performance like his folk club sets of the period… This is the last live performance we have of Bob Dylan before he becomes a star.”[304]

The extent to which his work was studied at an academic level was demonstrated on Dylan’s 70th birthday on May 24, 2011, when three universities organized symposia on his work. The University of Mainz,[305] the University of Vienna,[306] and the University of Bristol[307] invited literary critics and cultural historians to give papers on aspects of Dylan’s work. Other events, including tribute bands, discussions and simple singalongs, took place around the world, as reported in The Guardian: “From Moscow to Madrid, Norway to Northampton and Malaysia to his home state of Minnesota, self-confessed ‘Bobcats’ will gather today to celebrate the 70th birthday of a giant of popular music.”[308]

Dylan and the Obamas at the White House, after a performance celebrating music from the civil rights movement(February 9, 2010)

On October 4, 2011, Dylan’s label, Egyptian Records, released an album of previously unheard Hank Williams songs, The Lost Notebooks of Hank Williams. Dylan had helped to curate this project, in which songs unfinished when Williams died in 1953 were completed and recorded by a variety of artists, including Dylan himself, his son Jakob DylanLevon HelmNorah JonesJack White, and others.[309][310]

On May 29, 2012, U.S. President Barack Obama awarded Dylan a Presidential Medal of Freedom in the White House. At the ceremony, Obama praised Dylan’s voice for its “unique gravelly power that redefined not just what music sounded like but the message it carried and how it made people feel”.[311]

On September 11, 2012, Dylan released his 35th studio album, Tempest.[312] The album features a tribute to John Lennon, “Roll On John”, and the title track is a 14 minute song about the sinking of the Titanic.[313] Reviewing Tempest for Rolling Stone, Will Hermes gave the album five out of five stars, writing: “Lyrically, Dylan is at the top of his game, joking around, dropping wordplay and allegories that evade pat readings and quoting other folks’ words like a freestyle rapper on fire.” Hermes called Tempest “one of [Dylan’s] weirdest albums ever”, and opined, “It may also be the single darkest record in Dylan’s catalog.”[314] The critical aggregator website Metacritic awarded the album a score of 83 out of 100, indicating “universal acclaim”.[315]

On August 27, 2013, Columbia Records released Volume 10 of Dylan’s Bootleg Series, Another Self Portrait (1969–1971).[316] The album contained 35 previously unreleased tracks, including alternate takes and demos from Dylan’s 1969–1971 recording sessions during the making of the Self Portrait and New Morning albums. The box set also included a live recording of Dylan’s performance with the Band at the Isle of Wight Festival in 1969Another Self Portrait received favorable reviews, earning a score of 81 on the critical aggregator, Metacritic, indicating “universal acclaim”.[317]AllMusic critic Thom Jurek wrote, “For fans, this is more than a curiosity, it’s an indispensable addition to the catalog.”[318]

On November 4, 2013, Columbia Records released Bob Dylan: Complete Album Collection: Vol. One, a boxed set containing all 35 of Dylan’s studio albums, six albums of live recordings, and a collection, entitled Sidetracks, of singles, songs from films and non-album material.[319] The box includes new album-by-album liner notes written by Clinton Heylin with an introduction by Bill Flanagan. On the same date, Columbia released a compilation, The Very Best of Bob Dylan, which is available in both single CD and double CD formats.[320] To publicize the 35 album box set, an innovative video of the song “Like a Rolling Stone” was released on Dylan’s website. The interactive video, created by director Vania Heymann, allowed viewers to switch between 16 simulated TV channels, all featuring characters who are lip-synching the lyrics of the 48-year-old song.[321][322]

On February 2, 2014, Dylan appeared in a commercial for the Chrysler 200 car which was screened during the 2014 Super Bowl American football game. At the end of the commercial, Dylan says: “So let Germany brew your beer, let Switzerland make your watch, let Asia assemble your phone. We will build your car.” Dylan’s Super Bowl commercial generated controversy and op-ed pieces discussing the protectionist implications of his words, and whether the singer had “sold out” to corporate interests.[323][324][325][326][327]

In 2013 and 2014, auction house sales demonstrated the high cultural value attached to Dylan’s mid-1960s work, and the record prices that collectors were willing to pay for artefacts from this period. In December 2013, the Fender Stratocaster which Dylan had played at the 1965 Newport Folk Festival fetched $965,000, the second highest price paid for a guitar.[328][329] In June 2014, Dylan’s hand-written lyrics of “Like a Rolling Stone“, his 1965 hit single, fetched $2 million dollars at auction, a record for a popular music manuscript.[330][331]

On October 28, 2014, Simon & Schuster published a massive 960 page, thirteen and a half pound edition of Dylan’s lyrics, The Lyrics: Since 1962. The book was edited by literary critic Christopher Ricks, Julie Nemrow and Lisa Nemrow, to offer variant versions of Dylan’s songs, sourced from out-takes and live performances. A limited edition of 50 books, signed by Dylan, was priced at $5,000. “It’s the biggest, most expensive book we’ve ever published, as far as I know,” said Jonathan Karp, Simon & Schuster’s president and publisher.[332][333]

On November 4, 2014, Columbia Records/Legacy Recordings released The Basement Tapes Complete by Bob Dylan and the Band. These 138 tracks in a six-CD box form Volume 11 of Dylan’s Bootleg Series. The 1975 album, The Basement Tapes, contained some of the songs which Dylan and the Band recorded in their homes in Woodstock, New York, in 1967. Subsequently, over 100 recordings and alternate takes have circulated on bootleg records. The sleeve notes for the new box set are by Sid Griffin, American musician and author of Million Dollar Bash: Bob Dylan, the Band, and the Basement Tapes.[334][335]

Shadows in the NightFallen Angels and Triplicate

On February 3, 2015, Dylan released Shadows in the Night, featuring ten songs written between 1923 and 1963,[336][337] which have been described as part of the Great American Songbook.[338] All the songs on the album were recorded by Frank Sinatra but both critics and Dylan himself cautioned against seeing the record as a collection of “Sinatra covers”.[336][339] Dylan explained, “I don’t see myself as covering these songs in any way. They’ve been covered enough. Buried, as a matter a fact. What me and my band are basically doing is uncovering them. Lifting them out of the grave and bringing them into the light of day.”[340] In an interview, Dylan said he had been thinking about making this record since hearing Willie Nelson‘s 1978 album Stardust.[341]

Shadows In the Night received favorable reviews, scoring 82 on the critical aggregator Metacritic, which indicates “universal acclaim”.[342] Critics praised the restrained instrumental backings and Dylan’s singing, saying that the material had elicited his best vocal performances in recent years.[338][343] Bill Prince in GQ commented: “A performer who’s had to hear his influence in virtually every white pop recording made since he debuted his own self-titled album back in 1962 imagines himself into the songs of his pre-rock’n’roll early youth.”[339] In The Independent, Andy Gill wrote that the recordings “have a lingering, languid charm, which… help to liberate the material from the rusting manacles of big-band and cabaret mannerisms.”[344] The album debuted at number one in the UK Albums Chart in its first week of release.[345]

On October 5, 2015, IBM launched a marketing campaign for its Watson computer system which featured Dylan. Dylan is seen conversing with the computer which says it has read all his lyrics and reports: “My analysis shows that your major themes are that time passes and love fades.” Dylan replies: “That sounds about right.”[346]

On November 6, 2015, Sony Music released The Bootleg Series Vol. 12: The Cutting Edge 1965–1966. This work consists of previously unreleased material from the three albums Dylan recorded between January 1965 and March 1966: Bringing It All Back HomeHighway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde. The records have been released in three formats: a 2-CD “Best Of” version, a 6-CD “Deluxe edition”, and an 18-CD “Collector’s Edition” in a limited edition of 5,000 units. On Dylan’s website the “Collector’s Edition” was described as containing “every single note recorded by Bob Dylan in the studio in 1965/1966”.[347][348] The critical aggregator website Metacritic awarded Cutting Edge a score of 99, indicating universal acclaim.[349]The Best of the Cutting Edge entered the Billboard Top Rock Albums chart at number one on November 18, based on its first-week sales.[350]

On March 2, 2016, it was announced that Dylan had sold an extensive archive of about 6,000 items to the George Kaiser Family Foundation and the University of Tulsa. It was reported that the sale price was “an estimated $15 million to $20 million”, and the archive comprises notebooks, drafts of Dylan lyrics, recordings, and correspondence.[351] Filmed material in the collection includes 30 hours of outtakes from the 1965 tour documentary Dont Look Back, 30 hours of footage shot on Dylan’s legendary 1966 electric tour, and 50 hours shot on the 1975 Rolling Thunder Revue. The archive will be housed at Helmerich Center for American Research, a facility at the Gilcrease Museum.[352]

On May 20, Dylan released Fallen Angels, which was described as “a direct continuation of the work of ‘uncovering’ the Great Songbook that he began on last year’s Shadows In the Night.”[353] The album contained twelve songs by classic songwriters such as Harold ArlenSammy Cahn and Johnny Mercer, eleven of which had been recorded by Sinatra.[353] Jim Farber wrote in Entertainment Weekly: “Tellingly, [Dylan] delivers these songs of love lost and cherished not with a burning passion but with the wistfulness of experience. They’re memory songs now, intoned with a present sense of commitment. Released just four days ahead of his 75th birthday, they couldn’t be more age-appropriate.”[354] The album received a score of 79 on critical aggregator website Metacritic, denoting “generally favorable reviews”.[355]

On October 13, the Nobel Prize committee announced it had awarded Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”.[3][356]

On November 11, 2016, Legacy Recordings released a 36-CD set, The 1966 Live Recordings, including every known recording of Bob Dylan’s 1966 concert tour. Legacy Recordings president Adam Block said: “While doing the archival research for The Cutting Edge 1965–1966, last year’s box set of Dylan’s mid-’60s studio sessions, we were continually struck by how great his 1966 live recordings really are.”[357] The recordings commence with the concert in White Plains New York on February 5, 1966, and end with the Royal Albert Hall concert in London on May 27.[358] The liner notes for the set are by Clinton Heylin, author of the book, Judas!: From Forest Hills to the Free Trade Hall: A Historical View of Dylan’s Big Boo, a study of the 1966 tour.[359]The New York Times reported most of the concerts had “never been heard in any form”, and described the set as “a monumental addition to the corpus”.[360]

On March 31, 2017, Dylan released his triple album, Triplicate, comprising 30 new recordings of classic American songs, including “As Time Goes By” by Herman Hupfeld and “Stormy Weather” by Harold Arlen and Ted Koehler. Dylan’s 38th studio album was recorded in Hollywood’s Capitol Studios and features his touring band.[361] Dylan posted a long interview on his website to promote the album, and was asked if this material was an exercise in nostalgia. “Nostalgic? No I wouldn’t say that. It’s not taking a trip down memory lane or longing and yearning for the good old days or fond memories of what’s no more. A song like “Sentimental Journey” is not a way back when song, it doesn’t emulate the past, it’s attainable and down to earth, it’s in the here and now.”[362] The album was awarded a score of 84 on critical aggregator website Metacritic, signifying “universal acclaim”. Critics praised the thoroughness of Dylan’s exploration of the great American songbook, though, in the opinion of Uncut: “For all its easy charms, Triplicate labours its point to the brink of overkill. After five albums’ worth of croon toons, this feels like a fat full stop on a fascinating chapter.”[363]

Conor McPherson’s play Girl from the North Country, where dramatic action is broken up by 20 Dylan songs, opened in London’s The Old Vic on July 26, 2017. The project began when Dylan’s office approached McPherson and suggested creating a play using Dylan songs. The drama received favorable reviews.[364][365]

On November 3, Sony Music released The Bootleg Series Vol. 13: Trouble No More 1979–1981, comprising 8 CDs and 1 DVD.[366]Trouble No More documents what Rolling Stone described as Dylan’s “Born Again Christian period of 1979 to 1981 – an intense, wildly controversial time that produced three albums and some of the most confrontational concerts of his long career.”[366] Reviewing the box set in The New York TimesJon Pareles wrote, “Decades later, what comes through these recordings above all is Mr. Dylan’s unmistakable fervor, his sense of mission. The studio albums are subdued, even tentative, compared with what the songs became on the road. Mr. Dylan’s voice is clear, cutting and ever improvisational; working the crowds, he was emphatic, committed, sometimes teasingly combative. And the band tears into the music.”[367]Trouble No More includes a DVD of a film directed by Jennifer Lebeau consisting of live footage of Dylan’s gospel performances interspersed with sermons delivered by actor Michael Shannon.[368]

Never Ending Tour

Bob Dylan performing at Finsbury Park, London, June 18, 2011

Bob Dylan performing at Finsbury Park, London, June 18, 2011

The Never Ending Tour commenced on June 7, 1988,[369] and Dylan has played roughly 100 dates a year for the entirety of the 1990s and 2000s—a heavier schedule than most performers who started out in the 1960s.[370]By May 2013, Dylan and his band had played more than 2,500 shows,[371][372] anchored by long-time bassist Tony Garnier, drummer George Recile, multi-instrumentalist Donnie Herron, and guitarist Charlie Sexton.[373] To the dismay of some of his audience,[374] Dylan’s performances remain unpredictable as he alters his arrangements and changes his vocal approach night after night.[375] Critical opinion about Dylan’s shows remains divided. Critics such as Richard Williams and Andy Gill have argued that Dylan has found a successful way to present his rich legacy of material.[376][377] Others have criticized his live performances for mangling and spitting out “the greatest lyrics ever written so that they are effectively unrecognisable”, and giving so little to the audience that “it is difficult to understand what he is doing on stage at all.”[378]

Dylan’s performances in China in April 2011 generated controversy. Some criticised him for not making any explicit comment on the political situation in China, and for, allegedly, allowing the Chinese authorities to censor his set list.[379][380] Others defended Dylan’s performances, arguing that such criticism represented a misunderstanding of Dylan’s art, and that no evidence for the censorship of Dylan’s set list existed.[381][382] In response to these allegations, Dylan posted a statement on his website: “As far as censorship goes, the Chinese government had asked for the names of the songs that I would be playing. There’s no logical answer to that, so we sent them the set lists from the previous 3 months. If there were any songs, verses or lines censored, nobody ever told me about it and we played all the songs that we intended to play.”[383]

At the beginning of 2017, Dylan announced his forthcoming tour of Europe, commencing in Stockholm on April 1, and ending in Dublin on May 11.[384] In June and July, Dylan’s tour will continue across Canada and the US.[384]

Visual artist

The cover of Dylan’s album Self Portrait (1970) is a reproduction of a painting of a face by Dylan.[385] Another of his paintings is reproduced on the cover of the 1974 album Planet Waves. In 1994 Random House published Drawn Blank, a book of Dylan’s drawings.[386] In 2007, the first public exhibition of Dylan’s paintings, The Drawn Blank Series, opened at the Kunstsammlungen in Chemnitz, Germany;[387] it showcased more than 200 watercolors and gouaches made from the original drawings. The exhibition coincided with the publication of Bob Dylan: The Drawn Blank Series, which includes 170 reproductions from the series.[387][388] From September 2010 until April 2011, the National Gallery of Denmark exhibited 40 large-scale acrylic paintings by Dylan, The Brazil Series.[389]

In July 2011, a leading contemporary art gallery, Gagosian Gallery, announced their representation of Dylan’s paintings.[390] An exhibition of Dylan’s art, The Asia Series, opened at the Gagosian Madison Avenue Gallery on September 20, displaying Dylan’s paintings of scenes in China and the Far East.[391]The New York Times reported that “some fans and Dylanologists have raised questions about whether some of these paintings are based on the singer’s own experiences and observations, or on photographs that are widely available and were not taken by Mr. Dylan.” The Times pointed to close resemblances between Dylan’s paintings and historic photos of Japan and China, and photos taken by Dmitri Kessel and Henri Cartier-Bresson.[392] The Magnum photo agency confirmed that Dylan had licensed the reproduction rights of these photographs.[393]

Dylan’s second show at the Gagosian Gallery, Revisionist Art, opened in November 2012. The show consisted of thirty paintings, transforming and satirizing popular magazines, including Playboy and Babytalk.[394][395] In February 2013, Dylan exhibited the New Orleans Series of paintings at the Palazzo Reale in Milan.[396] In August 2013, Britain’s National Portrait Gallery in London hosted Dylan’s first major UK exhibition, Face Value, featuring twelve pastel portraits.[397]

In November 2013, the Halcyon Gallery in London mounted Mood Swings, an exhibition in which Dylan displayed seven wrought iron gates he had made. In a statement released by the gallery, Dylan said, “I’ve been around iron all my life ever since I was a kid. I was born and raised in iron ore country, where you could breathe it and smell it every day. Gates appeal to me because of the negative space they allow. They can be closed but at the same time they allow the seasons and breezes to enter and flow. They can shut you out or shut you in. And in some ways there is no difference.”[398][399]

In November 2016, the Halcyon Gallery featured a collection of drawings, watercolors and acrylic works by Dylan. The exhibition, The Beaten Path, depicted American landscapes and urban scenes, inspired by Dylan’s travels across the USA.[400] The show was well reviewed by Vanity Fair, the Telegraph, and Asia Times Online, and is scheduled to tour in 2017.[401][402][403]

Since 1994, Dylan has published seven books of paintings and drawings.[404]

Discography

Bibliography

Dylan has published Tarantula, a work of prose poetryChronicles: Volume One, the first part of his memoirs, several books of the lyrics of his songs, and seven books of his art. He has been the subject of many biographies and critical studies.

Personal life

Romantic relationships

Suze Rotolo

Dylan’s first serious relationship was with artist Suze Rotolo, a daughter of American Communist Party radicals. According to Dylan, “She was the most erotic thing I’d ever seen… The air was suddenly filled with banana leaves. We started talking and my head started to spin.”[405] Rotolo was photographed arm-in-arm with Dylan on the cover of his album The Freewheelin’ Bob Dylan. Critics have connected Rotolo to some of Dylan’s early love songs, including “Don’t Think Twice It’s All Right“. The relationship ended in 1964.[406] In 2008, Rotolo published a memoir about her life in Greenwich Village and relationship with Dylan in the 1960s, A Freewheelin’ Time.[407]

Joan Baez

When Joan Baez first met Dylan in April 1961, she had already released her first album and was acclaimed as the “Queen of Folk”.[408] On hearing Dylan perform his song “With God on Our Side,” Baez later said, “I never thought anything so powerful could come out of that little toad”.[409] In July 1963, Baez invited Dylan to join her on stage at the Newport Folk Festival, setting the scene for similar duets over the next two years.[410] By the time of Dylan’s 1965 tour of the U.K, their romantic relationship had begun to fizzle out, as captured in D. A. Pennebaker’s documentary film Dont Look Back.[410] Baez later toured with Dylan as a performer on his Rolling Thunder Revue in 1975–76, and sang four songs with Dylan on the live album of the tour, Bob Dylan Live 1975, The Rolling Thunder Revue. Baez appeared with Dylan in the one-hour TV special Hard Rain, filmed at Fort CollinsColorado, in May 1976. Baez also starred as ‘The Woman In White’ in the film Renaldo and Clara (1978), directed by Dylan and filmed during the Rolling Thunder Revue. Dylan and Baez toured together again in 1984 with Carlos Santana.[410]

Baez recalled her relationship with Dylan in Martin Scorsese‘s documentary film No Direction Home (2005). Baez wrote about Dylan in two autobiographies—admiringly in Daybreak (1968), and less admiringly in And A Voice to Sing With (1987). Baez’s relationship with Dylan is the subject of her song “Diamonds & Rust“, which has been described as “an acute portrait” of Dylan.[410]

Sara Dylan

Dylan married Sara Lownds, who had worked as a model and a secretary to Drew Associates, on November 22, 1965.[411] Their first child, Jesse Byron Dylan, was born on January 6, 1966, and they had three more children: Anna Lea (born July 11, 1967), Samuel Isaac Abram (born July 30, 1968), and Jakob Luke (born December 9, 1969). Dylan also adopted Sara’s daughter from a prior marriage, Maria Lownds (later Dylan, born October 21, 1961). Sara Dylan played the role of Clara in Dylan’s film Renaldo and Clara (1978). Bob and Sara Dylan were divorced on June 29, 1977.[411]

Maria married musician Peter Himmelman in 1988.[412] In the 1990s, Jakob became well known as the lead singer of the band the Wallflowers; Jesse is a film director and a successful businessman.

Carolyn Dennis

Dylan married his backup singer Carolyn Dennis (often professionally known as Carol Dennis) on June 4, 1986. Desiree Gabrielle Dennis-Dylan, their daughter had been born on January 31, 1986.[413] The couple divorced in October 1992. Their marriage and child remained a closely guarded secret until the publication of Howard Sounes‘ biography, Down the Highway: The Life of Bob Dylan, in 2001.[414]

Home

When not touring, Dylan is believed to live primarily in Point Dume, a promontory on the coast of Malibu, California, though he also owns property around the world.[415][416]

Religious beliefs

Growing up in Hibbing, Minnesota, Dylan and his family were part of the area’s small but close-knit Jewish community, and in May 1954 Dylan had his Bar Mitzvah.[417] Around the time of his 30th birthday, in 1971, Dylan visited Israel, and also met Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the New York-based Jewish Defense League.[418]Time magazine quoted him saying about Kahane, “He’s a really sincere guy. He’s really put it all together.”[419] Subsequently, Dylan downplayed the extent of his contact with Kahane.[420]

Dylan performing onstage with an electric guitar.

Dylan performs in Ahoy Rotterdam, the Netherlands, June 4, 1984

During the late 1970s, Dylan converted to Christianity. In November 1978, guided by his friend Mary Alice Artes, Dylan made contact with the Vineyard School of Discipleship.[188] Vineyard Pastor Kenn Gulliksen has recalled: “Larry Myers and Paul Emond went over to Bob’s house and ministered to him. He responded by saying, ‘Yes he did in fact want Christ in his life.’ And he prayed that day and received the Lord.”[421][422] From January to March 1979, Dylan attended the Vineyard Bible study classes in Reseda, California.[188][423]

By 1984, Dylan was distancing himself from the “born again” label. He told Kurt Loder of Rolling Stone magazine: “I’ve never said I’m born again. That’s just a media term. I don’t think I’ve been an agnostic. I’ve always thought there’s a superior power, that this is not the real world and that there’s a world to come.” In response to Loder’s asking whether he belonged to any church or synagogue, Dylan laughingly replied, “Not really. Uh, the Church of the Poison Mind.”[424]In 1997, he told David Gates of Newsweek:

Here’s the thing with me and the religious thing. This is the flat-out truth: I find the religiosity and philosophy in the music. I don’t find it anywhere else. Songs like “Let Me Rest on a Peaceful Mountain” or “I Saw the Light“—that’s my religion. I don’t adhere to rabbis, preachers, evangelists, all of that. I’ve learned more from the songs than I’ve learned from any of this kind of entity. The songs are my lexicon. I believe the songs.[425]

In an interview published in The New York Times on September 28, 1997, journalist Jon Pareles reported that “Dylan says he now subscribes to no organized religion.”[426]

Dylan has supported the Chabad Lubavitch movement,[427] and has privately participated in Jewish religious events, including the Bar Mitzvahs of his sons and attending Hadar Hatorah, a Chabad Lubavitchyeshiva. In September 1989 and September 1991, he appeared on the Chabad telethon.[428] On Yom Kippur in 2007 he attended Congregation Beth Tefillah, in Atlanta, Georgia, where he was called to the Torah for the sixth aliyah.[429]

Dylan has continued to perform songs from his gospel albums in concert, occasionally covering traditional religious songs. He has also made passing references to his religious faith—such as in a 2004 interview with 60 Minutes, when he told Ed Bradley that “the only person you have to think twice about lying to is either yourself or to God.” He also explained his constant touring schedule as part of a bargain he made a long time ago with the “chief commander—in this earth and in the world we can’t see.”[27]

In a 2009 interview with Bill Flanagan promoting Dylan’s Christmas LP, Christmas in the Heart, Flanagan commented on the “heroic performance” Dylan gave of “O Little Town of Bethlehem” and that he “delivered the song like a true believer”. Dylan replied: “Well, I am a true believer.”[299]

Accolades

President Obama presents Dylan with a Medal of Freedom, May 2012

File:Sara Danius announces the Nobel Prize in Literature 2016 03.webm

Sara Danius announces the Nobel Prize in Literature 2016.

Dylan has won many awards throughout his career including the 2016 Nobel Prize in Literature, twelve Grammy Awards, one Academy Award and one Golden Globe Award. He has been inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of FameNashville Songwriters Hall of Fame, and Songwriters Hall of Fame. In May 2000, Dylan received the Polar Music Prize from Sweden’s King Carl XVI.[430]

In June 2007, Dylan received the Prince of Asturias Award in the Arts category.[431] Dylan received the Presidential Medal of Freedom in May 2012.[432][433] In February 2015, Dylan accepted the MusiCares Person of the Yearaward from the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, in recognition of his philanthropic and artistic contributions to society.[434] In November 2013, Dylan received the accolade of Légion d’Honneur from the French education minister Aurélie Filippetti.[435]

Nobel Prize in Literature

The Nobel Prize committee announced on October 13, 2016, that it would be awarding Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature “for having created new poetic expressions within the great American song tradition”.[3][436]The New York Times reported: “Mr. Dylan, 75, is the first musician to win the award, and his selection on Thursday is perhaps the most radical choice in a history stretching back to 1901.”[356]

On October 21, a member of the Swedish Academy, writer Per Wästberg, termed Dylan “rude and arrogant” for ignoring the Nobel Committee’s attempts to contact him.[437] Academy permanent secretary Sara Danius answered, “The Swedish Academy has never held a view on a prizewinner’s decision in this context, neither will it now.”[438]

After two weeks of speculation about Dylan’s silence concerning the Nobel Prize,[439] he said in an interview with Edna Gundersen that getting the award was: “amazing, incredible. Whoever dreams about something like that?”[440]

On November 17, the Swedish Academy announced that Dylan would not travel to Stockholm for the Nobel Prize Ceremony due to “pre-existing commitments”.[441] At the Nobel Banquet in Stockholm on December 10, 2016, Dylan’s banquet speech was given by Azita Raji, U.S. Ambassador to Sweden. The speech stated: “From an early age, I’ve been familiar with and reading and absorbing the works of those who were deemed worthy of such a distinction: KiplingShawThomas MannPearl BuckAlbert CamusHemingway. These giants of literature whose works are taught in the schoolroom, housed in libraries around the world and spoken of in reverent tones have always made a deep impression. That I now join the names on such a list is truly beyond words.”[442]Patti Smith accepted Dylan’s Nobel with a “transcendent performance” of his song “A Hard Rain’s A-Gonna Fall” to orchestral accompaniment.[443]

On April 2, 2017, the Academy secretary Danius said: “Earlier today the Swedish Academy met with Bob Dylan for a private ceremony [with no media present] in Stockholm, during which Dylan received his gold medal and diploma. Twelve members of the Academy were present. Spirits were high. Champagne was had. Quite a bit of time was spent looking closely at the gold medal, in particular the beautifully crafted back, an image of a young man sitting under a laurel tree who listens to the Muse. Taken from Virgil’s Aeneid, the inscription reads: Inventas vitam iuvat excoluisse per artes, loosely translated as ”And they who bettered life on earth by their newly found mastery.”[444]

On June 5, 2017, Dylan’s Nobel Lecture was posted on the Nobel prize website. The New York Times pointed out that, in order to collect the prize’s 8 million Swedish krona ($900,000), the Swedish Academy’s rules stipulate the laureate “must deliver a lecture within six months of the official ceremony, which would have made Mr. Dylan’s deadline June 10.”[445] Academy secretary Danius commented: “The speech is extraordinary and, as one might expect, eloquent. Now that the lecture has been delivered, the Dylan adventure is coming to a close.”[446] In his essay, Dylan writes about the impact that three important books made on him: Herman Melville’s Moby Dick, Erich Maria Remarque’s All Quiet on the Western Front and Homer’s The Odyssey. He concludes: “Our songs are alive in the land of the living. But songs are unlike literature. They’re meant to be sung, not read. The words in Shakespeare’s plays were meant to be acted on the stage. Just as lyrics in songs are meant to be sung, not read on a page. And I hope some of you get the chance to listen to these lyrics the way they were intended to be heard: in concert or on record or however people are listening to songs these days. I return once again to Homer, who says, ‘Sing in me, oh Muse, and through me tell the story’.”[16]Alan Pasqua provided the uncredited piano accompaniment for the recorded speech.[447]

Legacy

Recognition and influence

Dylan has been described as one of the most influential figures of the 20th century, musically and culturally. He was included in the Time 100: The Most Important People of the Century where he was called “master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation”.[448] In 2008, The Pulitzer Prize jury awarded him a special citation for “his profound impact on popular music and American culture, marked by lyrical compositions of extraordinary poetic power.”[449] President Barack Obama said of Dylan in 2012, “There is not a bigger giant in the history of American music.”[311] For 20 years, academics lobbied the Swedish Academy to give Dylan the Nobel Prize in Literature,[450][451][452][453] which awarded it to him in 2016,[356] making Dylan the first musician to be awarded the Literature Prize.[356]Horace Engdahl, a member of the Nobel Committee, described Dylan’s place in literary history:

…a singer worthy of a place beside the Greek bards, beside Ovid, beside the Romantic visionaries, beside the kings and queens of the blues, beside the forgotten masters of brilliant standards.[454]

Rolling Stone has ranked Dylan at number one in its 2015 list of the 100 Greatest Songwriters of All Time,[455] and listed “Like A Rolling Stone” as the “Greatest Song of all Time” in their 2011 list.[456] In 2008, it was estimated that Dylan had sold about 120 million albums worldwide.[457]

I loved him because he wrote some beautiful stuff. I used to love his so-called protest things. But I like the sound of him. I didn’t have to listen to his words. He used to come with his acetate and say, “Listen to this, John. Did you hear the words?” And I said, “That doesn’t matter, just the sound is what counts. The overall thing.” You didn’t have to hear what Bob Dylan’s saying, you just have to hear the way he says it, like the medium is the message…I respected him, I respected him a lot.

John Lennon, 1970[458]

Initially modeling his writing style on the songs of Woody Guthrie,[459] the blues of Robert Johnson,[460] and what he termed the “architectural forms” of Hank Williams songs,[461] Dylan added increasingly sophisticated lyrical techniques to the folk music of the early 1960s, infusing it “with the intellectualism of classic literature and poetry”.[462]Paul Simon suggested that Dylan’s early compositions virtually took over the folk genre: “[Dylan’s] early songs were very rich … with strong melodies. ‘Blowin’ in the Wind’ has a really strong melody. He so enlarged himself through the folk background that he incorporated it for a while. He defined the genre for a while.”[463]

When Dylan made his move from acoustic folk and blues music to a rock backing, the mix became more complex. For many critics, his greatest achievement was the cultural synthesis exemplified by his mid-1960s trilogy of albums—Bringing It All Back HomeHighway 61 Revisited and Blonde on Blonde. In Mike Marqusee‘s words:

Between late 1964 and the middle of 1966, Dylan created a body of work that remains unique. Drawing on folk, blues, country, R&B, rock’n’roll, gospel, British beat, symbolistmodernist and Beat poetrysurrealism and Dada, advertising jargon and social commentary, Fellini and Mad magazine, he forged a coherent and original artistic voice and vision. The beauty of these albums retains the power to shock and console.”[464]

Dylan’s lyrics began to receive detailed scrutiny from academics and poets as early as 1998, when Stanford University sponsored the first international academic conference on Bob Dylan to be held in the United States.[465] In 2004, Richard F. Thomas, Classics professor at Harvard University, created a freshman seminar titled “Dylan” “to put the artist in context of not just popular culture of the last half-century, but the tradition of classical poets like Virgil and Homer.”[466] William Arctander O’Brien, literary scholar and professor of Germanand Comparative Literature at the University of California, San Diego, memorialized the significance of Dylan’s contribution to world literature when he created a full academic course in 2009 devoted to Dylan, which analyzed and celebrated the “historical, political, economic, aesthetic, and cultural significance of Dylan’s work.”[467]

Literary critic Christopher Ricks published Dylan’s Visions of Sin, a 500-page analysis of Dylan’s work,[468] and has said: “I’d not have written a book about Dylan, to stand alongside my books on Milton and KeatsTennyson and T.S. Eliot, if I didn’t think Dylan a genius of and with language.[469] Former British poet laureateAndrew Motion suggested his lyrics should be studied in schools.[470] The critical consensus that Dylan’s song writing was his outstanding creative achievement was articulated by Encyclopædia Britannica where his entry stated: “Hailed as the Shakespeare of his generation, Dylan… set the standard for lyric writing.”[471]

Dylan’s voice also received critical attention. New York Times critic Robert Shelton described his early vocal style as “a rusty voice suggesting Guthrie’s old performances, etched in gravel like Dave Van Ronk‘s.”[472]David Bowie, in his tribute, “Song for Bob Dylan“, described Dylan’s singing as “a voice like sand and glue”. His voice continued to develop as he began to work with rock’n’roll backing bands; critic Michael Gray described the sound of Dylan’s vocal work on “Like a Rolling Stone” as “at once young and jeeringly cynical”.[473] As Dylan’s voice aged during the 1980s, for some critics, it became more expressive. Christophe Lebold writes in the journal Oral Tradition, “Dylan’s more recent broken voice enables him to present a world view at the sonic surface of the songs—this voice carries us across the landscape of a broken, fallen world. The anatomy of a broken world in “Everything is Broken” (on the album Oh Mercy) is but an example of how the thematic concern with all things broken is grounded in a concrete sonic reality.”[474]

Dylan is considered a seminal influence on many musical genres. As Edna Gundersen stated in USA Today: “Dylan’s musical DNA has informed nearly every simple twist of pop since 1962.”[475] Punk musician Joe Strummer praised Dylan for having “laid down the template for lyric, tune, seriousness, spirituality, depth of rock music.”[476] Other major musicians who acknowledged Dylan’s importance include Johnny Cash,[477]Jerry Garcia,[478]John Lennon,[479]Paul McCartney,[480]Pete Townshend,[481]Neil Young,[482]Bruce Springsteen,[101]David Bowie,[483]Bryan Ferry,[484]Nick Cave,[485][486]Patti Smith,[487]Syd Barrett,[488]Joni Mitchell,[489]Tom Waits[490] and Leonard Cohen.[491] Dylan significantly contributed to the initial success of both the Byrds and the Band: the Byrds achieved chart success with their version of “Mr. Tambourine Man” and the subsequent album, while the Band were Dylan’s backing band on his 1966 tour, recorded The Basement Tapes with him in 1967,[492] and featured three previously unreleased Dylan songs on their debut album.[493]

Some critics have dissented from the view of Dylan as a visionary figure in popular music. In his book Awopbopaloobop AlopbamboomNik Cohn objected: “I can’t take the vision of Dylan as seer, as teenage messiah, as everything else he’s been worshipped as. The way I see him, he’s a minor talent with a major gift for self-hype.”[494] Australian critic Jack Marx credited Dylan with changing the persona of the rock star: “What cannot be disputed is that Dylan invented the arrogant, faux-cerebral posturing that has been the dominant style in rock since, with everyone from Mick Jagger to Eminem educating themselves from the Dylan handbook.”[495]

Fellow musicians have also presented dissenting views. Joni Mitchell described Dylan as a “plagiarist” and his voice as “fake” in a 2010 interview in the Los Angeles Times, despite the fact that Mitchell had toured with Dylan in the past, and both artists have covered each others songs.[496][497] Mitchell’s comment led to discussions of Dylan’s use of other people’s material, both supporting and criticizing him.[498] Talking to Mikal Gilmore in Rolling Stone in 2012, Dylan responded to the allegation of plagiarism, including his use of Henry Timrod‘s verse in his album Modern Times,[267] by saying that it was “part of the tradition”.[499][a 5]

If Dylan’s work in the 1960s was seen as bringing intellectual ambition to popular music,[464] critics in the 21st century described him as a figure who had greatly expanded the folk culture from which he initially emerged. Following the release of Todd Haynes’ Dylan biopic I’m Not ThereJ. Hoberman wrote in his 2007 Village Voice review:

Elvis might never have been born, but someone else would surely have brought the world rock ‘n’ roll. No such logic accounts for Bob Dylan. No iron law of history demanded that a would-be Elvis from Hibbing, Minnesota, would swerve through the Greenwich Village folk revival to become the world’s first and greatest rock ‘n’ roll beatnik bard and then—having achieved fame and adoration beyond reckoning—vanish into a folk tradition of his own making.[500]

When Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, The New York Times commented: “In choosing a popular musician for the literary world’s highest honor, the Swedish Academy, which awards the prize, dramatically redefined the boundaries of literature, setting off a debate about whether song lyrics have the same artistic value as poetry or novels.”[356] Responses varied from the sarcasm of Irvine Welsh, who described it as “an ill conceived nostalgia award wrenched from the rancid prostates of senile, gibbering hippies”,[501] to the enthusiasm of Salman Rushdie who tweeted: “From Orpheus to Faiz, song & poetry have been closely linked. Dylan is the brilliant inheritor of the bardic tradition. Great choice.”[502]

Archives and tributes

Dylan’s archive, comprising notebooks, song drafts, business contracts, recordings and movie out-takes, are held at the Gilcrease Museum‘s Helmerich Center for American Research in Tulsa, Oklahoma, which is also the home of the archives for Woody Guthrie.[351][503]While selections from the archive may be consulted at the Helmerich Center, the George Kaiser Family Foundation has announced a design competition for a major Bob Dylan Center in Tulsa’s Arts District.[504][505]

In 2005, 7th Avenue East in Hibbing, Minnesota, the street on which Dylan lived from ages 6 to 18, received the honorary name Bob Dylan Drive.[506][507][508] In the town Hibbing, a walk of fame-styled “star” is embedded in a sidewalk with the words Bob Dylan as well as a cursive-Z for Dylan’s nickname Zimmy in youth.[509] In 2006 a cultural pathway, Bob Dylan Way, was inaugurated in Duluth, Minnesota, the city where Dylan was born. The 1.8 mile path links “cultural and historically significant areas of downtown for the tourists”.[510][511]

In 2015, a massive Bob Dylan mural was unveiled in downtown Minneapolis, the city where Dylan attended university for a year. The mural was designed by Brazilian street artist Eduardo Kobra.[512]

See also

Notes

  1. Jump up^ According to Dylan biographer Robert Shelton, the singer first confided his change of name to his high school girlfriend, Echo Helstrom, in 1958, telling her that he had found a “great name, Bob Dillon”. Shelton surmises that Dillon had two sources: Marshal Matt Dillon was the hero of the TV western Gunsmoke; Dillon was also the name of one of Hibbing’s principal families. While Shelton was writing Dylan’s biography in the 1960s, Dylan told him, “Straighten out in your book that I did not take my name from Dylan Thomas. Dylan Thomas’s poetry is for people that aren’t really satisfied in their bed, for people who dig masculine romance.” At the University of Minnesota, the singer told a few friends that Dillon was his mother’s maiden name, which was untrue. He later told reporters that he had an uncle named Dillon. Shelton added that only when he reached New York in 1961 did the singer begin to spell his name “Dylan”, by which time he was acquainted with the life and work of Dylan Thomas. Shelton (2011), pp. 44–45.
  2. Jump up^ In a May 1963 interview with Studs Terkel, Dylan broadened the meaning of the song, saying “the pellets of poison flooding the waters” refers to “the lies people are told on their radios and in their newspapers”. Cott (2006), p. 8.
  3. Jump up^ The title “Spokesman of a Generation” was viewed by Dylan with disgust in later years. He came to feel it was a label the media had pinned on him, and in his autobiography, Chronicles, Dylan wrote: “The press never let up. Once in a while I would have to rise up and offer myself for an interview so they wouldn’t beat the door down. Later an article would hit the streets with the headline “Spokesman Denies That He’s A Spokesman”. I felt like a piece of meat that someone had thrown to the dogs.” Dylan (2004), p.119
  4. Jump up^ According to Shelton, Dylan named the tour Rolling Thunder and then “appeared pleased when someone told him to native Americans, rolling thunder means speaking the truth.” A Cherokeemedicine man named Rolling Thunder appeared on stage at Providence, RI, “stroking a feather in time to the music”. Shelton (2011), p. 310.
  5. Jump up^ Dylan told Gilmore: “As far as Henry Timrod is concerned, have you even heard of him? Who’s been reading him lately? And who’s pushed him to the forefront?… And if you think it’s so easy to quote him and it can help your work, do it yourself and see how far you can get. Wussies and pussies complain about that stuff. It’s an old thing—it’s part of the tradition.”

References

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

 

 

 

 

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-996

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017, Story 1: The Enablers of Sexual Predators Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton Both Blame The Victims While Defending Them — Hillary Hypocrisy — Videos — Story 2: Meet Nicholas Dudich Liar for Big Lie Media New York Times — Project Veritas Strikes Again — Videos

Posted on October 10, 2017. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Human Behavior, Language, Law, Life, Lying, Media, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Pro Abortion, Pro Life, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Networking, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 980, October 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 979, October 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 978, October 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 977, October 4, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 976, October 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 975, September 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 974, September 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 973, September 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 972, September 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 971, September 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 970, September 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 969, September 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 968, September 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 967, September 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 966, September 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 965, September 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 964, September 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 963, September 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 962, September 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 961, September 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 960, September 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 959, September 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 958, September 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 957, September 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 956, August 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 955, August 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 954, August 29, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 953, August 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 952, August 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 951, August 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 950, August 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 949, August 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 948, August 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 947, August 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 946, August 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 945, August 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 944, August 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 943, August 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 942, August 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 941, August 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 940, August 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 939, August 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 938, August 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 937, July 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 936, July 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 935, July 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 934, July 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 933, July 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 932, July 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 931, July 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 930, July 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 929, July 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 928, July 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 927, July 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 926, July 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 925, July 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 924, July 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 923, July 5, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 922, July 3, 2017

Image result for cartoons on harvey weinstein and bill clintonImage result for harvey weinstein girlsImage result for Bill Clinton and harvey weinsteinImage result for cartoons about harvey weinstein

Statement from Secretary Clinton on Harvey Weinstein:

 

Story 1: Pleading Progressive Predator Harasser Harvey (Girl & Gun Grabber & Baby Killer Supporter) Caught on Tape  — The Enablers of Sexual Predators Harvey Weinstein and Bill Clinton Both Blame The Victims While Defending Them — Hillary Hypocrisy — Videos —

Harvey Weinstein Caught On Tape Pressuring Model In Hotel Room

Tucker Carlson 10/10/17 | Tucker Carlson Fox News October 10, 2017

Tucker Carlson Thinks Hollywood Is Protecting Harvey Weinstein

Live From E! – The Latest on the Harvey Weinstein Scandal and More | E! News

DISGUSTING! New Massive Allegations Expose Years of Abuse! Explaining The Harvey Weinstein Scandal

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

Rush Limbaugh: Sexual harassment accusations against Harvey Weinstein; Everybody knew about harvey

Michael Savage reacts to Harvey Weinstein bombshell allegations

How to deal with sexual harassment

The Best of Workplace Harassment

NOW on PBS | Teen Sexual Harassment at Work | PBS

Sexual Harassment in Public, Guys vs Girls (Social Experiment)

Hollywood Hypocrisy: Harvey Weinstein Edition

NRA leader calls Hollywood ‘hypocrites’ on gun control

Harvey Weinstein | Real Biz with Rebecca Jarvis | ABC News

Harvey Weinstein Interviewed by Scott Feinberg

Harvey Weinstein: ‘I’m still the underdog’

Harvey Weinstein is a fat man with ice cream on GTV!

The Fall of Harvey Weinstein

Sexual Predator Harvey Weinstein Is The Tip of The Iceberg of Hollywood Degenerates

Inside The Weinstein Sex Scandal That Threatens To Bring Down Hollywood

CLINTON’S 5-DAY SILENCE ON WEINSTEIN SPEAKS VOLUMES

Hillary ‘Appalled’ By Hollywood Rapist Harvey Weinstein, Forgets 1 Very Important Detail

Hillary Clinton calls Bill Clinton’s sexual assault victims “Bimbo Eruptions”

CLINTON TERROR: Hillary and Her War on Women. Victims describe the terror of being silenced.

The Ben Shapiro Show Ep. 195 – Everybody’s a Hypocrite About Sexual Assault

Women who accuse Bill Clinton of assault share their stories

Bill Clinton’s accusers: We’re ignored by mainstream media

Hillary Clinton laughed about defending a rapist of a 12 year old – lawyers shocked

Clinton stands by defense of child rapist in the 1970s

Bill Clinton rape accuser: Hillary tried to “silence” me

Child Rape Victim Speaks Out Against Hillary Clinton

Kathy Shelton speaks out about rape case involving Clinton

Hillary Clinton Breaks Silence On Harvey Weinstein Allegations | News Flash | Entertainment Weekly

Will Hollywood Speak Up On Harvey Weinstein Controversy? | Morning Joe | MSNBC

HILLARY AND OBAMA KEEPING MILLIONS IN DONATIONS FROM HOLLYWOOD MOGUL ACCUSED OF SEX HARASSMENT

Hillary Clinton “admires” Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Celebrities Praise Racist Margaret Sanger of Planned Parenthood | Louder With Crowder

The Abortion Debate | Steven Crowder and Stefan Molyneux

Ben Shapiro on Abortion

Ben Shapiro Destroys The Abortion Argument

Ben Shapiro Destroys College Pro-Choicer on Abortion

Planned Parenthood: What They Aren’t Telling You!

The Sickening Double Standard of Alt-Left in Protecting Sexual Predator DNC Donor #HarveyWeinstein

Ex-Times reporter: Paper killed Weinstein sex story in 2004

Harvey Weinstein Is A Bad Person

What to know about Harvey Weinstein’s wife

Harvey Weinstein: A Look At The Hollywood Movie Head Honcho’s History | Access Hollywood

Harvey Weinstein Gets Slammed By Jennifer Lawrence And Other Stars | TODAY

Hollywood’s reaction to Harvey Weinstein allegations sparks online debate

Harvey Weinstein Fired

Meryl Streep Weighs In On Harvey Weinstein’s Sexual Harassment Allegations | Morning Joe | MSNBC

James O’Keefe: Donna Brazille told me herself that agitator was fired

How ONE undercover video shook the entire US election – With James O’Keefe

Harvey Weinstein Donated $100K to Planned Parenthood in May

Scandal-ridden Hollywood mega-producer Harvey Weinsteinattended Planned Parenthood’s gala fundraising event in May and donated $100,000 to the abortion chain that claims to be at the forefront of women’s rights.

Weinstein was fired by The Weinstein Company Sunday after the New York Timesexposed allegations of sexual harassment by several actresses. Subsequently, he was also accused of rape by several women featured in a New Yorker article.

The producer and his wife – fashion designer Georgina Chapman – were present at the event on May 2 that celebrated the 100th anniversary of Planned Parenthood, reportsMRCNewsBusters. At an art auction to benefit the abortion vendor, Weinstein purchased a Cecily Brown painting, for $100,000.

Artnet says about Brown’s artistic style:

Characterized by overt sexual imagery and an Abstract Expressionist gestural style, Brown’s work has emerged some of the most influential of her generation. Her large-scale canvases often feature figures engaging in sexual acts under a veil of color, as seen in Sweetie (2001), a semi-abstracted couple captured mid-coitus and rendered in bright pinks and purples.

The gala fundraiser, held in New York City, featured the presentation of the organization’s “Champion of the Century” award to failed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein was joined by female celebrity attendees Meryl Streep, Julianne Moore, Scarlett Johansson, and Chelsea Handler in giving Clinton a standing ovation.

In her acceptance speech, Clinton criticized the Trump administration for wanting to defund Planned Parenthood because it continues to perform abortions. The former secretary of state has said unborn babies have no constitutional rights.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/10/10/harvey-weinstein-donated-100k-planned-parenthood/

From Aggressive Overtures to Sexual Assault: Harvey Weinstein’s Accusers Tell Their Stories

Multiple women share harrowing accounts of sexual assault and harassment by the film executive.

ince the establishment of the first studios a century ago, there have been few movie executives as dominant, or as domineering, as Harvey Weinstein. As the co-founder of the production-and-distribution companies Miramax and the Weinstein Company, he helped to reinvent the model for independent films, with movies such as “Sex, Lies, and Videotape,” “The English Patient,” “Pulp Fiction,” “The Crying Game,” “Shakespeare in Love,” and “The King’s Speech.” Beyond Hollywood, he has exercised his influence as a prolific fund-raiser for Democratic Party candidates, including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Weinstein combined a keen eye for promising scripts, directors, and actors with a bullying, even threatening, style of doing business, inspiring both fear and gratitude. His movies have earned more than three hundred Oscar nominations, and, at the annual awards ceremonies, he has been thanked more than almost anyone else in movie history, just after Steven Spielberg and right before God.

For more than twenty years, Weinstein has also been trailed by rumors of sexual harassment and assault. This has been an open secret to many in Hollywood and beyond, but previous attempts by many publications, including The New Yorker, to investigate and publish the story over the years fell short of the demands of journalistic evidence. Too few people were willing to speak, much less allow a reporter to use their names, and Weinstein and his associates used nondisclosure agreements, monetary payoffs, and legal threats to suppress these myriad stories. Asia Argento, an Italian film actress and director, told me that she did not speak out until now—Weinstein, she told me, forcibly performed oral sex on her—because she feared that Weinstein would “crush” her. “I know he has crushed a lot of people before,” Argento said. “That’s why this story—in my case, it’s twenty years old; some of them are older—has never come out.”

Last week, the New York Times, in a powerful report by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey, revealed multiple allegations of sexual harassment against Weinstein, a story that led to the resignation of four members of his company’s all-male board, and to Weinstein’s firing from the company.

The story, however, is more complex, and there is more to know and to understand. In the course of a ten-month investigation, I was told by thirteen women that, between the nineteen-nineties and 2015, Weinstein sexually harassed or assaulted them, allegations that corroborate and overlap with the Times’ revelations, and also include far more serious claims.

Three women—among them Argento and a former aspiring actress named Lucia Evans—told me that Weinstein raped them, allegations that include Weinstein forcibly performing or receiving oral sex and forcing vaginal sex. Four women said that they experienced unwanted touching that could be classified as an assault. In an audio recording captured during a New York Police Department sting operation in 2015 and made public here for the first time, Weinstein admits to groping a Filipina-Italian model named Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, describing it as behavior he is “used to.” Four of the women I interviewed cited encounters in which Weinstein exposed himself or masturbated in front of them.

Weinstein admits to groping a woman, in a recording secretly captured during an N.Y.P.D. sting operation.

Sixteen former and current executives and assistants at Weinstein’s companies told me that they witnessed or had knowledge of unwanted sexual advances and touching at events associated with Weinstein’s films and in the workplace. They and others describe a pattern of professional meetings that were little more than thin pretexts for sexual advances on young actresses and models. All sixteen said that the behavior was widely known within both Miramax and the Weinstein Company. Messages sent by Irwin Reiter, a senior company executive, to Emily Nestor, one of the women who alleged that she was harassed at the company, described the “mistreatment of women” as a serial problem that the Weinstein Company was struggling with in recent years. Other employees described what was, in essence, a culture of complicity at Weinstein’s places of business, with numerous people throughout the companies fully aware of his behavior but either abetting it or looking the other way. Some employees said that they were enlisted in subterfuge to make the victims feel safe. A female executive with the company described how Weinstein assistants and others served as a “honeypot”—they would initially join a meeting, but then Weinstein would dismiss them, leaving him alone with the woman.

Virtually all of the people I spoke with told me that they were frightened of retaliation. “If Harvey were to discover my identity, I’m worried that he could ruin my life,” one former employee told me. Many said that they had seen Weinstein’s associates confront and intimidate those who crossed him, and feared that they would be similarly targeted. Four actresses, including Mira Sorvino and Rosanna Arquette, told me they suspected that, after they rejected Weinstein’s advances or complained about them to company representatives, Weinstein had them removed from projects or dissuaded people from hiring them. Multiple sources said that Weinstein frequently bragged about planting items in media outlets about those who spoke against him; these sources feared that they might be similarly targeted. Several pointed to Gutierrez’s case, in 2015: after she went to the police, negative items discussing her sexual history and impugning her credibility began rapidly appearing in New York gossip pages. (In the taped conversation with Gutierrez, Weinstein asks her to join him for “five minutes,” and warns, “Don’t ruin your friendship with me for five minutes.”)

Several former employees told me that they were speaking about Weinstein’s alleged behavior now because they hoped to protect women in the future. “This wasn’t a one-off. This wasn’t a period of time,” an executive who worked for Weinstein for many years told me. “This was ongoing predatory behavior towards women—whether they consented or not.”

It’s likely that women have recently felt increasingly emboldened to talk about their experiences because of the way the world has changed regarding issues of sex and power. These disclosures follow in the wake of stories alleging sexual misconduct by public figures, including Bill O’Reilly, Roger Ailes, Bill Cosby, and Donald Trump. In October, 2016, a month before the election, a tape emerged of Trump telling a celebrity-news reporter, “And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. . . . Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.” This past April, O’Reilly, a host at Fox News, was forced to resign after Fox was discovered to have paid five women millions of dollars in exchange for silence about their accusations of sexual harassment. Ailes, the former head of Fox News, resigned last July, after he was accused of sexual harassment. Cosby went on trial this summer, charged with drugging and sexually assaulting a woman. The trial ended with a hung jury.

On October 5th, in an initial effort at damage control, Weinstein responded to the Times piece by issuing a statement partly acknowledging what he had done, saying, “I appreciate the way I’ve behaved with colleagues in the past has caused a lot of pain, and I sincerely apologize for it.” In an interview with the New York Post, he said, “I’ve got to deal with my personality, I’ve got to work on my temper, I have got to dig deep. I know a lot of people would like me to go into a facility, and I may well just do that—I will go anywhere I can learn more about myself.” Weinstein went on, “In the past I used to compliment people, and some took it as me being sexual, I won’t do that again.” In his statement to the Times, Weinstein claimed that he would “channel that anger” into a fight against the leadership of the National Rifle Association. He also said that it was not “coincidental” that he was organizing a foundation for women directors at the University of Southern California. “It will be named after my mom and I won’t disappoint her.”

Sallie Hofmeister, a spokesperson for Weinstein, issued a statement in response to the allegations in this article. It reads in full: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual. Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.”

While Weinstein and his representatives have said that the incidents were consensual, and were not widespread or severe, the women I spoke to tell a very different story.

2.

Lucia Stoller, now Lucia Evans, was approached by Weinstein at Cipriani Upstairs, a club in New York, in 2004, the summer before her senior year at Middlebury College. Evans wanted to be an actress, and although she had heard rumors about Weinstein she let him have her number. Weinstein began calling her late at night, or having an assistant call her, asking to meet. She declined, but said that she would do readings during the day for a casting executive. Before long, an assistant called to set up a daytime meeting at the Miramax office, in Tribeca, first with Weinstein and then with a casting executive, who was a woman. “I was, like, ‘Oh, a woman, great, I feel safe,’ ” Evans said.

When Evans arrived for the meeting, the building was full of people. She was led to an office with exercise equipment and takeout boxes on the floor, where she met with Weinstein alone. Evans said that she found him frightening. “The type of control he exerted, it was very real,” she told me. “Even just his presence was intimidating.”

In the meeting, Evans recalled, “he immediately was simultaneously flattering me and demeaning me and making me feel bad about myself.” Weinstein told her that she’d “be great in ‘Project Runway’ ”—the show, which Weinstein helped produce, premièred later that year—but only if she lost weight. He also told her about two scripts, a horror movie and a teen love story, and said one of his associates would discuss them with her.

“At that point, after that, is when he assaulted me,” Evans said. “He forced me to perform oral sex on him.” As she objected, Weinstein took his penis out of his pants and pulled her head down onto it. “I said, over and over, ‘I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,’ ” she said. “I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.” In the end, she said, “He’s a big guy. He overpowered me.” At a certain point, she said, “I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault.”

Weinstein appeared to find the encounter unremarkable. “It was like it was just another day for him,” Evans said. “It was no emotion.” Afterward, she said, he acted as if nothing had happened. She wondered how Weinstein’s staff could not know what was going on.

After the encounter, she met with the female casting executive, who sent her the scripts, and also came to one of her acting-class readings a few weeks later. (Evans does not believe that the executive was aware of Weinstein’s behavior.) Weinstein, Evans said, began calling her again late at night. Evans told me that the entire sequence of events had a routine quality. “It feels like a very streamlined process,” she said. “Female casting director, Harvey wants to meet. Everything was designed to make me feel comfortable before it happened. And then the shame in what happened was also designed to keep me quiet.”

Evans said that, after the incident, “I just put it in a part of my brain and closed the door.” She continued to blame herself for not fighting harder. “It was always my fault for not stopping him,” she said. “I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing.” Evans told friends some of what had happened, but felt largely unable to talk about it. “I ruined several really good relationships because of this. My schoolwork definitely suffered, and my roommates told me to go to a therapist because they thought I was going to kill myself.”

In the years that followed, Evans encountered Weinstein occasionally. Once, while she was walking her dog in Greenwich Village, she saw him getting into a car. “I very clearly saw him. I made eye contact,” she said. “I remember getting chills down my spine just looking at him. I was so horrified. I have nightmares about him to this day.”

3.

Asia Argento, an actress born in Rome, played the role of a glamorous thief named Beatrice in the crime drama “B. Monkey,” which was released in the U.S. in 1999. The distributor was Miramax. In a series of long and often emotional interviews, Argento told me that Weinstein assaulted her while they worked together.

At the time, Argento was twenty-one and a rising actress who had twice won the Italian equivalent of the Oscar. Argento said that, in 1997, one of Weinstein’s producers invited her to what she understood to be a party thrown by Miramax at the Hôtel du Cap-Eden-Roc, on the French Riviera. Argento felt professionally obliged to attend. When the producer led her upstairs that evening, she said, there was no party—only a hotel room, empty but for Weinstein: “I’m, like, ‘Where is the fucking party?’ ” She recalled the producer telling her, “Oh, we got here too early,” before he left her alone with Weinstein. (The producer denies bringing Argento to the room that night.) At first, Weinstein was solicitous, praising her work. Then he left the room. When he returned, he was wearing a bathrobe and holding a bottle of lotion. “He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, ‘Look, man, I am no fucking fool,’ ” Argento said. “But, looking back, I am a fucking fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.”

Argento said that, after she reluctantly agreed to give Weinstein a massage, he pulled her skirt up, forced her legs apart, and performed oral sex on her as she repeatedly told him to stop. Weinstein “terrified me, and he was so big,” she said. “It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare.”

At some point, Argento said, she stopped saying no and feigned enjoyment, because she thought it was the only way the assault would end. “I was not willing,” she told me. “I said, ‘No, no, no.’ . . . It’s twisted. A big fat man wanting to eat you. It’s a scary fairy tale.” Argento, who insisted that she wanted to tell her story in all its complexity, said that she didn’t physically fight him off, something that has prompted years of guilt.

“The thing with being a victim is I felt responsible,” she said. “Because, if I were a strong woman, I would have kicked him in the balls and run away. But I didn’t. And so I felt responsible.” She described the incident as a “horrible trauma.” Decades later, she said, oral sex is still ruined for her. “I’ve been damaged,” she told me. “Just talking to you about it, my whole body is shaking.”

Argento recalled sitting on the bed after the incident, her clothes “in shambles,” her makeup smeared. She said that she told Weinstein, “I am not a whore,” and that he began laughing. He said he’d put the phrase on a T-shirt. Afterward, Argento said, “He kept contacting me.” For a few months, Weinstein seemed obsessed, offering her expensive gifts.

What complicates the story, Argento readily allowed, is that she eventually yielded to Weinstein’s further advances and even grew close to him. Weinstein dined with her, and introduced her to his mother. Argento told me, “He made it sound like he was my friend and he really appreciated me.” She said that she had consensual sexual relations with him multiple times over the course of the next five years, though she described the encounters as one-sided and “onanistic.” The first occasion, several months after the alleged assault, came before the release of “B. Monkey.” “I felt I had to,” she said. “Because I had the movie coming out and I didn’t want to anger him.” She believed that Weinstein would ruin her career if she didn’t comply. Years later, when she was a single mother dealing with childcare, Weinstein offered to pay for a nanny. She said that she felt “obliged” to submit to his sexual advances.

Argento said that she knew this contact would be used to attack the credibility of her allegation. In part, she said, the initial assault made her feel overpowered each time she encountered Weinstein, even years later. “Just his body, his presence, his face, bring me back to the little girl that I was when I was twenty-one,” she told me. “When I see him, it makes me feel little and stupid and weak.” She broke down as she struggled to explain. “After the rape, he won,” she said.

In 2000, Argento released “Scarlet Diva,” a movie that she wrote and directed. In the film, a heavyset producer corners the character of Anna, who is played by Argento, in a hotel room, asks her for a massage, and tries to assault her. After the movie came out, women began approaching Argento, saying that they recognized Weinstein’s behavior in the portrayal. “People would ask me about him because of the scene in the movie,” she said. Some recounted similar details to her: meetings and professional events moved to hotel rooms, bathrobes and massage requests, and, in one other case, forced oral sex.

Weinstein, according to Argento, saw the film after it was released in the U.S., and apparently recognized himself. “Ha, ha, very funny,” Argento remembered him saying to her. But he also said that he was “sorry for whatever happened.” The movie’s most significant departure from the real-life incident, Argento told me, was how the hotel-room scene ended. “In the movie I wrote,” she said, “I ran away.”

Other women were too afraid to allow me to use their names, but their stories are uncannily similar to these allegations. One, a woman who worked with Weinstein, explained her reluctance to be identified. “He drags your name through the mud, and he’ll come after you hard with his legal team.”

Like other women in this article, she said that Weinstein brought her to a hotel room under a professional pretext, changed into a bathrobe, and “forced himself on me sexually.” She said no, repeatedly and clearly. Afterward, she experienced “horror, disbelief, and shame,” and considered going to the police. “I thought it would be a ‘He said, she said,’ and I thought about how impressive his legal team is, and I thought about how much I would lose, and I decided to just move forward,” she said. The woman continued to have professional contact with Weinstein after the alleged rape, and acknowledged that subsequent communications between them might suggest a normal working relationship. “I was in a vulnerable position and I needed my job,” she told me. “It just increases the shame and the guilt.”

4.

Mira Sorvino, who starred in several of Weinstein’s films, told me that he sexually harassed her and tried to pressure her into a physical relationship while they worked together. She said that, at the Toronto International Film Festival in September, 1995, she found herself in a hotel room with Weinstein, who produced the movie she was there to promote, “Mighty Aphrodite,” for which she later won an Academy Award. “He started massaging my shoulders, which made me very uncomfortable, and then tried to get more physical, sort of chasing me around,” she recalled. She scrambled for ways to ward him off, telling him it was against her religion to date married men. (At the time, Weinstein was married to Eve Chilton, a former assistant.) Then she left the room.

A few weeks later, in New York City, her phone rang after midnight. It was Weinstein, saying that he had new marketing ideas for the film and asking to meet. Sorvino offered to meet him at an all-night diner, but he told her he was coming over to her apartment and hung up. “I freaked out,” she told me. She called a friend and asked him to come over and pose as her boyfriend. The friend hadn’t arrived by the time Weinstein rang her doorbell. “Harvey had managed to bypass my doorman,” she said. “I opened the door terrified, brandishing my twenty-pound Chihuahua mix in front of me, as though that would do any good.” When she told Weinstein that her new boyfriend was on his way, Weinstein became dejected and left.

Sorvino said that she struggled for years with whether to come forward with her story, partly because she was aware that it was mild compared to the experiences of other women, including another actress she spoke to at the time. (That actress told me that she locked herself in a hotel bathroom to escape Weinstein, and that he masturbated in front of her. She said it was “a classic case” of “someone not understanding the word ‘no’. . . I must have said no a thousand times.”) The fact that Weinstein was so instrumental to Sorvino’s success also made her hesitate: “I have great respect for Harvey as an artist, and owe him and his brother a debt of gratitude for the early success in my career, including the Oscar.” She had professional contact with Weinstein for years after the incident, and remains close friends with his brother and business partner, Bob Weinstein. (She said that she never told Bob about his brother’s behavior.)

Sorvino said that she felt afraid and intimidated, and that the incidents had a significant impact on her. When she told a female employee at Miramax about the harassment, the woman’s reaction “was shock and horror that I had mentioned it.” Sorvino appeared in a few more of Weinstein’s films afterward, but felt that saying no to Weinstein and reporting the harassment had ultimately hurt her career. She said, “There may have been other factors, but I definitely felt iced out and that my rejection of Harvey had something to do with it.”

5.

In March, 2015, Ambra Battilana Gutierrez, who was once a finalist in the Miss Italy contest, met Harvey Weinstein at a reception for “New York Spring Spectacular,” a show that he was producing at Radio City Music Hall. Weinstein introduced himself to Gutierrez, who was twenty-two, remarking repeatedly that she looked like the actress Mila Kunis.

Following the event, Gutierrez’s agency e-mailed to say that Weinstein wanted to set up a business meeting as soon as possible. Gutierrez arrived at Weinstein’s office in Tribeca early the next evening with her modelling portfolio. In the office, she sat with Weinstein on a couch to review the portfolio, and he began staring at her breasts, asking if they were real. Gutierrez later told officers of the New York Police Department Special Victims Division that Weinstein then lunged at her, groping her breasts and attempting to put a hand up her skirt while she protested. He finally backed off and told her that his assistant would give her tickets to “Finding Neverland,” a Broadway musical that he was producing. He said that he would meet her at the show that evening.

Instead of going to the show that night, Gutierrez went to the nearest N.Y.P.D. precinct station and reported the assault. Weinstein telephoned her later that evening, annoyed that she had failed to appear at the show. She picked up the call while sitting with investigators from the Special Victims Division, who listened in on the call and devised a plan: Gutierrez would agree to see the show the following day and then meet with Weinstein. She would wear a wire and attempt to extract a confession or incriminating statement.

The next day, Gutierrez met Weinstein at the bar of the Tribeca Grand Hotel. A team of undercover officers helped guide her through the interaction. On the recording, which I have heard in full, Weinstein lists actresses whose careers he has helped and offers Gutierrez the services of a dialect coach. Then he presses her to join him in his hotel room while he showers. Gutierrez says no repeatedly; Weinstein persists, and after a while she accedes to his demand to go upstairs. But, standing in the hallway outside his room, she refuses to go farther. In an increasingly tense exchange, he presses her to enter. Gutierrez says, “I don’t want to,” “I want to leave,” and “I want to go downstairs.” She asks him directly why he groped her breasts the day before.

“Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in,” Weinstein says. “I’m used to that. Come on. Please.”

“You’re used to that?” Gutierrez asks, sounding incredulous.

“Yes,” Weinstein says. He later adds, “I won’t do it again.”

After almost two minutes of back-and-forth in the hallway, Weinstein finally agrees to let her leave.

According to a law-enforcement source, Weinstein, if charged, would have most likely faced a count of sexual abuse in the third degree, a misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of three months in jail. But, as the police investigation proceeded and the allegation was widely reported, details about Gutierrez’s past began to appear in the tabloids. In 2010, as a young contestant in a beauty pageant associated with the former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, Gutierrez had attended one of his infamous Bunga Bunga parties. She claimed that she had been unaware of the nature of the party before arriving, and eventually became a witness in a bribery case against Berlusconi, which is still ongoing. Gossip outlets also reported that Gutierrez, as a teen-ager, had made an allegation of sexual assault against an older Italian businessman but later declined to coöperate with prosecutors.

Two sources close to the police investigation said that they had no reason to doubt Gutierrez’s account of the incident. One of them, a police source, said that the department had collected more than enough evidence to prosecute Weinstein. But the other source said that Gutierrez’s statements about her past complicated the case for the office of the Manhattan District Attorney, Cyrus Vance, Jr. After two weeks of investigation, the District Attorney’s office decided not to file charges. The D.A.’s office declined to comment on this story but pointed me to its statement at the time: “This case was taken seriously from the outset, with a thorough investigation conducted by our Sex Crimes Unit. After analyzing the available evidence, including multiple interviews with both parties, a criminal charge is not supported.”

“We had the evidence,” the police source involved in the operation told me. “It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.”

Gutierrez, when contacted for this story, said that she was unable to discuss the incident. According to a source close to the matter, after the D.A.’s office decided not to press charges, Gutierrez, facing Weinstein’s legal team, and in return for a payment, signed a highly restrictive nondisclosure agreement with Weinstein, including an affidavit stating that the acts Weinstein admits to in the recording never happened.

Weinstein’s use of such settlements was reported by the Times and confirmed to me by numerous sources. A former employee with firsthand knowledge of two settlement negotiations that took place in London in the nineteen-nineties recalled, “It felt like David versus Goliath . . . the guy with all the money and the power flexing his muscle and quashing the allegations and getting rid of them.”

6.

Last week’s Times story disclosed a complaint to the Weinstein Company’s office of human resources, filed on behalf of a temporary front-desk assistant named Emily Nestor in December, 2014. Her own account of Weinstein’s conduct is being made public here for the first time. Nestor was twenty-five when she started the job, and, after finishing law school and starting business school, was considering a career in the movie industry. On her first day in the position, Nestor said, two employees told her that she was Weinstein’s “type” physically. When Weinstein arrived at the office, he made comments about her appearance, referring to her as “the pretty girl.” He asked how old she was, and then sent all of his assistants out of the room and made her write down her telephone number.

Weinstein told her to meet him for drinks that night. Nestor invented an excuse. When he insisted, she suggested an early-morning coffee the next day, assuming that he wouldn’t accept. He did, and told her to meet him at the Peninsula in Beverly Hills, where he was staying. Nestor said that she had talked with friends in the entertainment industry and employees in the company who had warned her about Weinstein’s reputation. “I dressed very frumpy,” she said.

Nestor told me that the meeting was the “most excruciating and uncomfortable hour of my life.” After Weinstein offered her career help, she said, he began to boast about his sexual liaisons with other women, including famous actresses. “He said, ‘You know, we could have a lot of fun,’ ” Nestor recalled. “I could put you in my London office, and you could work there and you could be my girlfriend.” She declined. He asked to hold her hand; she said no. In Nestor’s account of the exchange, Weinstein said, “Oh, the girls always say no. You know, ‘No, no.’ And then they have a beer or two and then they’re throwing themselves at me.” In a tone that Nestor described as “very weirdly proud,” Weinstein added “that he’d never had to do anything like Bill Cosby.” She assumed that he meant he’d never drugged a woman. “It’s just a bizarre thing to be so proud of,” she said. “That you’ve never had to resort to doing that. It was just so far removed from reality and normal rules of consent.”

“Textbook sexual harassment” was how Nestor described Weinstein’s behavior to me. “It’s a pretty clear case of sexual harassment when your superior, the C.E.O., asks one of their inferiors, a temp, to have sex with them, essentially in exchange for mentorship.” She recalled refusing his advances at least a dozen times. “ ‘No’ did not mean ‘no’ to him,” she said. “I was very aware of how inappropriate it was. But I felt trapped.”

Throughout the breakfast, she said, Weinstein interrupted their conversation to yell into his cell phone, enraged over a spat that Amy Adams, a star in the Weinstein movie “Big Eyes,” was having in the press. Afterward, Weinstein told Nestor to keep an eye on the news cycle, which he promised would be spun in his favor. Later in the day, there were indeed negative news items about his opponents, and Weinstein stopped by Nestor’s desk to be sure that she’d seen them.

By that point, Nestor recalled, “I was very afraid of him. And I knew how well connected he was. And how if I pissed him off then I could never have a career in that industry.” Still, she told the friend who referred her to the job about the incident, and he alerted the company’s office of human resources, which contacted her. (The friend did not respond to a request for comment.) Nestor had a conversation with company officials about the matter but didn’t pursue it further: the officials said that Weinstein would be informed of anything she told them, a practice not uncommon in smaller businesses. Several former Weinstein employees told me that the company’s human-resources department was utterly ineffective; one female executive described it as “a place where you went to when you didn’t want anything to get done. That was common knowledge across the board. Because everything funnelled back to Harvey.” She described the department’s typical response to allegations of misconduct as “This is his company. If you don’t like it, you can leave.”

Nestor told me that some people at the company did seem concerned. Irwin Reiter, a senior executive who had worked for Weinstein for almost three decades, sent her a series of messages via LinkedIn. “We view this very seriously and I personally am very sorry your first day was like this,” Reiter wrote. “Also if there are further unwanted advances, please let us know.” Last year, just before the Presidential election, he reached out again, writing, “All this Trump stuff made me think of you.” He described Nestor’s experience as part of Weinstein’s serial misconduct. “I’ve fought him about mistreatment of women 3 weeks before the incident with you. I even wrote him an email that got me labelled by him as sex police,” he wrote. “The fight I had with him about you was epic. I told him if you were my daughter he would have not made out so well.” (Reiter declined to comment, but his lawyer, Debra Katz, confirmed the authenticity of the messages and said that Reiter had made diligent efforts to raise these issues, to no avail. Katz also said that Reiter “is eager to coöperate fully with any outside investigation.”)

Though no assault occurred, and Nestor completed her temporary placement, she was profoundly affected by the incident. “I was definitely traumatized for a while, in terms of feeling so harassed and frightened,” she said. “It made me feel incredibly discouraged that this could be something that happens on a regular basis. I actually decided not to go into entertainment because of this incident.”

7.

Emma de Caunes, a French actress, met Weinstein in 2010, at a party at the Cannes Film Festival. A few months later, he asked her to a lunch meeting at the Hôtel Ritz in Paris. In the meeting, Weinstein told de Caunes that he was going to be producing a movie with a prominent director, that he planned to shoot it in France, and that it had a strong female role. It was an adaptation of a book, he said, but he claimed he couldn’t remember the title. “But I’ll give it to you,” Weinstein said, according to de Caunes. “I have it in my room.”

De Caunes replied that she had to leave, since she was already running late for a TV show she was hosting—Eminem was appearing on the show that afternoon, and she hadn’t written her questions yet. Weinstein pleaded with her to retrieve the book with him, and finally she agreed. As they got to his room, she received a telephone call from one of her colleagues, and Weinstein disappeared into a bathroom, leaving the door open. She assumed that he was washing his hands.

“When I hung up the phone, I heard the shower go on in the bathroom,” she said. “I was, like, What the fuck, is he taking a shower?” Weinstein came out, naked and with an erection. “What are you doing?” she asked. Weinstein demanded that she lie on the bed and told her that many other women had done so before her.

“I was very petrified,” de Caunes said. “But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.” She added, “It was like a hunter with a wild animal. The fear turns him on.” De Caunes told Weinstein that she was leaving, and he panicked. “We haven’t done anything!” she remembered him saying. “It’s like being in a Walt Disney movie!”

De Caunes told me, “I looked at him and I said—it took all my courage—but I said, ‘I’ve always hated Walt Disney movies.’ And then I left. I slammed the door.” She was shaking on the stairs down to the lobby. A director she was working with on the TV show confirmed that she arrived at the studio distraught and that she recounted what had happened. Weinstein called relentlessly over the next few hours, offering de Caunes gifts and repeating that nothing had happened.

De Caunes, who was in her early thirties at the time, was already an established actress, but she wondered what would happen to younger and more vulnerable women in the same situation. Over the years, she said, she’s heard similar accounts from friends. “I know that everybody—I mean everybody—in Hollywood knows that it’s happening,” de Caunes said. “He’s not even really hiding. I mean, the way he does it, so many people are involved and see what’s happening. But everyone’s too scared to say anything.”

8.

One evening in the early nineties, the actress Rosanna Arquette was supposed to meet Weinstein for dinner at the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up the script for a new film. At the hotel, Arquette was told to meet Weinstein upstairs, in his room.

Arquette recalled that, when she arrived at the room, Weinstein opened the door wearing a white bathrobe. Weinstein said that his neck was sore and that he needed a massage. She told him that she could recommend a good masseuse. “Then he grabbed my hand,” she said. He put it on his neck. When she yanked her hand away, she told me, Weinstein grabbed it again and pulled it toward his penis, which was visible and erect. “My heart was really racing. I was in a fight-or-flight moment,” she said. She told Weinstein, “I will never do that.”

Weinstein told her that she was making a huge mistake by rejecting him, and named an actress and a model who he claimed had given in to his sexual overtures and whose careers he said he had advanced as a result. Arquette said she told him, “I’ll never be that girl,” and left.

Arquette said that after she rejected Weinstein her career suffered. In one case, she believes, she lost a role because of it. “He made things very difficult for me for years,” she told me. She did appear in one subsequent Weinstein film, “Pulp Fiction,” which she attributes to the small size of the role and Weinstein’s deference to the filmmaker, Quentin Tarantino. (Disputes later arose over her entitlement to payment out of the film’s proceeds.) Arquette said that her silence was the result of Weinstein’s power and reputation for vindictiveness. “He’s going to be working very hard to track people down and silence people,” she explained. “To hurt people. That’s what he does.”

There are other examples of Weinstein’s modus operandi. Jessica Barth, an actress who met Weinstein at a Golden Globes party in January, 2011, told me that Weinstein invited her to a business meeting at the Peninsula. When she arrived, he asked her over the phone to come up to his room. Weinstein assured her it was “no big deal”—because of his high profile, he simply wanted privacy to “talk career stuff.” In the room, Barth found that Weinstein had ordered champagne and sushi.

Barth said that, in the conversation that followed, he alternated between offering to cast her in a film and demanding a naked massage in bed. “So, what would happen if, say, we’re having some champagne and I take my clothes off and you give me a massage?” she recalled him asking. “And I’m, like, ‘That’s not going to happen.’ ”

When she moved toward the door to leave, Weinstein lashed out, saying that she needed to lose weight “to compete with Mila Kunis,” and then, apparently in an effort to mollify her, promising a meeting with one of his female executives. “He gave me her number, and I walked out and I started bawling,” Barth told me. (Immediately after the incident, she spoke with two individuals who confirmed to me that she related her account to them at the time.) Barth said that the promised meeting at Weinstein’s office seemed to be purely a formality. “I just knew it was bullshit,” she said. (The executive she met with did not respond to requests for comment.)

9.

Weinstein’s behavior deeply affected the day-to-day operations of his company. Current and former Weinstein employees described a pattern of meetings and strained complicity that closely matches the accounts of the many women I interviewed. The employees spoke on condition of anonymity, they said, because of fears about their careers in Hollywood and because of provisos in their work contracts.

“There was a large volume of these types of meetings that Harvey would have with aspiring actresses and models,” one female executive told me. “He would have them late at night, usually at hotel bars or in hotel rooms. And, in order to make these women feel more comfortable, he would ask a female executive or assistant to start those meetings with him.” She said that she was repeatedly asked to join the meetings but refused.

The female executive said that she was especially disturbed by the involvement of other employees. “It almost felt like the executive or assistant was made to be a honeypot to lure these women in, to make them feel safe,” she said. “Then he would dismiss the executive or the assistant, and then these women were alone with him. And that did not feel like it was appropriate behavior or safe behavior.”

One former employee said that she was frequently asked to join for the beginning of meetings that, she said, had in many cases already been moved from day to night and from hotel lobbies to hotel rooms. She said that Weinstein’s conduct in the meetings was brazen. During a meeting with a model, the former employee said, he turned to her and demanded, “Tell her how good of a boyfriend I am.” She said that when she refused to join one such meeting, Weinstein became enraged. Often, she was asked to keep track of the women, who, in keeping with a practice established by Weinstein’s assistants, were all filed under the same label in her phone: F.O.H., which stood for “Friend of Harvey.” She said that the pattern of meetings was nearly uninterrupted in her years working for Weinstein. “I have to say, the behavior did stop for a little bit after the groping thing,” she said, referring to Ambra Battilana Gutierrez’s allegation to the police, “but he couldn’t help himself. A few months later, he was back at it.”

Two staffers who facilitated these meetings said that they felt morally compromised by them. One male former staffer said that many of the women seemed “not aware of the nature of those meetings” and “were definitely scared.” He said most of the encounters that he saw seemed consensual, but others gave him pause. He was especially troubled by his memory of one young woman: “You just feel terrible because you could tell this girl, very young, not from our country, was now in a room waiting for him to come up there in the middle of the day, and we were not to bother them.” He said that he was never asked to facilitate these meetings for men.

None of the former executives or assistants I spoke to quit because of the misconduct, but many expressed guilt and regret about not having said or done more. They spoke about what they believed to be a culture of silence about sexual assault inside Miramax and the Weinstein Company and across the entertainment industry more broadly.

10.

Weinstein and his legal and public-relations teams have conducted a decades-long campaign to suppress these stories. In recent months, that campaign escalated. Weinstein and his associates began calling many of the women in this story. Weinstein asked Argento to meet with a private investigator and give testimony on his behalf. One actress who initially spoke to me on the record later asked that her allegation be removed. “I’m so sorry,” she wrote. “The legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse.” Weinstein and his legal team have threatened to sue multiple media outlets, including the New York Times.

Several of the former executives and assistants in this story said that they had received calls from Weinstein in which he attempted to determine if they had talked to me or warned them not to. These employees continued to participate in the article partly because they felt there was a growing culture of accountability, embodied in the relatively recent disclosures about high-profile men like Cosby and Ailes. “I think a lot of us had thought—and hoped—over the years that it would come out sooner,” the former executive who was aware of the two legal settlements in London told me. “But I think now is the right time, in this current climate, for the truth.”

The female executive who declined inappropriate meetings told me that her lawyer advised her that she could be exposed to hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits for violating the nondisclosure agreement attached to her employment contract. “I believe this is more important than keeping a confidentiality agreement,” she said. “The more of us that can confirm or validate for these women if this did happen, I think it’s really important for their justice to do that.” She continued, “I wish I could have done more. I wish I could have stopped it. And this is my way of doing that now.”

“He’s been systematically doing this for a very long time,” the former employee who had been made to act as a “honeypot” told me. She said that she often thinks of something Weinstein whispered—to himself, as far as she could tell—after one of his many shouting sprees at the office. It so unnerved her that she pulled out her iPhone and tapped it into a memo, word for word: “There are things I’ve done that nobody knows.”

 

Weinstein Dropped $100K at 2017 Planned Parenthood Gala

At a recent Planned Parenthood gala, Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein appeared to paint himself as a staunch supporter of women – even though allegations now claim he was anything but.

On Oct. 8, Weinstein was fired by The Weinstein Company following a New York Times story in which several women accused him of sexual harassment. Two days later, on Oct. 10, The New Yorker published a follow-up piece where three women accused him of rape.

Back in May, Harvey Weinstein and his wife, fashion designer Georgina Chapman, attended Planned Parenthood’s 100th-anniversary gala in New York City.

 

May 2017: Harvey Weinstein and his wife at the 100th Anniversary Gala for Planned Parenthood

 

At the celebration, Planned Parenthood awarded former Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton the Champion of the Century Award. According to The Hollywood Reporter, Weinstein gave Clinton a standing ovation at the event where she insisted on the “morality” of “reproductive health care” (aka abortion) and stressed “trusting and valuing women.”

“Protecting access to the full range of reproductive health care. It is a health issue, of course, it is a core economic issue. Women in every corner of our country understand that intimately. And anyone who wants to lead should also understand that fundamentally, this is an issue of morality,” Clinton said. “I wish it were common ground, but I know for sure it is higher ground. And I believe, as you do, that trusting and valuing women is the right and moral position to take.”

 

https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/katie-yoder/2017/10/10/weinstein-dropped-100k-2017-planned-parenthood-gala

The Dying ‘Dinosaur’ Defense

Harvey Weinstein being set in his ways doesn’t explain away the sexual harassment charges against him.

 By Robert Schlesinger, Managing Editor for Opinion | Oct. 6, 2017, at 5:08 p.m.

The Dying ‘Dinosaur’ Defense

The New York Times on Thursday evening published a devastating and detailed account of famed Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein serially engaging in sexual harassment of and predatory behavior toward women of all ages with whom he had, or might have had, business relationships. “Across the years and continents, accounts of Mr. Weinstein’s conduct share a common narrative: Women reported to a hotel for what they thought were work reasons, only to discover that Mr. Weinstein, who has been married for most of three decades, sometimes seemed to have different interests,” the Times’ Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey reported. Those interests reportedly involved most definitely non-business things like massages, bathing and sex.

The whole story, which goes into stomach-churning detail is a must-read; it cites “dozens” of sources and reports that he’s reached at least eight settlements with women on these matters and quotes women ranging from the famous (Ashley Judd) to the little-known, low-level job seekers. I was struck, however, by one explanation proffered by Lisa Bloom, a lawyer advising him (emphasis mine):

Ms. Bloom, who has been advising Mr. Weinstein over the last year on gender and power dynamics, called him ” an old dinosaur learning new ways.” She said she had “explained to him that due to the power difference between a major studio head like him and most others in the industry, whatever his motives, some of his words and behaviors can be perceived as inappropriate, even intimidating.”

Ad executive Donny Deutsch noted this line of defense on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Friday morning; a regular guest of the show, Deutsch told viewers that he’s “known Harvey for years,” adding, “These stories have been legend in Hollywood for years.” He went on (again, emphasis mine):

One of Harvey’s defenses, and it speaks for itself, is that he grew up in the ’70s and ’80s and this was behavior – status quo, which I’m not going to comment on.
But I do think that there’s a sea-change happening … that women are going to feel much more empowered and that behavior is going to become more and more – certainly … There’s still so far to go for women in the workplace, but there is a sea-change happening.

And I get that. Imagine being a creature of the 1970s or 1980s and being suddenly thrust into 2017. It would be disorienting and scary; how would you know how to act? Consider all of the things you might find shocking and incomprehensible: personal computers and the revolution they’ve wrought, email, the world wide web, e-commerce and social media. Video cassette recorders (ask your parents) were novel in the 1970s with compact discs and DVDs still on the horizon, not to mention the proliferation of cable channels and the ability to stream movies, television shows and music. Mobile phones big boxy things and smart phones (and tablets) were the stuff of science fiction. Navigation was done with paper maps rather than something called GPS. You could smoke in restaurants, bars … and on airplanes. Medicine didn’t include miracle devices like MRIs and CT scans. And drinking while driving was in many cases just fine (seriously).

And, of course, it’s not acceptable – whether under the law or under accepted social convention – to extract sexual gratification from those over whom one holds professional power.

So yeah, the “dinosaur” defense would explain away a lot … if someone had just awoken from a decades-long coma; or been otherwise suddenly transported through time. But the 1980s are long passed, and the country’s changed quite a bit. And its people have changed with them. I’m not unsympathetic to the idea that judging people of another era by modern standards is tricky, but people who live in the modern era can rightfully be judged by contemporary mores.

So color me skeptical of the “he grew up in the ’70s and ’80s” defense if, say, Weinstein has used a computer or smartphone; streamed any kind of media; watched any television channel beyond ABC, NBC and CBS; gotten an MRI or CT scan; or been in a vehicle as someone driving him has gotten directions from something other than a paper map without stopping and gaping in shocked amazement.

Because the thing about the 1980s is that they were three decades ago – and the thing about dinosaurs is that they died out when times and their surrounding environment changed. That this kind of behavior is unacceptable in 2017 isn’t a revelation or surprise; it’s as much an accepted part of life as the machines let us us plug in and communicate from virtually anywhere. If people like Weinstein have had the capacity to adopt to the conveniences of life like iPhones they can damned well adjust to the inconveniences like understanding that women are something more than available pleasures to be sampled at their whim – and, more, that sorry you can no longer enjoy “the abusive thrill gained not from sex but from the imposition of your will on someone who has no ability to resist or defend themselves from you, an exertion of power on the powerless,” as Rebecca Traister put it Thursday night.

Weinstein has admittedly not been alone in reportedly finding the transition to modernity trying. See also Roger AilesBill O’ReillyPresident Grab ‘Em By the Pussy … the list is not short. And that’s just the rich and famous; imagine how long the list would be if we could include every petty abuser of their position who found themselves a notch higher on the totem poll than someone they saw as an object.

You know who else found that transition taxing? The women who have been assaulted and intimidated and coerced over the years.

Change is hard. But it’s also tangible; and to have lived the last three decades is to understand that and to lose the “dinosaur” defense.

https://www.usnews.com/opinion/thomas-jefferson-street/articles/2017-10-06/retire-harvey-weinsteins-dinosaur-defense-in-sex-harassment-charges

 

Hillary Clinton condemns longtime Democratic donor Harvey Weinstein

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

  • Clinton issued a statement condemning Weinstein’s behavior and praising women who came forward
  • Many Democratic officeholders announced their intention to return or donate Weinstein funds, but Clinton’s statement made no mention of contributions

Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton condemned disgraced Hollywood executive Harvey Weinstein on Tuesday, marking her first public comments on the matter since reports of his alleged predatory behavior broke five days ago.

“I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement through her spokesman Nick Merrill. “The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.”
Weinstein is a longtime associate of the Clintons and a major Democratic Party donor who bundled funds for the party’s political campaigns, including supporting both of Clinton’s presidential bids.
Clinton’s statement makes no mention of Weinstein’s sizable donations to her own war chest.
The allegations against Weinstein have renewed a debate about sexual harassment in the workplace and drawn attention to Clinton, the Democrats’ 2016 standard-bearer who made the treatment of women a key plank of her presidential campaign.
Representatives for the former secretary of state and former President Bill Clinton had previously not responded to requests for comment about Weinstein, whose ties to the Clintons go back years, from the Clinton presidency to the former first lady’s successful campaign for Senate.
Clinton spoke in California Monday night as part of her book tour and did not address the allegations, nor was she asked about them during the 90-minute event.

Democrats disavow

Many Democratic office-holders quickly repudiated Weinstein, with some going so far as to send donations given by Weinstein to charity.
Clinton’s former running mate, Virginia Democratic Sen. Tim Kaine, said on CNN Tuesday morning that people should condemn Weinstein and said he anticipated Clinton would say something eventually.
Kaine noted Clinton has spoken out about sexual harassment often. During the campaign, Clinton spoke out about the issue and went after President Donald Trump over the allegations of sexual assault against him. Trump pushed back by touting similar allegations against her husband, former President Bill Clinton.
Early in the campaign, the former secretary of state was asked about some of those accusations and her own assertions that victims who allege assault should be believed. In the context of allegations against her husband, Clinton said, “I would say that everyone should be believed at first until they are disbelieved based on evidence.”
Clinton’s condemnation Tuesday came after years of links between the Clintons, Weinstein and the Democratic Party.
In 2015, the Clintons rented a home next to Weinstein in the Hamptons, and Weinstein served as a connector between Hollywood stars and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign.
Weinstein raised about $1.5 million from 1990-2016, according to data from the campaign finance-tracking Center for Responsive Politics, and was involved in fundraisers for Clinton’s effort, some of which she headlined.
Prior to Tuesday’s announcement, longtime Hillary Clinton aides were confused by the former secretary of state’s silence on the issue, questioning — in private — why she had not weighed in at all.

Bombshell allegations

A bombshell report in The New York Times detailed decades of sexual harassment by Weinstein, and just three days after its publication, Weinstein was fired by the company he founded.
On Tuesday, The New Yorker published a major story in which several women alleged sexual assault by Weinstein. Through his representative, Sallie Hofmeister, Weinstein denied “any allegations of non-consensual sex.”
The reports have put Democrats under pressure to disavow Weinstein and return or donate contributions from him to charity.
Connecticut Sen. Chris Murphy, for example, said in a CNN interview on Sunday that Democrats should give any money they received from Weinstein back.
The offices of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe Biden declined to comment as well. Weinstein was a bundler — someone who gathers donations from others into large sums — for the Obama-Biden 2012 effort.

Gwyneth Paltrow, Angelina Jolie and
Others Say Weinstein Harassed Them

“This way of treating women ends now,” Ms. Paltrow said as she
and other actresses accused the producer of casting-couch abuses.

When Gwyneth Paltrow was 22 years old, she got a role that would take her from actress to star: The film producer Harvey Weinstein hired her for the lead in the Jane Austen adaptation “Emma.” Before shooting began, he summoned her to his suite at the Peninsula Beverly Hills hotel for a work meeting that began uneventfully.

It ended with Mr. Weinstein placing his hands on her and suggesting they head to the bedroom for massages, she said.

“I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,” she said in an interview, publicly disclosing that she was sexually harassed by the man who ignited her career and later helped her win an Academy Award.

She refused his advances, she said, and confided in Brad Pitt, her boyfriend at the time. Mr. Pitt confronted Mr. Weinstein, and soon after, the producer warned her not to tell anyone else about his come-on. “I thought he was going to fire me,” she said.

Angelina Jolie said that in the late 1990s, she rejected Mr. Weinstein’s unwanted advances in a hotel room.CreditStefan Rousseau — WPA Pool/Getty Images

“I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did,” Ms. Jolie said in an email. “This behavior towards women in any field, any country is unacceptable.”

A New York Times investigation last week chronicled a hidden history of sexual harassment allegations against Mr. Weinstein and settlements he paid, often involving former employees, over three decades up to 2015. By Sunday evening, his entertainment company fired him.

On Tuesday, The New Yorker published a report that included multiple allegations of sexual assault, including forced oral and vaginal sex. The article also included accounts of sexual harassment going back to the 1990s, with women describing how intimidating Mr. Weinstein was.

Several days ago, additional actresses began sharing with The Times on-the-record stories of casting-couch abuses. Their accounts hint at the sweep of Mr. Weinstein’s alleged harassment, targeting women on the way to stardom, those who had barely acted and others in between. Fantasies that the public eagerly watched onscreen, the women recounted, sometimes masked the dark experiences of those performing in them.

The encounters they recalled followed a similar narrative: First, they said, Mr. Weinstein lured them to a private place to discuss films, scripts or even Oscar campaigns. Then, the women contend, he variously tried to initiate massages, touched them inappropriately, took off his clothes or offered them explicit work-for-sex deals.

In a statement on Tuesday, his spokeswoman, Sallie Hofmeister, said: “Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances. He will not be available for further comments, as he is taking the time to focus on his family, on getting counseling and rebuilding his life.”

Even in an industry in which sexual harassment has long persisted, Mr. Weinstein stands out, according to the actresses and current and former employees of the film companies he ran, Miramax and the Weinstein Company. He had an elaborate system reliant on the cooperation of others: Assistants often booked the meetings, arranged the hotel rooms and sometimes even delivered the talent, then disappeared, the actresses and employees recounted. They described how some of Mr. Weinstein’s executives and assistants then found them agents and jobs or hushed actresses who were upset.

His alleged behavior became something of a Hollywood open secret: When the comedian Seth MacFarlane announced Oscar nominees in 2013, he joked, “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.” The audience laughed. According to a 2015 memo by a former Weinstein Company executive that The Times previously disclosed, the misconduct continued.

More established actresses were fearful of speaking out because they had work; less established ones were scared because they did not. “This is Harvey Weinstein,” Katherine Kendall, who appeared in the film “Swingers” and television roles, remembers telling herself after an encounter in which she said Mr. Weinstein undressed and chased her around a living room. Telling others meant “I’ll never work again and no one is going to care or believe me,” she reasoned at the time, she said in a recent interview.

Ms. Paltrow, 45, is now an entrepreneur, no longer dependent on securing her next acting role. But she emphasized how much more vulnerable she felt at 22, when Mr. Weinstein had just signed her up for a star-making part. On a trip to Los Angeles, she received a schedule from her agents for the hotel meeting with Mr. Weinstein.

There was no reason to suspect anything untoward, because “it’s on the fax, it’s from C.A.A.,” she said, referring to Creative Artists Agency, which represented her.

When Mr. Weinstein tried to massage her and invited her into the bedroom, she immediately left, she said, and remembers feeling stunned as she drove away. “I thought you were my Uncle Harvey,” she recalled thinking, explaining that she had seen him as a mentor.

After she told Mr. Pitt about the episode, he approached Mr. Weinstein at a theater premiere and told him never to touch Ms. Paltrow again. Mr. Pitt confirmed the account to The Times through a representative.

Soon after, Mr. Weinstein called Ms. Paltrow and berated her for discussing the episode, she said. (She said she also told a few friends, family members and her agent.) “He screamed at me for a long time,” she said, once again fearing she could lose the role in “Emma.” “It was brutal.” But she stood her ground, she said, and insisted that he put the relationship back on professional footing.

Even as Ms. Paltrow became known as the “first lady of Miramax” and won an Oscar for “Shakespeare in Love” in 1999, very few people knew about Mr. Weinstein’s advances. “I was expected to keep the secret,” she said.

In 1999, Ms. Paltrow won an Oscar for her role in “Shakespeare in Love,” a film produced by Mr. Weinstein, center. CreditMonica Almeida/The New York Times

Like several of the other women interviewed for this article, she felt she had to suppress the experience. She praised Mr. Weinstein publicly, posed for pictures with him and played the glowing star to his powerful producer. Yet their work relationship grew rockier over the years, she said, and she distanced herself. “He was alternately generous and supportive and championing, and punitive and bullying,” she said.

Now, with the process of tallying the size and scope of Mr. Weinstein’s abuse allegations underway, Ms. Paltrow and others said they wanted to support women who had already come forward and help those in similar situations feel less alone.

“We’re at a point in time when women need to send a clear message that this is over,” Ms. Paltrow said. “This way of treating women ends now.”

Tomi-Ann Roberts

Tomi-Ann Roberts, now a psychology professor, said Mr. Weinstein harassed her in 1984, when she was an aspiring actress. Today she researches sexual objectification, an interest she traces back in part to that encounter. CreditMark Reis for The New York Times

In 1984, when Tomi-Ann Roberts was a 20-year-old college junior, she waited tables in New York one summer and hoped to start an acting career. Mr. Weinstein, one of her customers, urged her to audition for a movie that he and his brother were planning to direct. He sent scripts, then asked her to meet him where he was staying so they could discuss the film, she said in an email and a telephone interview.

When she arrived, he was nude in the bathtub, she recalled. He told her that she would give a much better audition if she were comfortable “getting naked in front of him,” too, because the character she might play would have a topless scene.

If she could not bare her breasts in private, she would not be able to do it on film, Ms. Roberts recalled Mr. Weinstein saying. (Asta Roberts, her mother, said in an interview that Ms. Roberts told her the story shortly after the episode.)

Ms. Roberts remembers apologizing on the way out, telling Mr. Weinstein that she was too prudish to go along. Later, she felt that he had manipulated her by feigning professional interest in her, and she doubted that she had ever been under serious consideration. “I was nobody! How had I ever thought otherwise?” she asked.

Today she is a psychology professor at Colorado College, researching sexual objectification, an interest she traces back in part to that long-ago encounter. She said that over the years she had had trouble watching Mr. Weinstein’s films. With a new release, “I would always ask, is it a Miramax movie? ”

Rosanna Arquette

In the early 1990s, Mr. Weinstein asked Rosanna Arquette to stop by a hotel in Beverly Hills to pick up a script. “I’m not that girl,” she remembers telling him after he asked her for a massage.CreditMaarten de Boer/Getty Images

In the early 1990s, Mr. Weinstein asked Rosanna Arquette to stop by the Beverly Hills Hotel to pick up a script for a role.

Born into a family of actors, Ms. Arquette had already starred in a hit film, “Desperately Seeking Susan,” and “New York Stories,” and would go on to perform in films including “Crash” and television shows ranging from “Ray Donovan” to “Girls.” (Her account also appeared in The New Yorker.)

At the reception desk, she was told to head upstairs, which she found odd.

Mr. Weinstein was in a white bathrobe, complaining of neck pain and asking for a massage, according to Ms. Arquette and Maria Smith, a friend she told soon afterward. Ms. Arquette said she tried to recommend a professional masseuse, but Mr. Weinstein grabbed her hand and pulled it toward his crotch. She immediately drew away, she said.

He boasted about the famous actresses he had supposedly slept with — a common element of his come-on, according to several other women who had encounters with Mr. Weinstein. “Rosanna, you’re making a big mistake,” he responded, she said.

She refused. “I’m not that girl,” she recalled telling him on the way out. “I will never be that girl.”

The part went to someone else, and Mr. Weinstein’s representative pointed out that he did not produce the movie. Later, Ms. Arquette was in the Miramax film “Pulp Fiction” but said she avoided Mr. Weinstein.

Katherine Kendall

The actress Katherine Kendall said that Mr. Weinstein harassed her in his apartment in 1993. “He literally chased me,” she said. “He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.” CreditEmily Berl for The New York Times

“Welcome to the Miramax family,” Mr. Weinstein told Katherine Kendall in 1993, she said. She was 23, and about that time he was selling his small movie company to Disney, which supplied the cash that would turn it into a cultural force.

After a meeting set up by her agent, he gave her scripts, including for the film “Beautiful Girls,” and invited her to a screening, which turned out to be a solo trip with Mr. Weinstein to a cinema near Lincoln Center in Manhattan. Afterward, he asked if they could swing by his apartment to pick something up.

Ms. Kendall said she was nervous, but it was daytime, and she relaxed when she saw pictures of his wife on the wall. “He’s keeping it professional, he makes me a drink, we talk about movies and art and books for about an hour,” she recalled. “I thought: He’s taking me seriously.”

He went to the bathroom, came back in a robe and asked her to give him a massage, she said. “Everybody does it,” he said, according to Ms. Kendall, and mentioned a famous model’s name. She refused; he left the room, and returned nude, she said.

“He literally chased me,” she said. “He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.”

Ms. Kendall said his advances had a bargaining quality: He asked if she would at least show her breasts, if nothing else.

She said no to all of it, she recounted. “I just thought to myself: I can’t believe you’re doing this to me. I’m so offended — we just had a meeting,” she said. (Her mother, Kay Kendall, said in a brief interview that her daughter told her the story at the time.)

Ms. Kendall appeared in the film “Swingers,” distributed (but not produced) by Miramax, and has worked on and off as an actor since then. But she said the episode had dampened her enthusiasm for the business.

“If this is what it takes, I can’t do it,” she said.

Judith Godrèche

In 1996, the French actress Judith Godrèche said she was invited up to Mr. Weinstein’s suite, where he asked to give her a massage. After she said no, she recalled, he argued that casual massages were an American custom. CreditJeff Vespa/WireImage, via Getty Images

When Mr. Weinstein invited Judith Godrèche to breakfast at the Cannes Film Festival in 1996, she had no idea who he was. At 24, she was already a star in France, and a new film she was in, “Ridicule,” was opening the festival. He had just acquired the movie and said he wanted to discuss it.

They had breakfast at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc, joined by a female Miramax executive. After the executive left, Mr. Weinstein invited Ms. Godrèche up to his suite to see the view, and to discuss the film’s marketing and even an Oscar campaign, she said in an interview.

“I was so naïve and unprepared,” she said.

Upstairs, he asked to give her a massage, Ms. Godrèche said. She said no. He argued that casual massages were an American custom — he gave them to his secretary all the time, Ms. Godrèche recalled him saying.

“The next thing I know, he’s pressing against me and pulling off my sweater,” she said. She pulled away and left the suite. (Alain Godrèche, her father, said in an interview that his daughter told him about the episode the next morning.)

Seeking advice, she later called the female Miramax executive, who told her not to say anything, lest she hurt the film’s release. “They put my face on the poster,” she said.

“This is Miramax,” she said. “You can’t say anything.”

Since then, Ms. Godrèche has starred in films in France and the United States. Like Ms. Paltrow, she felt she had to maintain a rapport with Mr. Weinstein, and sent him friendly emails inquiring about party invitations and potential work. “I tried to negotiate the situation over the years, and negotiate with myself and pretend it kind of never happened, ” she said.

“I wish I’d had someone to talk to, to say, ‘How do you deal with this?’”

Dawn Dunning

After refusing a sexual advance, Dawn Dunning said, she was told by Mr. Weinstein: “You’ll never make it in this business. This is how the business works.” CreditIlana Panich-Linsman for The New York Times

In 2003, Dawn Dunning was doing small acting gigs, attending design school and waitressing in a nightclub where she met Mr. Weinstein.

The 24-year old was wary, but Mr. Weinstein was friendly, professional and supportive, she said, offering her a screen test at Miramax, inviting her to lunch and dinner to talk about films and even giving her and her boyfriend tickets to see “The Producers” on Broadway.

Then his assistant invited her to a meal with Mr. Weinstein at a Manhattan hotel. Ms. Dunning headed to the restaurant, where she was told that Mr. Weinstein’s earlier meeting was running late, so she should head up to his suite.

There was no meeting. Mr. Weinstein was in a bathrobe, behind a coffee table covered with papers.

He told her they were contracts for his next three films, according to Ms. Dunning. But she could only sign them on a condition: She would have to have three-way sex with him.

Ms. Dunning said that she laughed, assuming he was joking, and that Mr. Weinstein grew angry.

“You’ll never make it in this business,” she said he told her. “This is how the business works.”

Ms. Dunning fled, she said, and when the assistant called her the next day, she hung up. She told her father, Rick Dunning, of the episode within a few months, he said in an interview.

“I was like: Maybe this is how the business works,” she said. She left acting soon after and became a costume designer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/10/us/gwyneth-paltrow-angelina-jolie-harvey-weinstein.html

Harvey Weinstein accused of raping Italian star Asia Argento and forcing himself on Angelina Jolie, Gwyneth Paltrow, Rosanna Arquette and Mira Sorvino in private meetings

  • Asia Argento says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997 when she was 21
  • Angelina Jolie said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming ‘Playing by Heart’
  • Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Weinstein at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer
  • Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced
  • Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis
  • Both Sorvino and Arquette said that their careers suffered after they refused these sexual advances
  • In total, 13 women said they were sexually harassed or assaulted and three said that they were raped 
  • Ben Affleck, who refused to respond to requests for comment for days, said after the released of the ‘New Yorker’ story that the allegations made him sick

Angelina Jolie and Gwyneth Paltrow are the latest women to accuse movie mogul Harvey Weinstein of trying to force himself on them – as three other women today said the Hollywood executive raped them.

Italian star Asia Argento told the New Yorker that Weinstein raped her in 1997 at a party hosted by Miramax at the Hotel Du Cap-Eden-Roc. She claims the mogul led her to an empty room and asked her to give him a massage.

She reluctantly agreed, and halfway through he began to perform oral sex on her despite her repeated request for him to stop. Aspiring actress Lucia Evans and another unnamed woman accused him of rape as well according to the article.

Jolie was filming ‘Playing By Heart for Weinstein when he made unwanted advances on her in a hotel room.

‘I had a bad experience with Harvey Weinstein in my youth, and as a result, chose never to work with him again and warn others when they did,’ Jolie told the New York Times.

‘This behavior towards women in any field, any country is unacceptable.’

Paltrow meanwhile said that the man who launched her career sexually harassed her at his Beverly Hills hotel when she was just 22, and that it almost lost her a big role.

Rosanna Arquette and Mira Sorvino also state that the powerful Hollywood executive forced himself upon them, but that they were able to fight off his sexual advances.

Soon after, the two women say their careers began to suffer.

Scroll down for videos 

Angelina Jolie (above in September) said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming 'Playing by Heart'

Angelina Jolie (above in September) said that she never worked with Weinstein again after her made unwanted sexual advances on her while filming ‘Playing by Heart’

Victim: Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein (pair above in 2002) at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer

Victim: Gwyneth Paltrow was sexually harassed by Harvey Weinstein (pair above in 2002) at the start of her career claims the actress, and had boyfriend Brad Pitt confront the producer

Leading lady: Paltrow arrived at Weinstein's  hotel and he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom (above with Weinstein, Edward Zwick and her Best Actress Oscar in 1999)

Leading lady: Paltrow arrived at Weinstein’s  hotel and he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom (above with Weinstein, Edward Zwick and her Best Actress Oscar in 1999)

GWYNETH PALTROW 

‘I was a kid, I was signed up, I was petrified,’ said Paltrow, who revealed that when she was told to meet Weinstein in his hotel room she did not think anything suspicious of it because it came on a fax from Creative Artists Agency.

Once she arrived at the hotel, he began to massage her and then asked her to join him in the bedroom.

She rejected his advance and drove away devastated, thinking: ‘I thought you were my Uncle Harvey.’

She told then-boyfriend Brad Pitt about the incident she said, who then confronted Weinstein.

Weinstein came back to the actress and told her to never tell anyone what happened between them again.

At the time, Paltrow was preparing to shoot the lead role in Miramax’s new adaptation of Jane Austen’s ‘Emma’ alongside Toni Collette and Ewan McGregor.

‘He screamed at me for a long time,’ said Paltrow.

‘It was brutal.’

A few years later she was a superstar and Oscar winner, but she did not have the power to share her story.

‘I was expected to keep the secret,’ said Paltrow, who called Weinstein ‘alternately generous and supportive and championing, and punitive and bullying.’

She has now decided however to no longer staying quiet.

‘We’re at a point in time when women need to send a clear message that this is over,’ said Paltrow.

‘This way of treating women ends now.’

More victims emerge: Asia Argento (above in 2004) says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997

More victims emerge: Asia Argento (above in 2004) says that Harvey Weinstein raped her in a hotel room at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc back in 1997

Site: Argento said that her assault occurred in 1997 at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc in France (above)

Site: Argento said that her assault occurred in 1997 at the Hotel du Cap-Eden-Roc in France (above)
Scarlet Diva

On the scree: Asia Argento depicted a scene similar to the rape in her film ‘Scarlet Diva’ (above)

ASIA ARGENTO 

Argento says that she became suspicious when the party she arrived at was just an empty hotel room, but was assured that people would soon be arriving by Weinstein.

Then, he emerged from the bathroom in a robe and holding a bottle of lotion says the actress, who was just 21 at the time.

‘He asks me to give a massage. I was, like, “Look man, I am no f***ing fool,”‘ said Argento.

‘But, looking back, I am a f***ing fool. And I am still trying to come to grips with what happened.’

The actress, who is the daughter of famed Italian director Dario Argento, said that once Weinstein began performing oral sex on her there was no way for her to stop him because he was so much bigger than her.

‘It wouldn’t stop. It was a nightmare,’ said Argento, who eventually decided to pretend she was enjoying the act in hopes that it would end.

When it was over, Argento said she said on the bed and told her attacked: ‘I am not a whore.’

He laughed at her and said he would put that on a shirt according to Argento, who said that Weinstein contacted her for months after the attack and even began offering her expensive gifts.

Argento eventually relented and over time became close to her attacker, and even engaged in consensual relations with him she admits.

She explained the sudden shift by saying that it was a few months before the release of her 1999 film ‘B. Monkey’ and she was afraid that if she did not agree to Weinstein’s advances he might destroy her career.

The following year, Argento released her film ‘Scarlet Diva,’ which had a scene similar to the one she experienced three years earlier in France.

In that film, a young actress is cornered by a big producer in a room with one crucial difference.

‘In the movie I wrote, I ran away,’ said Argento.

In has been 20 years now since that encounter, and Argento still struggles, especially when she sees Weinstein.

‘When I see him, it makes me feel little and stupid and weak,’ said Argento.

‘After the rape, he won.’

In total, 13 women told the New Yorker that they were sexually harassed or assaulted by Weinstein and three said that they were raped.

Shortly before the story was published, Weinstein asked Argento to meet with a private investigator and give testimony on his behalf.

Mighty Harvey: Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced (Sorvino and her husband Chris Backus with Weinstein in 2006) 

Mighty Harvey: Mira Sorvino says that Weinstein made sexual advances towards her back in 1995 in a hotel room and later by showing up to her apartment unannounced (Sorvino and her husband Chris Backus with Weinstein in 2006)
Support: Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: 'Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence'

Support: Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: ‘Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence’

 MIRA SORVINO

Sorvino and Arquette both say their careers took a nose-dive when they dared to reject Weinstein.

Sorvino said that Weinstein’s attempts to engage with her began in 1995, when she was promoting her role in Woody Allen’s ‘Mighty Aphrodite,’ for which she would go on to win the Academy Award.

He began to massage her shoulders while the two were alone in a hotel room at the Toronto Film Festival according to Sorvino, who said that he then tried to take things further but she was able to ward him off at the time.

A few weeks later he managed to bypass her doorman and make it up to her apartment around midnight, at which point she told him her boyfriend was on the way after calling a male friend to rush over.

Sorvino believe that this rejection of Weinstein ultimately hurt her career.

‘There may have been other factors, but I definitely felt iced out and that my rejection of Harvey had something to do with it,’ said the actress.

Soon after the article was published, Sorvino tweeted: ‘Very proud of my sisters in spirit who had the courage to break the silence. Very hard for me-more so for others. We took our power back!!’

She later added that her story ‘pales in comparison’ to some of the others.

One of those women was initially on the record detailing her experience until the last second.

‘I’m so sorry, the legal angle is coming at me and I have no recourse,’ she said, having to suddenly remove all her claims and name from the piece.

Dam story: Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis (Arquette and Weinstein above in 2001)

Dam story: Rosanna Arquette says she met Weinstein in a hotel room and he asked her to give him a massage then tried to have her touch his erect penis (Arquette and Weinstein above in 2001)
Support: Patricia Arquette tweeted her support for sister Rosanna on Tuesday (above)

Support: Patricia Arquette tweeted her support for sister Rosanna on Tuesday (above)

Good friend: Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your "secret" has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it's not too late. @RoArquette,' wrote Ellen Barkin (above)

Good friend: Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your “secret” has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it’s not too late. @RoArquette,’ wrote Ellen Barkin (above)

ROSANNA ARQUETTE 

Arquette says that her encounter with Weinstein happened in the early nineties, when she had been sent to pick up a script from the producer at a restaurant in Beverly Hills.

Soon after she arrived, she was asked to instead meet Weinstein in his hotel room.

Once inside the room, Arquette said that Weinstein asked her for a massage, and eventually pulled her hand towards his erect penis.

‘I will never do that,’ Arquette said that she told Weinstein.

Weinstein soon exacted his revenge she claims, saying: ‘He made things very difficult for me for years.’

Arquette and Sorvino were arguably both at the heights of their career during the moments when these incidents occurred, and their careers did noticeably cool down with fewer roles in prestige pictures.

Many of the actresses were connected within the industry but that did not seem to matter to Weinstein.

Sorvino is the daughter of ‘Goodfellas’ actor Paul Sorvino, Rosanna the sister of Patricia and David Arquette and Argento the daughter of ‘Suspiria’ director Dario Argento.

Rosanna’s Oscar-winning sister, who has been supportive of all the women who have come forward this far, wrote about her sibling’s bravery on Tuesday.

‘I am very proud of my sister @RoArquette and all the women and men & police who spoke up in this article,’ said Patricia Arquette.

‘Rosanna Arquette is my oldest friend in this business. Ro, I am so so sorry. I know what your “secret” has cost you. I take full responsibility for not being the friend I should have been. I hope it’s not too late. @RoArquette,’ wrote Ellen Barkin.

Nicole Kidman also weighed in on Tuesday, saying: ‘As I’ve stated before publicly, I support and applaud all women and these women who speak out against any abuse and misuse of power — be it domestic violence or sexual harassment in the workforce. We need to eradicate this behavior.’

And rounding out the new voices speaking out were Ben Affleck and Matt Damon, who denied that he had helped to kill a 2004 story that was set to reveal Weinstein’s sexual harassment of women.

‘If there was ever an event that I was at and Harvey was doing this kind of thing and I didn’t see it, then I am so deeply sorry, because I would have stopped it,’ said Damon in an interview with Deadline.

‘And I will peel my eyes back now, father than I ever have, to look for this type of behavior.’

Recording: Model Ambra Battilana (above) can be heard repeatedly rejecting Weinstein's requests to have her join him in his bedroom in a recording obtained by the New Yorker 

Recording: Model Ambra Battilana (above) can be heard repeatedly rejecting Weinstein’s requests to have her join him in his bedroom in a recording obtained by the New Yorker

AMBRA BATTILANA 

The New Yorker article also contains new revelations about Ambra Battilana, who accused Weinstein of groping her back in 2015 then watched as District Attorney Cyrus Vance elected not to press charges.

The aspiring actress said Weinstein grabbed her breasts and put his hand up her skirt in a meeting in his office. She fled and reported the incident to the NYPD.

The next day she agreed to meet the executive again but this time was recording the exchange for officers.

In the audio, obtained by the New Yorker, Weinstein apologizes but then tries to coax her into his hotel room.

Battilana says ‘no’ multiple times before Weinstein finally gives up and they return downstairs.

The most damning exchange is the one when Weinstein admits to groping the model.

‘Oh, please, I’m sorry, just come on in. I’m used to that. Come on. Please,’ Weinstein can be heard saying on the tape.

‘You’re used to that?’ responded Battilana.

‘Yes. I won’t do it again,’ said Harvey.

The recording has now led many to call for the firing of Cyrus Vance, who just a few months after deciding to drop charges got a $10,000 check for his campaign from Weinstein’s lawyer David Boies.

‘We had the evidence,’ said a police source.

‘It’s a case that made me angrier than I thought possible, and I have been on the force a long time.

Manhattan Chief Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman-Agnifilo responded to the release of the audio in a statement on Tuesday.

‘If we could have prosecuted Harvey Weinstein for the conduct that occurred in 2015, we would have. Mr. Weinstein’s pattern of mistreating women, as recounted in recent reports, is disgraceful and shocks the conscience,’ said Friedman-Agnifilo.

‘While the recording is horrifying to listen to, what emerged from the audio was insufficient to prove a crime under New York law, which requires prosecutors to establish criminal intent.’

She then added: ‘Subsequent investigative steps undertaken in order to establish intent were not successful. This, coupled with other proof issues, meant that there was no choice but to conclude the investigation without criminal charges.’

Emma de Caunes (above September) said that Weinstein had her come up to his hotel room then emerged from the shower naked and asked her to join him in bed

Emma de Caunes (above September) said that Weinstein had her come up to his hotel room then emerged from the shower naked and asked her to join him in bed

EMMA DE CAUNES 

French actress Emma de Caunes said that she met Weinstein in 2010, soon after he told her he had a script he was producing based on a book with a strong female character.

Weinstein offered to show her the script, and asked her up to his hotel room, where he began to take a shower.

He then emerged naked and with an erection, asking her to lay down with him on the bed and telling her that many had done so before.

‘I was very petrified,’ said de Caunes.

‘But I didn’t want to show him that I was petrified, because I could feel that the more I was freaking out, the more he was excited.’

When she told him that she had to leave, Weinstein responded by telling the actress: ‘We haven’t done anything! It’s like being in a Walt Disney movie!’

De Caunes said that she then gathered all her strength and turned around, telling Weinstein: ‘I’ve always hated Walt Disney movies!’

A director at the studio she went to film at after the encounter confirmed that she was terrified and immediately shared details of her account, with Weinstein calling the women repeatedly to offer her expensive gifts.

She also said that despite the statements of stars like Meryl Streep, there was no one in Hollywood who was unaware of Weinstein’s behavior.

‘I know that everybody – I mean everybody – in Hollywood knows that it’s happening,’ said de Caunes.

‘He’s not even really hiding. I mean, the way he does it, so many people are involved and see what’s happening. But everyone’s too scared to say anything.’

Familiar patter: Judith Godreche (above) was lured into Weinstein's bedroom and then given a massage she said, making her exit when he tried to take off her sweater

Familiar patter: Judith Godreche (above) was lured into Weinstein’s bedroom and then given a massage she said, making her exit when he tried to take off her sweater

JUDITH GODRECHE 

French star Judith Godrèche said that she, like so many other women, was alone with Weinstein when he offered to give her a massage.

She was at the Hotel de Cap, just like Argento, when Weinstein invited her to his room after breakfast.

 ‘I was so naïve and unprepared,’ said Godrèche, was was 24 at the time.

Soon after the massage began, Weinstein tried to rip off Godrèche’s sweater she said, at which point she fled the room.

The actress told her father and later phoned a Miramax executive, who told her not to complain and keep quiet about the incident.

‘They put my face on the poster,’ said Godrèche, whose breakout role in the film ‘Ridicule’ was released around the same time.

In the 20 years since the 1996 incident she has stayed on good terms with the executive, sending emails from time to time and keeping in touch because she felt it was necessary for her career.

‘I tried to negotiate the situation over the years, and negotiate with myself and pretend it kind of never happened,’ said Godreche.

‘I wish I’d had someone to talk to, to say, “How do you deal with this?”‘

Speaking up: 'I just hope that my story and the other brave women who came forward can stop him from making other women feel powerless,' wrote lucia Evans on Twitter (above)

Speaking up: ‘I just hope that my story and the other brave women who came forward can stop him from making other women feel powerless,’ wrote lucia Evans on Twitter (above)

LUCIA STOLLER

Lucia Evans (nee Stoller) was a college student preparing for her senior year at Middlebury in 2004 when she met Weinstein at Cipriani in New York City.

She wanted to be an actress and gave the executive her phone number, eventually agreeing to come in and read for a female casting director at Weinstein’s offices in Tribeca.

When she arrived however she was taken to meet Weinstein in a room with empty takeout boxes and exercise equipment.

The two spoke for a bit and then, according to Evans, Weinstein pulled out his penis and forced her to perform oral sex on him inside the office.

‘I said, over and over, “I don’t want to do this, stop, don’t,”‘ said Evans.

Evans was in college when she was raped by Weinstein she said

Evans was in college when she was raped by Weinstein she said

‘I tried to get away, but maybe I didn’t try hard enough. I didn’t want to kick him or fight him.’

His size proved to be too much for Evans however, who found herself completely helpless.

‘I just sort of gave up. That’s the most horrible part of it, and that’s why he’s been able to do this for so long to so many women: people give up, and then they feel like it’s their fault,’ said Evans.

Weinstein later acted as if nothing had happened she said, and began calling her at night to meet said Evans, who turned down the executive.

The repercussions from the incident last to this day however, with Evans saying she still had nightmares.

‘I had an eating problem for years. I was disgusted with myself. It’s funny, all these unrelated things I did to hurt myself because of this one thing,’ said Evans.

‘I ruined several really good relationships because of this. My schoolwork definitely suffered, and my roommates told me to go to a therapist because they thought I was going to kill myself.’

Another woman who claimed Weinstein raped her revealed that she feared going to the police and even stayed in contact with the man because of the power he wielded in the industry.

‘I was in a vulnerable position and I needed my job,’ said the woman.

‘It just increases the shame and the guilt.’

Suddenly finding their voice: Oscar-winning screenwriters Ben Affleck and Matt Damon (above in 2010 with Weinstein) decided to finally speak out against their friend on Tuesday

Suddenly finding their voice: Oscar-winning screenwriters Ben Affleck and Matt Damon (above in 2010 with Weinstein) decided to finally speak out against their friend on Tuesday

EMILY NESTOR

The former assistant at the Weinstein Company was first revealed to be one of the movie mogul’s victims last week in the New York Times’ initial expose.

She was 25 back in 2014 when she was starting at the company, and on the very first day Weinstein had her take his number and asked her to join him for a drink.

She declined and asked if they could do an early morning coffee instead, expecting him to turn down the offer.

Weinstein did not according to Nestor, who having been warned of his behavior dressed ‘frumpy’ for their breakfast.

The took soon turned sexual however, despite the venue and time of day.

‘He said, “You know, we could have a lot of fun,”‘ said Nestor.

‘”I could put you in my London office, and you could work there and you could be my girlfriend.”‘

When she declined her replied: ‘Oh, the girls always say “no.” You know, “No, no.” And then they have a beer or two and then they’re throwing themselves at me.’

At that same breakfast, she also said that she watched him plant a negative item about an unnamed individual in relation to a story that was playing out at the time involving Amy Adams, who was starring in the Weinstein Company film ‘Big Eyes.’

That seems to be a reference to Adam refusal to discuss the Sony hack at that time, which resulted in her being booted from an appearance on ‘Today.’

‘I was very afraid of him. And I knew how well connected he was. And how if I pissed him off then I could never have a career in that industry,’ said Nestor.

She ended up alerting human resources of her issues despite being a temporary employee at the company, having spent the entire mornign also fighting off his unwanted sexual advances.

‘It made me feel incredibly discouraged that this could be something that happens on a regular basis,’ said Nestor.

‘I actually decided not to go into entertainment because of this incident.’

Victim: After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth (above) was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula

Victim: After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth (above) was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula

Bravely speaking: Barth tweeted on Tuesday: 'This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support'

Bravely speaking: Barth tweeted on Tuesday: ‘This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support’

JESSICA BARTH

After meeting Weinstein at a 2011 Golden Globes party, Jessica Barth was asked to come sit down with the movie man for a meeting at his hotel, the Peninsula.

When she arrived he had ordered champagne and sushi so that the two could ‘talk career stuff.’

What instead happened however was Weinstein requesting the Barth give him a naked massage in bed while then bringing the conversation back to her career said the young woman.

‘So, what would happen if, say, we’re having some champagne and I take my clothes off and you give me a massage?’ Barth said Weinstein asked her.

She informed him that would not happen and then prepared to make her exit, at which point Weinstein called her fat and said she needed to lose weight  if she wanted to ‘compete with Mila Kunis.’

Barth drove home in tears, with multiple people saying they hears the same version of this story soon after, while a promised meeting with an executive at Weinstein’s company ended up being nothing more than a formality.

She would later star in the film ‘Ted’ and its sequel, and will next be seen in ‘Tell Me Your Name.’

Barth tweeted on Tuesday: ‘This is brutal. Thank you @RonanFarrow and to every single woman having the courage to share their story and to those offering support.’

Louisette Geiss (above in Tuesday) said that Weinstein promised her a film deal if she would watch him masturbate in the tub

LOUISETTE GEISS

In a press conference with her attorney Gloria Allred on Tuesday, Louisette Geiss said that Weinstein invited her to his temporary office for a meeting during the 2008 Sundance Film Festival in Utah under the pretense of discussing her new movie.

Geiss said that he insisted on listening to her pitch in his hot tub after emerging from the bathroom 30 minutes in to the meeting naked in an unfastened bathrobe.

She claims that he asked her to watch him masturbate and that when she told him she was leaving, he grabbed her arm and pulled her into the bathroom.

‘I kept talking as he got into the hot tub. When I finished my pitch, he asked me to watch him masturbate. I told him I was leaving. He quickly got out of the hot tub,’ said Geiss.

Weinstein then promised her career perks if he would stay and watch him pleasure himself in the tub according to Geiss.

‘As I went to get my purse to leave, he grabbed my forearm and led me to his bathroom, pleading that I just watch him masturbate. My heart was racing and I was very scared,’ said Geiss.

‘I pulled my arm away finally and headed to the door. He started following me and telling me that he could introduce me to Bob Weinstein and that I could get a three-picture deal and that he would green light my script but I had to watch him masturbate.’

She then added: ‘I was on the verge of tears but I pulled it together and quickly exited.’

Running free: Katherine Kendall (above) fled from Weinstein's apartment after he asked for a massage while naked

Running free: Katherine Kendall (above) fled from Weinstein’s apartment after he asked for a massage while naked

KATHERINE KENDALL

Katherine Kendall was 23 when Weinstein incited her to a screening with him in 1993 at a theater in Lincoln Center, right near his Central Park apartment.

The two stopped by the apartment soon after because Weinstein wanted to grab something, and the Kendall came along after the two had enjoyed what she thought was a fruitful discussion about her career.

No sooner had they arrived however than Weinstein appeared in his bathrobe and asked for a massage according to the actress.

He then left the room and returned naked said Kendall.

‘He literally chased me,’ said the actress, who would go on to star in ‘Swingers.’

‘He wouldn’t let me pass him to get to the door.’

Weinstein then asked Kendall to show her breasts at the very least, which she declined to do before leaving, but the entire evening made her question her coice of profession.

Kendall said that as she left she thought: ‘If this is what it takes, I can’t do it.’

TOMI-ANN ROBERTS

When she a 20-year-old waitress trying to break in to the film industry, Tomi-Ann Roberts got the chance to meet with Weinstein and audition for a film he was making at the time.

She arrived to find Weinstein ina  tub, at which point he encouraged her to take off her top since there would be a topless scene in the film she claims.

He then told her if she was not comfortable taking off her top then she would not be able to do it on camera according to Roberts.

She left, and to this day finds it hard to watch Weinstein’s films.

DAWN DUNNING

An aspiring actress, Dawn Dunning landed a screen test at Miramax in 2003 followed by dinner with Weinstein.

She was told to meet him in his suite that night because his meetings were running late, and found him with contracts for his three next films placed in fronty of him seh said.

Dunning claims she was then told she could sign on for a role in each if she would have three-way sex with Weinstein.

She denied the request.

‘You’ll never make it in this business,’ she said Weinstein told her.

‘This is how the business works.’

‘Any allegations of non-consensual sex are unequivocally denied by Mr. Weinstein. Mr. Weinstein has further confirmed that there were never any acts of retaliation against any women for refusing his advances,’ said a spokesperson for Weinstein.

‘Mr. Weinstein obviously can’t speak to anonymous allegations, but with respect to any women who have made allegations on the record, Mr. Weinstein believes that all of these relationships were consensual.

‘Mr. Weinstein has begun counseling, has listened to the community and is pursuing a better path. Mr. Weinstein is hoping that, if he makes enough progress, he will be given a second chance.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4966816/Harvey-Weinstein-accused-raping-Asia-Argento.html#ixzz4v8qq9DyR

Story 2: Meet Nicholas Dudich Liar for Big Lie Media New York Times — Project Veritas Strikes Again — Videos

James O’Keefe’s Statement Regarding NYT Reaction to Project (Subtitulado)

American Pravda, NYT Part I – Slanting the News & A Bizarre Comey Connection

James O’Keefe at FreedomFest: The State of the Media

FreedomFest 2017: O’Keefe Moderates Saul Alinsky Panel FULL

The Truth About Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

Who was Saul Alinsky?

Why you should know Saul Alinsky

Speaking Truth To Power | James O’Keefe and Stefan Molyneu

O’Keefe Frames #FakeNews WaPo’s RETRACTION

CNN Producer: Voters “Stupid as Sh*t”– American Pravda: CNN Part 3

Project Veritas Scalps the New York Times

CNN’s PR nightmare continues thanks to 2nd Project Veritas video

BURNED: CNN implodes, begs for forgiveness, while Project Veritas plays its Zapruder film.

HANNITY REACTS TO VAN JONES GETTING EXPOSED BY JAMES O’KEEFE & PROJECT VERITAS

VAN JONES EXPOSED! TUCKER CARLSON REACTS TO PROJECT VERITAS EXPOSING CNN

James O’Keefe Blows The Whistle On Mob Boss Hillary Clinton

#CNNLeaks: James O’Keefe of Project Veritas Releases CNN Leaks and Offers Bounty for Its Destruction

 

American Pravda, NYT: Slanting the News and a Bizarre Comey Connection

Nick Dudich, Audience Strategy Editor for NYT Video, Says the Times Slants Anti-Trump News to the Front Page, “Oh, we always do.”

Claims to Be “Gatekeeper” for New York Times Videos: “My imprint is on every video we do.”

Worked for Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama Campaigns

Admits He Won’t Be Objective, “That’s why I’m here [at the NYT].”

NYT Ethical Handbook: “Journalists… must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times.”

Says Former FBI Director James Comey Is His Godfather, “I should have recused myself”

Dudich’s Family Members Deny Comey Claim

Continuation of American Pravda Series Which Began With CNN Videos

(NEW YORK) – Project Veritas has released a video of the New York Times video gatekeeper Nicholas Dudich, who was caught on hidden-camera boasting of his lack of journalistic ethics. Dudich, who serves as Audience Strategy Editor, displays a lack of integrity throughout the video, manages videos which go “on Facebook, YouTube, Instagram” for the Times.

While talking about being objective at the Times, Dudich replies candidly, “No I’m not, that’s why I’m here.

Dudich considers himself an important player at the New York Times, telling the Project Veritas Journalist “my voice is on… my imprint is on every video we do.”

Dudich goes on to explain what he might do to target President Trump:

“I’d target his businesses, his dumb fuck of a son, Donald Jr., and Eric…

“Target that. Get people to boycott going to his hotels. Boycott… So a lot of the Trump brands, if you can ruin the Trump brand and you put pressure on his business and you start investigating his business and you start shutting it down, or they’re hacking or other things. He cares about his business more than he cares about being President. He would resign. Or he’d lash out and do something incredibly illegal, which he would have to.”

When the undercover journalist asks Dudich if he could make sure that the anti-Trump stories make it to the front, he replied, “Oh, we always do.”

As stated in the NYT Ethical Handbook, the goal of the New York Times is to “cover the news as impartially as possible.” It continues in Section 62:

“Journalists have no place on the playing field of politics. Staff members are entitled to vote, but they must do nothing that might raise questions about their professional neutrality or that of The Times.”

Before working at the Times, Dudich worked on the political campaigns of both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

In 2016, he was recruited to work for the Clinton campaign:

“So I have that background, so when Clinton in 2016… they needed a volunteer strategist to do video… well, they needed someone to help them do video, and how to make it heartfelt, for Clinton.”

He even had to quit his job in journalism in order to work for the Clinton campaign: “I had to leave my job at Fusion ABC to then take a job at Upworthy where I wasn’t deemed a journalist anymore to be able to work for the Clinton campaign.”

Dudich explains how his activism motivated him to re-engage in the news business: “Like, after the Clinton campaign, I’m like, no I need to get back into news and keep doing shit because, like, this isn’t going to change.”

Nicholas Dudich also told the undercover journalist bizarre stories about his personal connection to the FBI and his previous excitement as part of Anti-Fa.

“Yeah, I used to be an Anti-Fa punk once upon a time.” he told the undercover journalist. “So, I had fun. They’d start s**t, I’m like, I get to hit you. I’m so excited.”

He also claims that James Comey, former Director of the FBI, asked him to join Anti-Fa: “I joined that stuff for them [the FBI]. I was an asset… So it was intelligence gathering, seeing if they were [sic], what their agenda was, whether they’re a threat or not.”

“How’d you meet Comey?” asked the Project Veritas journalist. “He’s my godfather,” Dudich explained. “My dad and mom knew him and his wife for a really long time.”

“Well the Comey hearing, I should have recused myself, but I’m not ever telling anybody there [at the Times] that I have a tie with that or else I don’t know if they can keep me on.”

According to the NYT Ethical Handbook, Section 107:

“Staff members may not write about people to whom they are related by blood or marriage or with whom they have close personal relationships, or edit material about such people or make news judgements about them.”

His father claims that the family does not know Comey. “Yeah, he’s embellishing. I don’t know why he would say that… Yeah, I don’t know why… he’s not James Comey’s godson. I don’t even know James Comey.”

When told that his father said he doesn’t know Comey, Dudich changes his story:

Dudich: “He’s not my Godfather.”

Undercover Journalist: “Then why did you say that?”

Dudich: “Eh, I don’t know… It’s a good story.”

“The fact remains that Nick Dudich lies and he’s a gatekeeper at the New York Times.” says Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe, “And that fact should be worrisome to the bosses at the paper of record. Who else are they letting spread misinformation in their name?

This is a continuation of Project Veritas’s American Pravda series, which began with a three-part expose on CNN in June.

https://breaking.projectveritas.com/NYTimes1.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-980

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

 

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

The Pronk Pops Show 706, June 23, 2016, Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Posted on June 24, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

 

Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Presidential Oath of Office

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

Article II, Section 3 of U. S. Constitution

 “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 

gun_control_works

 gunsitin lewis sitin tiny tryants sit in

Gun-control-dictators

2ndAmendment

if-more-people-were-armed

1st-american-rev-gun-rights

guncontroljapaneseamericans

crusades

2million2

to-conquer-a-nation-first-disarm-its-citizens

Real_Man's_Workstation

an_armed_man_is_a_citizen_an_unarmed_man_is_a_bumper_sticke

usa israel

gun free zones 2

gun-free-zone-clrgn free zones 4bomb free zones

no call 911

weapons

Medias-Guide

gun free zones

gun-free-zone

gun_free_zones_kill_people_tshirtsself-preservation

Paul Ryan: Gun sit-in a publicity stunt

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

GOP Representatives Attemptig To Thwart Democratic Gun Control Sit-In

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Reality Check: The True Intent Of The Second Amendment

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

The Judge on no-fly list gun ban push

Is a no-fly list gun ban legal?

Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control

Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List

No Fly List, No Guns?

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List is Unconstitutional

No Fly But You Can Buy Called ‘Insane’ By Obama

U.S. to Tell Americans Why They’re on No-Fly List

An “Assault” Weapons Ban Will Do Nothing to Prevent Murders & Simply Allows the Terrorists a Victory

Analyzing Obama’s response to the Supreme Court immigration ruling

Trump Endorses No Fly List Gun Ban

John Lott, Sheriff David Clarke, Bo Dittle on Hannity to discuss new push for gun control

John Lott on One America News Network to discuss Senate votes on gun control after Orlando

CPRC on the Glenn Beck TV Show to discuss debate over banning AR-15s

How’s It Goin’, Eh? With guests comedian Ian Bagg and gun expert John Lott

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

John Lott: At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?

John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”

John Lott: Myths of gun crime

Napolitano on constitutionality of Obama immigration actions

President Obama slams GOP for blocking Supreme Court nominee

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama’s Immigration Plan

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan

Obama Expresses Disapointment In Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Affirmative Action – LoneWolf Sager(◑_◑)

President Obama on Supreme Court Immigration Executive Actions Ruling (C-SPAN)

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immigration

WATCH: Paul Ryan Says Democrats #NoBillNoBreak Sit-In Was Publicity Stunt to Raise Money

Rep. John Lewis Leads Sit-In on House Floor

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

U. S. Supreme Court immigration decision: what you need to know

Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether the Obama administration could implement two immigration programs offering deportation halts to up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants.

The main initiative would have protected the foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, included renewable work permits.

The Obama administration also extended a 2012 executive action to cover more unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. The initiatives were the most sweeping immigration actions taken by President Obama in his two terms — and executed without a vote from Congress.

This is what you need to know after Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160623-u.-s.-supreme-court-immigration-decision-what-you-need-to-know.ece

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.”

Unfortunately, efforts of states to recoup costs resulting from the current invasion of illegal aliens have so far failed. An Arizona case on this matter was rejected in 1997. The Arizona Republic article Justices reject state bid to recoup costs of illegals, Oct. 7, 1997 states:

Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison…

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an “invasion” of illegal border crossers…

“Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona’s borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government’s example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona’s unprotected borders,” Arizona argued in its high court appeal.

An October 7, 1997 LA Times article Court Rejects Claim That U.S. Is Liable for Immigrant Costs states:

The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion.” But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being “invaded” by a hostile, foreign power.

The issue of who pays… is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.

 

It is abundantly clear that our politicans lack the will to honor our Constitution. We encourage you to ask your public officials, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution:

  • if they support this provision;
  • what they plan to do to ensure implementation of this provision;
  • and then hold them to their commitment.

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html

 

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

  • Nick Wing Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
  • Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.

    Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.

    Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

    While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist:

    1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.

    This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections.

    In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?

    2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

    According to the document, “postings on social media sites … should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe.

    3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

    The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list.

    4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

    The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established.

    5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

    Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.”

    But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism … but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.”

    6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.

    The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.

    7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

    The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.

    The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.

    But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.”

    And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.

    The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

     

    No Fly List

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government‘s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), of people who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of theUnited States. The list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that is not flying to or from the U.S. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting.[citation needed] There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

    The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, orracial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

    The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[2][3]

    History

    Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[4][5] The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[5] In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[4][5] By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.[4] For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.[4]

    The No Fly List program came to public light “when prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”[4] In October 2006, CBS News‘s 60 Minutes reported on the program after it obtained a March 2006 copy of the list containing 44,000 names.[6]

    Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;[7] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[8] In January 2006, the FBI and ACLU settled a federal lawsuit, Gordon v. FBI, brought by Gordon and Adams under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain information about how names were added to the list.[8] Under the settlement, the government paid $200,000 in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.[9] A separate suit was brought as a class action “filed by people caught in the name game.”[7] In response, “TSA created an ombudsperson process, whereby individuals now can download and print out a Passenger Identity Verification Form and mail it, along with certain notarized documents, to the TSA “so the agency can differentiate the individual from others who may be on the list.”[7]

    In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI,[10] contained 700,000 records.[11] A year later, the ACLUestimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[12][13][14] However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees” who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”[15]

    As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[16][17] In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names.[18] In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list.[19][20]

    Weapons purchases by listed persons

    In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[21] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[22]

    Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[21][22][23] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[21]

    Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[21] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[24]

    The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: “There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.”[25] Specifically, the ACLU’s position is that the government’s current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause because the process does not “provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”[25]

    In December 2015, Feinstein’s amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[26] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, put forth a competing proposal to “give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.”[26] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[26] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Coryn measure were largely along party lines.[26]

    Vulnerabilitie

    False positives

    A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.[citation needed]

    When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in the reservation that prevents the passenger from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not he or she is the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use either check-in method will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.[citation needed]

    In order to be issued a boarding pass, “false positive” passengers must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, he or she will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.[citation needed]

    Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.[citation needed]

    In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[27] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.[citation needed]

    Notable cases

    False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

    • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[28][29][30]
    • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[31]
    • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit, has been arrested and detained because his name was on the No Fly List.[32]
    • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly. He has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[33][34] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[35] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[36]
    • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[6]
    • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[38] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[39]
    • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[40]
    • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[41][42]
    • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” Replied Murphy, “I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[43]
    • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[44][45]
    • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [46] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
    • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[47]
    • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[44][48]
    • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[49]
    • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[50]
    • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[51]
    • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[52]
    • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[53]
    • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities; they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[54]
    • On 19 August 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into US airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU’s policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into US airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On 20 March 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Mssr. Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
    • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009 because, as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed that he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[56]
    • In June 2010, The New York Times reported that Yahya Wehelie, a 26-year-old Muslim-American man, was being prevented from returning to the United States, and was stranded in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him on the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to fly. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[57] In July 2010, Wehelie was permitted to fly to New York under a federal waiver.[58]
    • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[57]
    • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[59] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items, including a cell phone and media player.[60]
    • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [61]
    • In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed “to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.” Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62]

    DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

    The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

    Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

    DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk.[citation needed] It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

    However, DHS TRIP has not been very helpful to travelers who accidentally end up on the No Fly List, as their efforts to clear their names are often futile to the extent that they are not told why they are on the list.[63]

    Lawsuits

    On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union “filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government’s No Fly List”, in which they charge that “many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names.”[64] The case was settled in 2006, when “the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the ACLU of Northern California” and to “[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government’s secret ‘no fly’ list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001.”[8] On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[65] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[66] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[65]

    A Malaysian academic has been the first to successfully bring a suit involving the No Fly List to trial. On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, overturning a lower court decision and allowing her case against inclusion in the No Fly List to proceed through the court system.[67] A public trial began on December 2, 2013 in San Francisco in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup.[68] The judge frequently cleared the courtroom following the requests of government lawyers (even though the judge himself once declared that the reasons “don’t make much sense sometimes.”)[69][not in citation given] After the government revealed that Ibrahim had ended up on the list because of human error by the FBI,[70] Alsup ruled on January 14, 2014 “that Ibrahim did have the right to sue and ordered the government to tell Ibrahim whether she is still on the list.”[71]

    Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[72] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[73]Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.[74] On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Mohamed’s lawsuit.[75] On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.[76]

    Controversy and criticism

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long criticized the No Fly List and similar list because of the lack of notification to persons included on such lists. The ACLU’s stance is that the government has not provided a constitutionally adequate means of allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion on the list[77] and that “constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.”[78]

    Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[79]

    The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[by whom?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.

    The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.[69]

    In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[80] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.

    In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[81] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[82]

    No fly lists in other countries

    The government of Canada has created its own no fly list as part of a program called Passenger Protect.[83] The Canadian list incorporates data from domestic and foreign intelligence sources, including the U.S. No Fly List.[84] It contains between 500 and 2,000 names.[85]

    See also

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

    Is It an Invasion? — Constitution’s Invasion Clause Won’t Work

    By Barnaby Zall
    Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)

    In the recent movie Mars Attacks, President Jack Nicholson calls out the American military to battle aliens invading from Mars. The earthlings can’t do anything about the invasion for most of the movie. All their advanced technology is ineffective until a donut maker discovers that ancient recordings of yodeling literally explode the aliens. It may feel like the middle of that movie in some communities on our southern border.

    Residents of southern border areas certainly feel that they are being invaded. At a July 24, 2000, meeting of the Cochise County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mike Palmer estimated that 60 percent of the sheriff’s patrol division resources are spent responding to problems related to illegal immigration. Murphy, “Supes award grant funds to ease local border woes,” Sierra Vista [Arizona] News, Aug. 10, 2000, p.1, col. 2-3. The direct costs to the sheriff’s department were $2,900,798. Id. There were other costs in health care, legal defense for indigents, and additional firearms needed to deal with high-powered arsenals used by smugglers. Id.,p.3. With unreim-bursed health care costs driving her hospital into bankruptcy, one administrator reported that the costs to Copper Queen Community Hospital have tripled in less than a year. The federal government generously reimbursed the County only one-fifth of its costs a measly $778,000. Id.,p.1.

    Perhaps Arizona ranchers beset by hordes of illegal immigrants crossing their lands could ask for federal assistance to set up huge speaker systems playing yodels or modern rock music? Music aside, it isn’t likely that the afflicted ranchers and counties can easily make a federal case of it. The courts have repeatedly held that immigration and border protection decisions are “political,” and they won’t interfere.

    At first blush, it seems clear that the U.S. Constitution should protect the ranchers, health care workers, and county governments against this heavily-armed invasion. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution known as the “Invasion Clause” says: “The United States … shall protect [the States] against Invasion.” So why doesn’t the Invasion Clause protect border areas from this invasion?

    There are three highly-technical legal reasons:

    1. It’s not the right kind of invasion;

    2. The federal government can choose not to act; and

    3. It’s a “political question” which the courts won’t touch.

    INVASION

    The Invasion Clause in the U.S. Constitution says “invasion,” but it doesn’t say what an invasion is. In a way this is odd, since, among the Founders, the topic of protection against invasion was one of the most important reasons to discard the old Articles of Confederation in favor of the new Constitution with a federal government. See, e.g., “Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 24 July 1788,” Elliot 4:15-26 (Statement of Mr. Davie: “The general objects of the union are, 1st, to protect us against foreign invasion; 2d, to defend us against internal commotions and insurrections; 3d, to promote the commerce, agriculture, and manufacturers, of America. These objects are requisite to make us a safe and happy people, and they cannot be attained without a firm and efficient system of union.”); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston, 1833, � 481.

    But the lack of a definition may have been because all the Founders knew, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the predatory antics of States under the Articles of Confederation, what “invasion” meant. One of the few statements by the Founders about the Invasion Clause was by James Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788. Madison said:

    “A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”

    Thus, Madison included both invasions from foreign powers and from other States. This view was reiterated by Founder William Rawle, who used the example of a State which refused to “refer its controversies with another state to the judicial power of the Union.” Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1829.

    Later the new Congress enacted a law providing for a militia, to be called up in the event of an invasion. Act of February 28, 1795, c. 101. That Act provided

    “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Id.

    This description of invasion was more narrow, dealing only with foreign nations and Indian tribes.

    The Supreme Court interpreted this Act, following the War of 1812, in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827), a case brought by a man who refused to enter the militia as required, but the actual issues involved the declarations by the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut that they had the power to judge for themselves whether the militia should be called out. The Supreme Court held unanimously that

    “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. . . . The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.” Id.

    The Supreme Court noted that any abuse of the President’s power would be corrected by elections or Congress’s “watchfulness.” Id. Thus, the definition of invasion was left to the President alone, and the Supreme Court said that any errors in judgment would have to be corrected by the political process.

    Of course, not everyone is enamored of the views of the Founders. Some people believe that invasion includes pollution and “greed.” (See, e.g. http://www.article4.com, citing Diamond, “If You Can Keep It: A Constitutional Roadmap to Environmental Security,” Brass Ring Press, 1996.) Others believe that right now there is an “ongoing clandestine invasion” by space aliens who abduct and assault Arizonans. Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. United States, U.S. District Court for Arizona, filed Sept. 1, 1999.

    Courts, on the other hand, take a much more narrow view of the term “invasion,” usually referring to Madison’s Federalist No. 43. See, e.g., Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause “offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term �invasion’ to mean anything other than a military invasion.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: “there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.”).

    Thus, except as described below, it would be unlikely that the afflicted areas in Arizona could get courts to consider the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants as an “invasion.”

    FEDERAL DECISION

    As noted above, it is the President’s decision to call something an invasion. The Founders considered calling federal protection into a State to be such an important decision that it was to be left to the President alone. Martin v. Mott. Oversight was to be by Congress and the people (through an election) Id.

    The President does have the power to stop the influx of illegal immigration. Although Congress has “plenary” (complete) power over immigration, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977), it has delegated the administration of immigration policy to the President and the Attorney General, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. �� 1101 et seq. The Attorney General is principally charged with enforcing the immigration laws, with some duties undertaken by the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. � 1103. Under Section 212(f) of that Act, the President may “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds that the entry of any aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. � 1182(f).

    In 1997, Attorney General Reno announced a new policy to block illegal immigration by shifting more resources to border enforcement in “traditional illegal crossing and drug smuggling traffic patterns along the southern border.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Strategic Plan, 1997-2002,” September 1997, 17. The new policy was successful in blocking many traditional illegal entry patterns, but the policy did not provide enough resources to block nontraditional entry points. The results were that illegal migration shifted heavily to the ranches and deserts of southern Arizona.

    But it’s not as if the federal government is doing nothing, or is doing the wrong thing in stopping illegal immigration. The budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is over three billion dollars a year, with much of that money going to the Border Patrol. And the new border control policy has reduced illegal immigration (though by how much is still a matter of some contention).

    So it’s not likely that the border communities will be able to claim that the federal government is not doing anything to help them.

    POLITICAL ISSUE

    But the most important roadblock to using the Invasion Clause to force more federal assistance to border communities is the “political question” doctrine. Courts will not get involved in matters that are too political. And every court which has reviewed Invasion Clause claims has refused to intervene because the questions are too political.

    At heart, the courts won’t consider political questions because of the constitutional structure separating the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial. Where the Constitution commits a policy area to the political branches of government, the courts won’t step in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

    As noted above, immigration is committed to the political branches, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. at 792. Every court to have considered whether immigration comes within the Invasion Clause has declared the question to be political and refused to step in. See, e.g., Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994)(rejecting claim that federal government permit-ted “economic invasion” of Hawaii by Japanese); Chiles v. U.S., 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1674 (1996)(rejecting Florida’s attempt at same claim for reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration as other states mentioned above).

    IS THERE A WAY TO PROCEED?

    So are the border communities simply out of luck? Can they ever get any relief from the federal government for the massive influx of illegal immigrants suddenly streaming across their property?

    It would be a difficult road, but the way is not entirely blocked. There are two possible avenues available to them. The first, and most obvious, is political pressure. If, as the courts have decreed, this is a political question, then the solution is also political. There is no active constituency for illegal immigration in Washington (as opposed to those who either ignore or like illegal immigration or those who promote legal immigration), and a well-organized attempt to increase border resources might return some semblance of peace to the border communities.

    The second method is to find a sympathetic judge who will let the border communities tell their tale and allow them some relief. This was the method used by the Haitian community in past years; the immigration laws blocked attempts by Haitian refugees themselves to get judicial review of federal policies requiring their deportation. But federal Judge James Lawrence King ignored the ban on judicial review on the basis of a fiction that he was really hearing the claims of American citizens whose constitutional rights were violated by low-level officials. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), aff’g, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984). Perhaps the border communities could convince another judge that their claims for violations are just as great as the Haitian communities’.

    There are also legal grounds for this review which do not rely on the Invasion Clause. For example, the border communities might challenge the new enforcement policy as an illegal taking of their property, or as having failed a required procedural or environmental review. These constitutional or statutory rights will be mixed up with the political and policy questions which courts refuse to consider, but they might also entice an appropriate federal judge to take a chance on reviewing them. And a little-known secret of American constitutional law is that the choice of the original judge is critically important to establishing or contesting constitutional doctrines; federal judges’ decisions are usually sustained on appeal. Thus, if the border communities can craft an appropriate and appealing legal case and find a sympathetic judge, they may well find some relief in the courts.

    But as for using the Invasion Clause itself, it’s not likely to be a fruitful exercise.

    Finally, our trade policies do not discourage American employers from following a low-skill, low-wage strategy. We should imbed labor standards in all our trade rules, requiring nations that export to us to respect the freedom to organize and bargain collectively, to maintain a safe and healthful work place, to prohibit forced labor and the exploitation of children. These labor standards would put a floor under international wage competition and help US managers to manage better rather than trying to compete by reducing labor standards. We have inserted these standards in every US trade bill passed in the 1980s, but to be effective, we need to make them a part of the GATT system. ?

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_123.shtml

    KEY POINTS

    1. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    2. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
    3. Presidents must not be allowed to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore
    4. When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but both houses of Congress must act together.
    5. Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
    6. The House of Representatives will bring a lawsuit challenging the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of Obamacare.
    7. This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm constitutional principles, including the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.

    The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

    A‌braham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way ‌to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating.

    In 1838, early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. It was entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In it, he said:

    Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

    He went on to say:

    When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.

    When Lincoln refers to religiously observing the law “for the sake of example,” he is referring also to the example of the American Republic itself as an example to the world. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy.

    We in the House of Representatives, who face reelection every two years under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means we can successfully avail ourselves of.

    The President and the Take Care Clause

    Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

    The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

    Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.[1]

    When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.

    Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is the electoral process. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

    As Lincoln said, “Let reverence for the laws be … enforced in courts of justice.” It is the courts’ duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.

    A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn’t say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore it under the Constitution. Whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this President and, in all likelihood, future Presidents will continue to nullify Congress’s legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment, in court, of a clear principle to the contrary.

    Challenging the President’s Failure to Faithfully Execute the Laws

    The stakes for inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House.

    Unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years—including the Federal Reserve Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tax Reform Act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century—the Obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. Indeed, and uniquely, it had none. There was no bipartisan political compromise.

    What provisions of Obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections: How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.

    Imagine the future if this new, unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which his unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply.

    In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President’s political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.

    Sign one bill into law; enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat—until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. Whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to pursue it.

    Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

    The Supreme Court and Presidential Power

    The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the authority of the President to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. As early as the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon executive branch officials by law, as well as the official’s corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive.

    The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in an 1838 case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, involving the President’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that “[t]o contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution; is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”[2] The Court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute “would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”[3]

    A century later, in what has become the seminal case on executive power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court reasoned as follows:

    In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute…. The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.… The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.[4]

    And as the Court stated just this past term in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, “The power of executing the laws … does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[5]

    While the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: The Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House of Representatives as an institution. It has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past, and each time it has refused.

    Individual Members of Congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury, butRaines v. Byrd, the leading Supreme Court case on legislator standing, “does not stand for the proposition that Congress can never assert its institutional interests in court,” as it has been described by one federal district court judge.[6] Indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies.”[7]

    In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Raines itself that it “attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [plaintiffs] have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suits.”[8] In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the Members in that case did not initiate the lawsuit on behalf of their respective house of Congress.

    Further, the courts routinely hear lawsuits involving the enforcement of subpoenas approved by federal legislative bodies. They do so because the subpoena power of each house of Congress derives from its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution, and if Congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. When the executive branch refuses to give a congressional body the information it requests, it impedes the legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases.

    But today, the President is not only impeding the legislative power; he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation. And if the federal courts can hear cases in which Congress’s legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with a subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which its legislative power is completely nullified.

    Finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts’ weighing in on separation of powers disputes. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.[9]

    The Court has also stated that:

    Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.[10]

    The federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separation of powers concerns. Those cases include Bowsher v. Synar, regarding the execution of the laws; INS v. Chadha, regarding the legislative veto; Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, and Myers v. United States, regarding the removal of appointed officials; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Supreme Court just last term unanimously rejected the President’s recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had announced it was in session.[11]

    Conclusion

    The House of Representatives—the branch of our federal government closest to the people—has voted many times to repeal Obamacare, which remains as unpopular as ever, but the Senate and the President have ignored Americans’ dislike for the law. They have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the obverse of the paraphrase of Lincoln that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” is true as well and aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current Administration: The best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement. The House of Representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws off the books.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2014/the-presidents-duty-to-faithfully-execute-the-law

    BREAKING: Supreme Court Splits On Immigration, Voiding Obama Protection For Millions [VIDEO]

    Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

    List of United States immigration laws

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted in the United States.

    Year Name of Legislation/Case Major Highlights
    1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
    1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
    1798 Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

    Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

    Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

    • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
    • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
    • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
    1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
    • Extended the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
    • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per theNaturalization Act of 1790
    1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
    • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
    • The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
    • strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
    • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
    1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
    • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
    • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
    • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
    • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
    • The Act was “a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China].” [2]
    1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
    1891 Immigration Act of 1891
    • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
    • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
    • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
    • Empowered “the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws”.[4]
    1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
    1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
    1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
    1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
    • Standardized naturalization procedures
    • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
    • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
    1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
    1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
    1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
    1921 Emergency Quota Act
    • Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

    “An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]

    1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
    1924 Immigration Act(Johnson Act)
    • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
    • Began a national-origin quota system.
    1924 National Origins Formula
    • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
    • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
    • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
    • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
    • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
    1934 Equal Nationality Act of 1934
    • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
    • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
    1930s Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
    1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”
    1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
    1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act)
    • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
    • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected ofCommunist sympathies.
    1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596 The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
    1954 A wave of illegal immigration came from Mexico in the early 1950s, but it was dampened by President Eisenhower.[10]
    1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
    • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
    • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
    • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
    • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
    1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
    1970s The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.[11]
    1980s
    • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.[12]
    1982 Plyler v. Doe,[13] 457 U.S. 202 (1982)The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, receive 14th amendment protections and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
    1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
    • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
    • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[14]
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
    1990s Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[15] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[16]
    1990 Immigration Act
    • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
    • Created a diversity admissions category.
    • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed] [17]
    1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[18] the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
    1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA)
    • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
    • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[19]
    1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
    Post 9/11/2001
    • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[17]
    • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[20]
    2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
    • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
    • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
    • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[21]
    2005 REAL ID Act
    • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
    • Created more restrictions on political asylum
    • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
    • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
    • Altered judicial review
    • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
    • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.

     

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-706

    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 )