The Pronk Pops Show 1177, November 20, 2018, Story 1: President Trump Wanted To Prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey — Missed Golden Opportunity To Bring The Plotters of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy To Justice — The American People Demand Justice and Prosecutions — Appoint A Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute Plotters — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch and Tom Fitton — Videos — Story 2: Wrap Up The Mueller Investigation or Face The Consequences — Videos — Story 3: U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar Opposes Trump Efforts To Stop Illegal Alien Invasion of United States and Enforce Immigration Law By Issuing A Temporary Restraining Order and Trump Reacts — Videos — Story 4: Trump’s Principled Realism Foreign Policy — Back To 1946 — Videos 

Posted on November 21, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Elections, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Fifth Amendment, First Amendment, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, James Comey, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Mental Illness, National Interest, News, Obama, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Robert S. Mueller III, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Software, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Surveillance/Spying, Terror, Terrorism, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1177 November 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1176 November 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1175 November 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1174 November 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1173 November 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1172 November 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1171 November 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1170 November 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1169 November 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1168 November 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1167 November 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1166 October 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1165 October 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1164 October 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1163 October 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1162 October 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1161 October 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1160 October 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1159 October 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1158 October 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1157 October 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1156 October 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1155 October 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1154 October 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1153 October 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1152 October 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1151 October 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1150 October 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1149, October 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1148, September 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1147, September 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1146, September 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1145, September 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1144, September 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1143, September 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1142, September 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1141, September 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1140, September 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1139, September 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1138, September 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1137, September 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1136, September 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1135, September 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1134, September 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1133, August 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1132, August 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1131, August 27, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1130, August 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1129, August 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1128, August 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1127, August 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1126, August 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1125, August 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

 

Story 1: President Trump Wanted To Prosecute Hillary Clinton and James Comey — Missed Golden Opportunity To Bring The Plotters of The Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy To Justice — The American People Demand Justice and Prosecutions  — Appoint A Second Special Counsel To Investigate and Prosecute — Three Cheers For Judicial Watch and Tom Fitton — Videos

See the source imagehttps://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51bcQvf%2B-pL._AC_SY200_.jpgSee the source image

Donald Trump threatens to prosecute Hillary Clinton

Fitton: ‘OUTRAGEOUS’ that DOJ and State Dept. CONTINUE to Protect Hillary Clinton

Judicial Watch

Streamed live on Nov 20, 2018

In this edition of “Inside Judicial Watch,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton gives an update on some of the key cases and investigations Judicial Watch is involved with, including the Clinton email scandal, the Mueller probe into alleged Trump/Russia collusion during the 2016 election, and the midterm election recount in Florida.

Judicial Watch did a REAL Investigation into Clinton Email Scandal While FBI Didn’t

Tom Fitton on credibility problems of DOJ and FBI

Published on Dec 13, 2017

New FBI text messages draw a possible connection to Obama

Published on Feb 7, 2018

#FBI Texts Hint at Obama Involvement in Deep State FISA Abuse, Treason and Sedition

Dershowitz: ‘Terrible Mistake’ If Trump Ordered DOJ to Investigate Clinton, Comey

Media pounce on report Trump wanted Clinton, Comey probes

Dem and GOP lawmakers call for dueling investigations

Trump wanted to prosecute Hillary Clinton, James Comey

Joe diGenova on Comey and Lynch Subpoenas

Should Whitaker recuse himself from the Russia probe?

Trump speaks out on Ivanka’s private emails, Saudi Arabia

WATCH: House Republicans hold news briefing regarding special counsel

House Republicans call for second special counsel

DOJ watchdog: James Comey broke protocol in Clinton probe

Today News – Here’s Why the New York Times Bombshell Report Could Be the Finishing Touch for Mueller

Trump on Justice Department and Comey: ‘The end result was wrong’

Hillary Clinton committed a myriad of crimes: Gregg Jarrett

Hillary Clinton should be prosecuted, says Judge Andrew Napolitano

New York Times vs. Donald Trump – The Fifth Estate

The New Trump TV Network: Providing the Death Knell of MSM But A Vital Citizen Connection to Truth

 

Report: Trump wanted to prosecute Comey, Hillary Clinton

yesterday
James Comey

FILE – In this Thursday, June 8, 2017, file photo, former FBI director James Comey speaks during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill, in Washington. A published report says President Donald Trump told his counsel’s office last spring he wanted to prosecute political adversaries Hillary Clinton and Comey. The New York Times says the idea prompted White House lawyers to prepare a memo warning of consequences ranging up to possible impeachment (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik, File)

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump told his counsel’s office last spring that he wanted to prosecute political adversaries Hillary Clinton and former FBI Director James Comey, an idea that prompted White House lawyers to prepare a memo warning of consequences ranging up to possible impeachment, The New York Times reported Tuesday.

Then-counsel Don McGahn told the president he had no authority to order such a prosecution, and he had White House lawyers prepare the memo arguing against such a move, The Associated Press confirmed with a person familiar with the matter who was not authorized to discuss the situation. McGahn said that Trump could request such a probe but that even asking could lead to accusations of abuse of power, the newspaper said.

Presidents typically go out of their way to avoid any appearance of exerting influence over Justice Department investigations.

Trump has continued to privately discuss the matter of prosecuting his longtime adversaries, including talk of a new special counsel to investigate both Clinton and Comey, the newspaper said, citing two people who had spoken to Trump about the matter.

Trump has repeatedly and publicly called on the Justice Department to investigate Clinton, and he has tweeted his dismay over what he saw as former Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ reluctance to go after Clinton. Trump’s former lawyer, John Dowd, urged Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in a memo last year to investigate Comey and his handling of the Clinton email investigation.

Sessions last year said he was directing senior federal prosecutors to look into matters raised by House Republicans related to the Clinton Foundation and a uranium mine transaction benefiting the foundation that was approved when Clinton was secretary of state. The FBI has been investigating that matter. Sessions, in March, told lawmakers that he was not prepared to appoint a special counsel to investigate the FBI and potential political bias there.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the report. McGahn’s lawyer, William Burck, also did not respond to a request for comment.

___

Associated Press writers Eric Tucker and Chad Day contributed to this report.

https://www.apnews.com/060ca2399a744b4a9554dbd2ec276a90

Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton

President Trump stoked his enmity for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 race and since taking office has publicly and privately revisited the idea of prosecuting her.CreditCindy Ord/Getty Images for 
Image
President Trump stoked his enmity for Hillary Clinton during the 2016 race and since taking office has publicly and privately revisited the idea of prosecuting her.CreditCreditCindy Ord/Getty Images for Glamour

By Michael S. Schmidt and Maggie Haberman

WASHINGTON — President Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.

The encounter was one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies. It took on additional significance in recent weeks when Mr. McGahn left the White House and Mr. Trump appointed a relatively inexperienced political loyalist, Matthew G. Whitaker, as the acting attorney general.

It is unclear whether Mr. Trump read Mr. McGahn’s memo or whether he pursued the prosecutions further. But the president has continued to privately discuss the matter, including the possible appointment of a second special counsel to investigate both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Comey, according to two people who have spoken to Mr. Trump about the issue. He has also repeatedly expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton, calling him weak, one of the people said.

A White House spokesman declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the F.B.I. declined to comment on the president’s criticism of Mr. Wray, whom he appointed last year after firing Mr. Comey.

“Mr. McGahn will not comment on his legal advice to the president,” said Mr. McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck. “Like any client, the president is entitled to confidentiality. Mr. McGahn would point out, though, that the president never, to his knowledge, ordered that anyone prosecute Hillary Clinton or James Comey.”

It is not clear which accusations Mr. Trump wanted prosecutors to pursue. He has accused Mr. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Mr. Comey wrote about his interactions with the president. The document contained no classified information.

Mr. Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Mr. Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement officials declined their requests. Mr. Comey is a witness against the president in the investigation by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III.

Mr. Trump has expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times
Mr. Trump has expressed disappointment in the F.B.I. director, Christopher A. Wray, for failing to more aggressively investigate Mrs. Clinton.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

Mr. Trump repeatedly pressed Justice Department officials about the status of Clinton-related investigations, including Mr. Whitaker when he was the chief of staff to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, according to a person with direct knowledge of the conversations. CNN and Vox earlier reported those discussions.

In his conversation with Mr. McGahn, the president asked what stopped him from ordering the Justice Department to investigate Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton, the two people familiar with the conversation said. He did have the authority to ask the Justice Department to investigate, Mr. McGahn said, but warned that making such a request could create a series of problems.

Mr. McGahn promised to write a memo outlining the president’s authorities. In the days that followed, lawyers in the White House Counsel’s Office wrote a several-page document in which they strongly cautioned Mr. Trump against asking the Justice Department to investigate anyone.

The lawyers laid out a series of consequences. For starters, Justice Department lawyers could refuse to follow Mr. Trump’s orders even before an investigation began, setting off another political firestorm.

If charges were brought, judges could dismiss them. And Congress, they added, could investigate the president’s role in a prosecution and begin impeachment proceedings.

Ultimately, the lawyers warned, Mr. Trump could be voted out of office if voters believed he had abused his power.

Mr. Trump’s frustrations about Mr. Comey and Mrs. Clinton were a recurring refrain, a former White House official said. “Why aren’t they going after” them?, the president would ask of Justice Department officials.

For decades, White House aides have routinely sought to shield presidents from decisions related to criminal cases or even from talking about them publicly. Presidential meddling could undermine the legitimacy of prosecutions by attaching political overtones to investigations in which career law enforcement officials followed the evidence and the law.

Perhaps more than any president since Richard M. Nixon, Mr. Trump has been accused of trying to exploit his authority over law enforcement. Witnesses have told the special counsel’s investigators about how Mr. Trump tried to end an investigation into an aide, install loyalists to oversee the inquiry into his campaign and fire Mr. Mueller.

In addition, Mr. Trump has attacked the integrity of Justice Department officials, claiming they are on a “witch hunt” to bring him down.

Mr. Trump has accused the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with reporters.CreditJustin Tang/The Canadian Press, via
Mr. Trump has accused the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, without evidence, of illegally having classified information shared with reporters.CreditJustin Tang/The Canadian Press, via Associated Press

More significant, Mr. Mueller is investigating whether the president tried to impede his investigation into whether any Trump associates conspired with Russia’s campaign to sow discord among the American electorate during the 2016 presidential race.

Mr. Trump stoked his enmity for Mrs. Clinton during the campaign, suggesting during a presidential debate that he would prosecute her if he was elected president. “If I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation,” Mr. Trump said.

“It’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country,” Mrs. Clinton replied.

“Because you would be in jail,” Mr. Trump shot back.

During the presidential race, Mr. Whitaker, a former United States attorney, also said he would have indicted Mrs. Clinton, contradicting Mr. Comey’s highly unusual public announcement that he would recommend the Justice Department not charge her over her handling of classified information while secretary of state.

“When the facts and evidence show a criminal violation has been committed, the individuals involved should not dictate whether the case is prosecuted,” Mr. Whitaker wrote in an op-ed in USA Today in July 2016.

Two weeks after his surprise victory, Mr. Trump backed off. “I don’t want to hurt the Clintons, I really don’t,” Mr. Trump said in an interview with The Times. “She went through a lot and suffered greatly in many different ways, and I am not looking to hurt them at all. The campaign was vicious.”

Nonetheless, he revisited the idea both publicly and privately after taking office. Some of his more vocal supporters stirred his anger, including the Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro, who has railed repeatedly on her weekly show that the president is being ill served by the Justice Department.

Ms. Pirro told Mr. Trump in the Oval Office last November that the Justice Department should appoint a special counsel to investigate the Uranium One deal, two people briefed on the discussion have said. During that meeting, the White House chief of staff, John F. Kelly, told Ms. Pirro she was inflaming an already vexed president, the people said.

Shortly after, Mr. Sessions wrote to lawmakers, partly at the urging of the president’s allies in the House, to inform them that federal prosecutors in Utah were examining whether to appoint a special counsel to investigate Mrs. Clinton. A spokeswoman for the United States attorney for Utah declined to comment on Tuesday on the status of the investigation.

Mr. Trump once called his distance from law enforcement one of the “saddest” parts of being president.

“I look at what’s happening with the Justice Department,” he said in a radio interview a year ago. “Well, why aren’t they going after Hillary Clinton and her emails and with her, the dossier?” He added: “I am not supposed to be doing the kind of things that I would love to be doing. And I am very frustrated.”

Michael S. Schmidt reported from Washington, and Maggie Haberman from New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/politics/president-trump-justice-department.html

Story 2: Bombshell is A Dud– President Responds in Writing To Mueller Questions — Time To Wrap Up The Mueller Investigation–No Evidence Trump Colluded With Russians Nor Obstructed Justice — Videos — 

President Trump Submits Written Answers To Mueller’s Questions In Russia Probe | TIME

Hannity: Trump’s ‘unprecedented cooperation’ with Mueller

Sean Hannity 11/20/18 Fox News November 20, 2018

Joe diGenova on Mueller Wrap Up

Story 3: U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar Opposes Trump Efforts To Stop Illegal Alien Invasion of United States and Enforce Immigration Law By Issuing A Temporary Restraining Order and Trump Reacts — Videos 

Trump: Federal courts in Ninth Circuit ‘very unfair’

Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts’ rebuke

Trump hands over responses to Robert Mueller’s team

Homan: Trump’s efforts to protect US are met with lawsuits

Tucker Carlson Tonight 11/20/18 | Breaking Fox News | November 20, 2018

What Happens When Democrats Run Your State?

‘Two-States of California’- Victor Davis Hanson at American Freedom Alliance

On Watch: Exposing Mainstream Media Lies About the Illegal Alien Invasion

Streamed live on Nov 21, 2018

In this episode of “On Watch,” Judicial Watch Director of Investigations & Research Chris Farrell joins filmmaker Ami Horowitz to discuss his recent trip to Mexico investigating the migrant caravan.

As Predicted, San Francisco-Based Obama Judge Blocks Trump Asylum Order

The migrant caravan makes its way to Juchitan from Santiago Niltipec, Mexico, October 30, 2018. (Hannah McKay/Reuters)

It took a few more days than I expected, but a San Francisco-based federal judge appointed by President Obama issued an order last night barring the administration from enforcing the asylum restrictions President Trump announced on November 9. U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar ruled that the president had unlawfully attempted to rewrite congressional law. (Mind you, these are the same federal judges who are striving to enshrine President Obama’s DACA program, an actual presidential rewrite of congressional law.)

Tigar’s predictable judicial usurpation of immigration and border security policymaking authority will no doubt be appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which will no doubt endorse the district judge’s gambit.

To repeat what I wrote ten days ago:

As I write on Friday, the restraining order hasn’t come down yet. But it’s just a matter of time. Some federal district judge, somewhere in the United States, will soon issue an injunction blocking enforcement of the Trump administration’s restrictions on asylum applications.

The restrictions come in the form of a rule promulgated jointly by the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, and a proclamation issued by President Trump. In conjunction, they assert that an alien who wishes to apply for asylum in the United States must act lawfully: An alien who is physically present here and wishes to apply must be in the country legally; an alien outside the country who wishes to apply must present himself at a lawful port of entry — not attempt to smuggle his way in or force his way in as part of a horde (i.e., no invasions by caravan).

Of course, what used to be assumed is today deemed intolerable. It is no longer permitted to expect of non-Americans what is required of Americans — adherence to American law while on American soil.

Therefore, the fact that the administration’s action is entirely reasonable will not matter. No more will it matter that, contrary to numbing media repetition, the rule and proclamation derive from federal statutory law. Nor will it make any difference that, in part, the president is relying on the same sweeping congressional authorization based on which, just four months ago, the Supreme Court affirmed his authority to control the ingress of aliens based on his assessment of national-security needs.

Just two things will matter. The first is that the asylum restrictions represent a Trump policy that reverses Obama policies — specifically, policies of more lax border enforcement, and of ignoring congressionally authorized means of preventing illegal aliens from filing frivolous asylum petitions (with the result that many of them are released, evading further proceedings and deportation). The second is that, precisely to thwart the reversal of Obama policies, President Obama made certain that the vast majority of the 329 federal judges he appointed were progressive activists in the Obama mold.

The media-Democrat complex will tell you this is “the rule of law.” In reality, it is the rule of lawyers: the Lawyer Left on the front line of American decision-making, a line that runs through courtrooms, not Capitol Hill.

The people of the United States, through their elected representatives, have empowered the president to suspend or impose conditions on the ingress of aliens if he finds their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” How can it be denied that the illegal entry of aliens — which patently undermines the rule of law — is detrimental? Yet, there is certain to be a race to be the first judge to issue a restraining order, to champion an imaginary right of aliens to seek asylum however they damn well please.

Congratulations Judge Tigar, you win the prize!

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/san-francisco-based-obama-judge-blocks-trump-asylum-order/

California Judge Blocks New Trump Rule Restricting Asylum

Judge Jon Tigar, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Photo: Jason Doiy/ALM)

A California judge late Monday issued a nationwide order blocking the Trump administration’s efforts to restrict asylum-seekers, saying a new rule imposed eligibility conditions that went beyond the powers granted by Congress.

The Trump administration’s rule and a related presidential proclamation restricting asylum claims on the southern border to those individuals who enter the U.S. at designated ports run afoul of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, said Judge Jon Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. In some instances, he said, the rule would have categorically prevented some immigrants from making asylum claims.

“The rule barring asylum for immigrants who enter the country outside a port of entry irreconcilably conflicts with the INA and the expressed intent of Congress,” Tigar wrote. “Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden.”

Tigar imposed a nationwide injunction—the latest against a Trump administration immigration policy—that is set to run at least until Dec. 19. The ruling came just hours after a hearing in San Francisco federal district court, where the American Civil Liberties Union, representing nonprofit plaintiffs, argued against the so-called asylum ban. A related court hearing also was held Monday in Washington, D.C.

U.S. Justice Department lawyer Scott Stewart argued the Trump administration’s asylum rule did not flatly bar asylum-seekers so long as they enter through designated U.S. ports.

Tigar’s ruling is certain to be challenged by the Trump administration, which has railedagainst the number of nationwide injunctions blocking immigration and other policies. Tigar said he would meet with the lawyers in the case on Dec. 19 to review whether a preliminary injunction should be imposed.

“Potential asylum seekers are exposed to numerous harms while waiting to present their claims, including not only physical privations like physical assault but also the loss of valuable, potentially meritorious claims for asylum,” Tigar wrote. “The rule, when combined with the enforced limits on processing claims at ports of entry, leaves those individuals to choose between violence at the border, violence at home, or giving up a pathway to refugee status.”

ACLU attorney Lee Gelernt said in a statement: “This ban is illegal, will put people’s lives in danger, and raises the alarm about President Trump’s disregard for separation of powers. There is no justifiable reason to flatly deny people the right to apply for asylum, and we cannot send them back to danger based on the manner of their entry. Congress has been clear on this point for decades.”

In the Washington case, Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia did not issue an immediate ruling. Sullivan in August drew national headlines when he ordered the U.S. government to turn around a plane midflight carrying a woman and her daughter who had been seeking asylum. The judge was incensed that the government, despite assertions to the contrary, had removed the family amid emergency proceedings in the case.

Read the order:

https://www.law.com/therecorder/2018/11/20/california-judge-blocks-new-trump-rule-restricting-asylum/?slreturn=20181021165005

Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers

Women and children in Tijuana, Mexico, on Saturday after getting a number to apply for asylum at the entrance of the border crossing to the United States.CreditMauricio Lima for The New York Times
Women and children in Tijuana, Mexico, on Saturday after getting a number to apply for asylum at the entrance of the border crossing to the United States.CreditCreditMauricio Lima for The New York Times

By Miriam Jordan

LOS ANGELES — A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to resume accepting asylum claims from migrants no matter where or how they entered the United States, dealing at least a temporary setback to the president’s attempt to clamp down on a huge wave of Central Americans crossing the border.

Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court in San Francisco issued a temporary restraining order that blocks the government from carrying out a new rule that denies protections to people who enter the country illegally. The order, which suspends the rule until the case is decided by the court, applies nationally.

“Whatever the scope of the president’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden,” Mr. Tigar wrote in his order.

As a caravan of several thousand people journeyed toward the Southwest border, President Trump signed a proclamation on Nov. 9 that banned migrants from applying for asylum if they failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only those who entered the country through a port of entry would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to protect the integrity of the United States borders.

But the rule overhauled longstanding asylum laws that ensure people fleeing persecution can seek safety in the United States, regardless of how they entered the country. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center and the American Civil Liberties Union, swiftly sued the administration for effectively introducing what they deemed an asylum ban.

After the judge’s ruling on Monday, Lee Gelernt, the A.C.L.U. attorney who argued the case, said, “The court made clear that the administration does not have the power to override Congress and that, absent judicial intervention, real harm will occur.”

“This is a critical step in fighting back against President Trump’s war on asylum seekers,” Melissa Crow, senior supervising attorney for the Southern Poverty Law Center, one of the other organizations that brought the case, said in a statement. “While the new rule purports to facilitate orderly processing of asylum seekers at ports of entry, Customs and Border Protection has a longstanding policy and practice of turning back individuals who do exactly what the rule prescribes. These practices are clearly unlawful and cannot stand.”

The Center for Constitutional Rights also joined in the suit.

President Trump, when asked by reporters about the court ruling on Tuesday, criticized the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the liberal-leaning court where the case will likely land, calling it a “disgrace.” He labeled Judge Tigar an “Obama judge.”

“Our asylum system is broken, and it is being abused by tens of thousands of meritless claims every year,” Katie Waldman, spokeswoman for the Department of Homeland Security, and Steve Stafford, the Justice Department spokesman, said in a statement.

They said the president has broad authority to stop the entry of migrants into the country. “It is absurd that a set of advocacy groups can be found to have standing to sue to stop the entire federal government from acting so that illegal aliens can receive a government benefit to which they are not entitled,” they said. “We look forward to continuing to defend the executive branch’s legitimate and well-reasoned exercise of its authority to address the crisis at our southern border.”

Presidents indeed have broad discretion on immigration matters. But the court’s ruling shows that such discretion has limits, said Stephen Yale-Loehr, an immigration scholar at Cornell Law School.

“The ruling is a significant blow to the administration’s efforts to unilaterally change asylum law. Ultimately this may have to go to the Supreme Court for a final ruling,” said Mr. Yale-Loehr.

The advocacy groups accused the government of “violating Congress’s clear command that manner of entry cannot constitute a categorical asylum bar” in their complaint. They also said the administration had violated federal guidelines by not allowing public comment on the rule.

But Trump administration officials defended the regulatory change, arguing that the president was responding to a surge in migrants seeking asylum based on frivolous claims, which ultimately lead their cases to be denied by an immigration judge. The migrants then ignore any orders to leave, and remain unlawfully in the country.

“The president has sought to halt this dangerous and illegal practice and regain control of the border,” government lawyers said in court filings.

Mr. Trump, who had made stanching illegal immigration a top priority since his days on the campaign trail, has made no secret of his frustration over the swelling number of migrants heading to the United States. The president ordered more than 5,000 active-duty troops to the border to prevent the migrants from entering.

The new rule was widely regarded as an effort to deter Central Americans, many of whom request asylum once they reach the United States, often without inspection, from making the journey over land from their countries to the border.

United States immigration laws stipulate that foreigners who touch American soil are eligible to apply for asylum. They cannot be deported immediately. They are eligible to have a so-called credible fear interview with an asylum officer, a cursory screening that the overwhelming majority of applicants pass. As result, most of the migrants are released with a date to appear in court.

In recent years, more and more migrants have availed themselves of the asylum process, often after entering the United States illegally. A record 23,121 migrants traveling as families were detained at the border in October. Many of the families turn themselves in to the Border Patrol rather than queue up to request asylum at a port of entry.

The Trump administration believes the migrants are exploiting asylum laws to immigrate illegally to the United States. Soaring arrivals have exacerbated a huge backlog of pending cases in the immigration courts, which recently broke the one-million mark. Many migrants skip their court dates, administration officials say, only to remain illegally in the country, which Mr. Trump derides as “catch and release.”

But advocates argue that many migrants are victims of violence or persecution and are entitled to seek sanctuary. Gangs are ubiquitous across El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, where lawlessness and corruption enable them to kill with impunity.

Daniel Victor contributed reporting from Hong Kong.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

Jon S. Tigar

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigationJump to search

Jon Steven Tigar
Judge Jon S. Tigar.jpg
Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Assumed office
January 18, 2013
Appointed by Barack Obama
Preceded by Saundra Brown Armstrong
Personal details
Born Jon Steven Tigar
October 8, 1962 (age 56)
LondonUnited Kingdom
Education Williams College (B.A.)
UC Berkeley School of Law (J.D.)

Jon Steven Tigar (born October 8, 1962) is a United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

Early life and education

Tigar was born in LondonEngland in 1962.[1] His father is retired law professor Michael Tigar.[2] Tigar earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in 1984 from Williams College and a Juris Doctor degree in 1989 from UC Berkeley School of Law.[3] He graduated Order of the Coif,[1] was an Articles Editor of the California Law Review, and served as a Research Assistant to Professor Melvin Eisenberg. In 1989, Tigar served as a law clerk for United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Judge Robert Smith Vance.[3][4]

Professional career

From 1990 until 1992, Tigar served as a litigation associate for the law firm Morrison & Foerster. He then served as a public defender in San Francisco from 1993 until 1994[3] Tigar practiced complex commercial litigation at the law firm Keker & Van Nest from 1994 until 2002.[3] From 2002 to 2013, Tigar served as a judge on the Alameda County Superior Court.[3] Tigar is a member of the American Law Institute and serves as an Adviser to the forthcoming Restatement (Third) of Torts: Liability for Economic Loss.[4]

Federal judicial service

On June 11, 2012, President Obama nominated Tigar to be a judge on the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, taking the seat vacated by Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong, who took senior status on March 23, 2012.[3] The United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary held a hearing on his nomination on July 11, 2012, and reported his nomination to the floor on August 2. The Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent on December 21, 2012, and he received his commission on January 18, 2013.[4]

Notable decisions

On November 19, 2018 Tigar issued a nationwide restraining order that barred the Trump administration from denying asylum to immigrants who crossed over the southern border between points of entry.[5][6]

References

External links

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_S._Tigar

Story 4: Trump’s Principled Realism Foreign Policy —  Back To 1946 — Videos

America and the World, 2017-2018 | Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson, the Wayne and Marcia Buske Distinguished Fellow in History at Hillsdale College, is also a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of classics emeritus at California State University, Fresno. Dr. Hanson earned his B.A. at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and his Ph.D. in classics from Stanford University. In 2007, he was awarded the National Humanities Medal, and in 2008, he received the Bradley Prize. He is a columnist for National Review Online and for Tribune Media Services, and has published in several journals and newspapers, including Commentary, the Claremont Review of Books, The New Criterion, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. Dr. Hanson has written or edited numerous books, including Wars of the Ancient Greeks, A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War, and his latest book, The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.

Victor Davis Hanson reveals the nature of history, politics and the left

Victor D Hanson; Explains Perfectly how Trump pulled off the biggest Upset in Presidential History

Donald Trump’s entire foreign policy speech

U.S. Foreign Policy in the Trump Era: The Future of Great Power Politics

U.S. Foreign Policy: The Fate of Realism and Restraint in the Trump Era

The publication of the National Security Strategy (NSS) is a milestone for any presidency. A statutorily mandated document, the NSS explains to the American people, U.S. allies and partners, and federal agencies how the President intends to put his national security vision into practice on behalf of fellow citizens.

First and foremost, President Donald J. Trump’s NSS is a reflection of his belief that putting America first is the duty of our government and the foundation for effective U.S. leadership in the world. It builds on the 11 months of Presidential action thus far to renew confidence in America both at home and abroad.

Four vital, national interests—organized as the strategy’s four pillars—form the backbone of this commitment:

  1. Protect the homeland, the American people, and the American way of life
  2. Promote American prosperity
  3. Preserve peace through strength
  4. Advance American influence

This NSS and its four themes are guided by a return to principled realism.

The strategy is realist because it is clear-eyed about global competition: It acknowledges the central role of power in world affairs, affirms that sovereign states are the best hope for a peaceful world, and clearly defines our national interests. It is principled because it is grounded in the knowledge that promoting American values is key to spreading peace and prosperity around the globe.

President Trump’s ultimate goal is to leave our children and grandchildren a Nation that is stronger, better, freer, prouder, and greater than ever before.

Read a summary of the President’s National Security Strategy here.

The full NSS report is available for download here.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/new-national-security-strategy-new-era/

President Trump at the UN: An Unapologetic Defense of “Principled Realism”

Sep 28th, 2018 5 min read

COMMENTARY BY Brett D. Schaefer

Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs

Brett D. Schaefer is the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs at Heritage’s Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom.
President Trump speaks at the 73rd General Debate at the United Nations General Assembly at United Nations Headquarters at in New York City on September 25, 2018. MONIKA GRAFF/UPI/Newscom

Addressing the United Nations for the second time in his presidency, Donald Trump spoke first to the American people, using the opportunity to tout his domestic policies and successes. “The United States is stronger, safer and a richer country than it was when I assumed office less than two years ago,” he proclaimed.

However, the bulk of the speech outlined and defended his foreign policy and international priorities—exactly what you’d expect in a speech before the world’s leaders. 

North Korea was featured prominently, as it was in last year’s speech . However, the tone could not have been more different. In 2017, the Trump warned, “Rocket Man is on a suicide mission for himself and for his regime.” This year, he expressed optimism in ongoing negotiations with North Korea. While noting that progress has been made, the president smartly cautioned that much remains to be done and vowed that “sanctions will stay in place until denuclearization occurs.”

Trump also highlighted the diplomatic effort in the Middle East to address the situation in Syria, combat ISIS, and deal with other points of instability. He reaffirmed America’s determination to “respond if chemical weapons are deployed by the Assad regime,” assist the refugees displaced by the war, and participate in UN peace negotiations.

He reserved his strongest warning for Iran:

Iran’s leaders sow chaos, death and destruction. They do not respect their neighbors or borders, or the sovereign rights of nations. Instead, Iran’s leaders plunder the nation’s resources to enrich themselves and to spread mayhem across the Middle East and far beyond . . . The Iran deal was a windfall for Iran’s leaders. In the years since the deal was reached, Iran’s military budget grew nearly 40 percent. The dictatorship used the funds to build nuclear-capable missiles, increase internal repression, finance terrorism, and fund havoc and slaughter in Syria and Yemen . . . We cannot allow the world’s leading sponsor of terrorism to possess the planet’s most dangerous weapons. We cannot allow a regime that chants “Death to America,” and that threatens Israel with annihilation, to possess the means to deliver a nuclear warhead to any city on Earth. Just can’t do it.

He made clear that the United States will continue to ratchet up pressure on Iran through sanctions and urged other nations to “support Iran’s people as they struggle to reclaim their religious and righteous destiny.” Iran is a serious threat, and the administration is right to confront it.

The most consistent theme of the speech was a robust defense of American sovereignty and security.

Early on, the president stated, “America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination. I honor the right of every nation in this room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions.” He concluded the speech by noting, “Sovereign and independent nations are the only vehicle where freedom has ever survived, democracy has ever endured, or peace has ever prospered. And so we must protect our sovereignty and our cherished independence above all.”

These bookends encapsulate the U.S. belief that sovereignty derives from the governed and that efforts to impose rules, restrictions, or principles via supranational institutions upon the American people without our consent are objectionable and unjust. This notion threads through the speech in several passages including:

– The direct rejection of the International Criminal Court that claims authority to investigate and prosecute Americans even though the United States has never joined the court.

– The defense of the decision to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in accordance with the right of every sovereign state to “determine its own capital.” Indeed, each of the last three U.S. presidents had promised to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem in accordance with U.S. law, but only President Trump actually followed through.

– The right of nations to control their borders and “confront threats to sovereignty from uncontrolled migration.”

However, the speech at times flirted unhelpfully with the idea that the United States would not criticize other nations or seek to advance core principles that America has embraced for decades. For instance, the president stated, “The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honor our sovereignty in return.”

If the United States does believe that sovereignty is derived from the governed, then it must be a champion of civil and political rights around the world as well as self-government. Americans should not tell others how to worship, but they must instead defend their freedom to worship as their conscience dictates. This does not mean that the United States has an obligation to intervene or take direct action when people are denied these rights, but the United States should not and must not stand silent.

In fact, the failure of the Human Rights Council to champion human rights consistently and forthrightly was a central reason for the U.S. decision to withdraw from the Council this summer. This was the correct decision , and the president rightly praised Ambassador Nikki Haley’s leadership in leaving that gravely flawed body. However, the United States undermines its case if it is silent in the face of repression.

Indeed, the president’s condemnation of the “human tragedy” in Venezuela in his speech is a case in point. The president is right—socialism and communism have “produced suffering, corruption, and decay” wherever it has been tried. We do people no favors by refraining from urging them to avoid that misery or failing to condemn repressive governments that deny their people fundamental rights and freedoms.

The president also defended his recent trade actions based on sovereignty. There is no doubt that nations have the right to defend their economic interests and respond when other nations violate agreed rules, such as Chinese theft of intellectual property. But the economic benefits of trade between nations are well established and the long-term interests of the American people should lead the administration to support free trade, not protectionism.

Finally, the president focused on the need to advance U.S. interests in the UN, including asking the UN to be “more effective and accountable” and more evenly share the burden of supporting its activities. This is certainly a reasonable expectation for the largest financial supporter of the UN and is a goal pursued by U.S. administrations going back decades.

He also stated that “[m]oving forward, we will only give foreign aid to those who respect us and our friends.” This is a broad statement and not entirely clear. America provides assistance for many purposes, and it is not useful to tie allocation of all aid to support for the United States at the UN. Linking humanitarian and security aid to support of U.S. policy priorities would undermine the purposes and effectiveness of that aid. However, the United States also provides assistance to advance its broader foreign-policy interests. The UN is an important institution where governments make significant decisions, and it is entirely appropriate to use this assistance to increase support for U.S. priorities in the UN.

Overall, the speech was quintessential Trump. It was an unapologetic defense of his “principled realism” approach to foreign policy—one that elevates the interests of the United States and protection of the American people above all and explicitly rejects the more idealized global leadership role favored by the foreign-policy establishment—with significant divergence in means and goals—on the left and the right. This approach wins few plaudits in Turtle Bay and Washington, but appeals strongly to those who most concern Trump: non-coastal Americans who have grown increasingly concerned that their circumstances and welfare are irrelevant to the decisionmakers in Washington.

https://www.heritage.org/global-politics/commentary/president-trump-the-un-unapologetic-defense-principled-realism

 

The National Interest

September 26, 2018 Topic: Security Region: Americas Tags: Donald TrumpUnited NationsForeign PolicyPopulismPatriots

Trump’s Foreign Policy Successes Show Principled Realism in Action

Trump has overcome internal resistance and external pressure to deliver a string of foreign-policy successes.

by Salvatore Babones

President Donald Trump took a lot of ribbing Tuesday morning at the United Nations for proclaiming, in his usual modest style, that his administration had “accomplished more than almost any administration in the history of our country.”

But if the claim smacks of hyperbole, then the hyperbole is at least well deserved. The economy is booming, the military is rapidly recovering from fifteen years of overextension, and the Trump administration is concluding trade deals in record time.

And all this has come despite the fact that much of the country’s expert class, including many people employed in the federal government itself, have been desperately hoping for failure. If it is true that the Trump presidency is unprecedented, then it is equally true that the existence of an organized resistance campaign among erstwhile public servants is unprecedented.

Yet Trump has overcome internal resistance and external pressure to deliver an as yet uninterrupted string of foreign-policy successes : North Korea’s “Rocket Man” Kim Jong-un hasn’t launched a rocket in ten months; America’s NATO allies are finally starting to deliver on pledges to increase defense spending toward the 2 percent of GDP target agreed in 2006 ; Mexico has seemingly come to terms on long-overdue NAFTA reforms; the United States has stayed out of the Arab world’s interminable wars in Syria, Libya and Yemen; and the U.S. embassy in Israel moved to Jerusalem in May without sparking the Third Intifada predicted by Trump’s opponents.

Perhaps just as important (from a U.S. perspective), America’s long-term enemies are nearly all on the run. The Russian economy is crumbling. The Venezuelan economy has crumbled. The Iranian economy, which boomed after the nuclear deal was signed in 2015, has come back down to earth since Trump took office, and stagnated since he pulled the United States out of the deal in May.

And then there’s China. Back in December 2016, just a few weeks before Trump took office, China staged a “Trump Test,” exactly as predicted by U.S. Naval War College Professor Andrew S. Erickson. A Chinese ship sent marines on a speedboat to seize a surveillance drone from under the stern of a U.S. Navy oceanographic survey vessel. President Barack Obama politely asked for the return of the device. President-elect Trump told China to keep the drone —and implied that things would get tougher when he took office.

Under the Obama administration, Chinese forces regularly harassed U.S. vessels navigating the South China Sea. That doesn’t happen under the Trump administration. What’s more, China is now enforcing UN sanctions against North Korea, cooperation that has been crucial to bringing Kim to the nuclear bargaining table. And though China regularly threatens and bullies Taiwan, it has done little more than issue bland propaganda statements in response to expanding U.S. weapons sales to the island. Even the Trump administration’s full court press on trade has not disrupted U.S. relations with China. If anything, China’s behavior has improved.

Principled Realism

The secret to the Trump team’s success is its embrace of principled realism : in its simplest terms, the faith that America’s goals are just and American power should be exercised to support those goals. Since taking office a year and a half ago, Trump has forcefully applied American power—while avoiding his predecessors’ equation of power with military force. As a result, America is getting its way on the world stage, generally without putting American lives at risk to get it. That’s about as win-win as things come in international relations.

If anyone doubts that this newfound realism is principled, just look at the targets: North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Russia and China. Trump has exerted strong pressure on America’s NATO allies as well—to arm themselves against Russia and other regional threats. And on international trade, Trump has pressured just about everyone to stop unfair and often illegal trading practices.

Now that the Trump era is well and truly underway, it is worth remembering that Hillary Clinton’s “reset” in U.S.-Russia relations was a hallmark of the Obama administration’s first term foreign policy. It ended in Russia’s seizure of Crimea and a proxy war in Eastern Ukraine that continues today. John Kerry’s signature issue at the start of Obama’s second term was Israeli-Palestinian peace. Nine months of inconclusive talks ended in the 2014 war in Gaza.

It may be too soon to declare victory for principled realism, but the early signs are certainly encouraging. Other countries do not always accept the principle that America’s goals are just, but history has usually vindicated the United States in the long run. And in any case, as Trump is fond of pointing out, he is not the president of the world. He is the president of the United States of America.

Two weeks into that presidency, one of America’s most respected foreign-policy scholars summarily declared that Trump Has Already Blown It , while Obama administration veterans were labeling Trump’s foreign policy the “ Grand Strategic Train Wreck .” With the midterm elections now looming, there’s little chance that these experts will admit that they were wrong. But as long as the voters keep seeing results, the chances are that Trump will stay on target.

Salvatore Babones is the author of The New Authoritarianism: Trump, Populism, and the Tyranny of Experts .

Image: U.S. President Donald Trump participates in a signing ceremony for the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement with South Korean President Moon Jae-in on the sidelines of the 73rd United Nations General Assembly in New York, U.S., September 24, 2018. REUTERS/Carlos Barria

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/trumps-foreign-policy-successes-show-principled-realism-action-32042

Trump sets out national security strategy of ‘principled realism’ and global competition

President Trump spoke about dealing with Russia and China during a speech Dec. 18 in D.C., saying “We will stand up … like we have never stood up before.”

December 18, 2017

President Trump placed himself at the center of a new national security strategy Monday, casting his election as a pivot from failed policies pushed by his predecessors and presenting his “America First” doctrine as the organizing principle for U.S. engagement around the world.

In a year-end, campaign-style speech, the president emphasized his view that the United States has been cheated and taken advantage of abroad while its citizens were ill-served at home — a situation he said his security plan would seek to reverse.

“For many years, our citizens watched as Washington politicians presided over one disappointment after another; too many of our leaders — so many — who forgot whose voices they were to respect, and whose interest they were supposed to defend,” Trump said at the Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center in Washington, before an audience that included Cabinet secretaries, government workers and uniformed members of the military.

The National Security Strategy, a congressionally mandated mission statement, is supposed to guide an administration’s priorities for global engagement, economic bargaining and demonstrations of military strength.

While it is viewed as an important policy document, its release is usually a low-key affair and Trump is believed to be the only U.S. president to present the plan with a speech, an aide said. At times Monday, Trump seemed as intent on revisiting his electoral victory as he was on defining a new national security strategy for the country.

“You spoke loud and you spoke clear,” Trump said of his upset election last year. “On November 8, 2016, you voted to make America great again. You embraced new leadership and very new strategies and also a glorious new hope.”


President Trump speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin during a break at a leader’s meeting at the 25th Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Danang, Vietnam, on Nov. 11. (S/Kreml/Epa-Efe/Rex/Shutterstock/S/Kreml/Epa-Efe/Rex/Shutterstock)

Trump, as he did during the campaign, declared the United States must push for better trade deals to remain strong when it comes to national security. “Economic security is national security,” he said. “Economic vitality, growth and prosperity at home is absolutely necessary for American power and influence abroad.”

Yet many of the trade tactics he has advocated could end up hurting the U.S. economy.

He boasted of killing the Trans­-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact between a dozen countries, but supporters of the accord say it would have helped keep Chinese economic influence at bay.

The linkage Trump drew between economic and political power is valid, but Trump’s confrontational trade policies work against his own goals, said Nicholas Burns, a Harvard Kennedy School professor and former senior State Department official.

“He is right about the philosophical point, but all his practical policies undercut it,” Burns said.

C. Fred Bergsten, veteran trade expert at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, agreed.

“There’s a germ of truth in what he says,” Bergsten conceded. U.S. policy has failed to choke off intellectual property theft, especially in China. But, Bergsten added, “his overarching point that these are terrible [trade] deals, that they adversely affect U.S. economic interests, he’s never offered a shred of proof of that.”

Trump has dismissed this type of criticism and used the speech to emphasize one of his campaign themes — that past administrations got the short-end of trade agreements because they didn’t now how to cut deals.

“Our leaders in Washington negotiated disastrous trade deals that brought massive profits to many foreign nations but sent thousands of American factories and millions of American jobs to those other countries,” he said.

Trump also boasted of his decision to withdraw from the “very expensive and unfair Paris climate accord” that President Barack Obama agreed to two years ago. But supporters of the accord say it is a small step toward slowing global warming that could prove catastrophic economically as well as from a climate view. And Obama repeatedly argued that denial of climate science would undercut renewable energy technologies that the U.S. economy needs to remain competitive in the future.

Trump’s campaign theme of “America First” formed the foundation of his remarks.

“A nation that does not protect prosperity at home cannot protect its interests abroad,” Trump said. “A nation that is not prepared to win a war is a nation not capable of preventing a war. A nation that is not proud of its history cannot be confident in its future. And a nation that is not certain of its values cannot summon the will to defend them.”

Burns argued that “what’s missing from this document is any emphasis that the U.S. has to promote democracy and human freedom, which most American presidents — John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan — have felt was important. He’s weakening us on these essential foundations of American power.”

Trump highlighted claimed accomplishments — including on issues not directly related to national security — a list the administration contends has not received the attention it deserves.

Alongside withdrawal from what he called unfair trade and climate deals and a sharper focus on terrorism and border security, Trump listed a soaring stock market, deregulation and the likelihood of forthcoming tax cuts.

The national security strategy documents are broad outlines of U.S. policy that guide other, more specific planning such as nuclear and ballistic missile force posture.

Trump’s version has four main organizing principles: protecting the American homeland, protecting American prosperity, preserving peace through strength and advancing U.S. influence.

He presented China and Russia as competitors that want to realign global power in their interests, potentially threatening the United States. At the same time, he added, those nations can be partners in pursuit of shared interests.

That is a familiar theme from past administrations, but the Trump document frames the contest as one that previous U.S. leaders failed to adequately recognize or counter.

“China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity,” the document says. “They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence.”

The president said intellectual property theft would be targeted, a clear warning to China which American companies have complained about for years. “We will no longer tolerate trading abuse,” he warned.

As a candidate, Trump accused China of “raping” the United States economically and stealing jobs. As president, he has developed and trumpeted a warm relationship with Chinese President Xi Jinping, whom he credits with helping to apply pressure on North Korea over its nuclear weapons program.

Trump also pointed to his energy policies as a source of strength at home and abroad, suggesting that the United States could use its “energy dominance” to enhance its influence.

The Trump administration has indeed sought to open up more federal lands to coal, oil, and natural gas exploration and production, but most of the domestic energy boom took place under the Obama administration. Oil output under Obama grew by more than 4 million barrels a day and natural gas output in states like Pennsylvania, Texas and Oklahoma rose rapidly.

Trump has publicly complimented Russian President Vladimir Putin, calling him “very smart,” and has sought a better relationship with Russia after years of worsening ties under Obama. He has been openly skeptical of U.S. intelligence findings that Russia mounted a systematic effort to undermine the 2016 presidential election. But Trump has not reversed congressional sanctions on Russia over its actions in Ukraine, as Putin hoped he would.

The strategy document released Monday skirts the issue of Russia’s involvement in the presidential election.

“Through modernized forms of subversive tactics, Russia interferes in the domestic political affairs of countries around the world,” the document says.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-sets-out-national-security-strategy-of-principled-realism-and-global-competition/2017/12/18/7edcb0be-e412-11e7-ab50-621fe0588340_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.1fbe20ebc80e

National Security Strategy (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The National Security Strategy (NSS) is a document prepared periodically by the executive branch of the government of the United States for Congress which outlines the major national security concerns of the United States and how the administration plans to deal with them. The legal foundation for the document is spelled out in the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The document is purposely general in content (contrast with the National Military Strategy, NMS) and its implementation relies on elaborating guidance provided in supporting documents (including the NMS).

Contents

Purposes of the NSS Report

The stated intent of the Goldwater-Nichols legislation is broadly accepted as valid for effective political discourse on issues affecting the nation’s security–the Congress and the Executive need a common understanding of the strategic environment and the administration’s intent as a starting point for future dialogue. That said, however, it is understood that in the adversarial environment that prevails, this report can only provide a beginning point for the dialogue necessary to reach such a “common” understanding.[1]

The requirement of producing this report along with the budget request leads to an iterative, interagency process involving high level meetings that helps to resolve internal differences in foreign policy agendas. However, “this report was not to be a neutral planning document, as many academics and even some in uniform think it to be. Rather it was … intended to serve five primary purposes.” [1]

  1. Communicate the Executive’s strategic vision to Congress, and thus legitimize its requests for resources.
  2. Communicate the Executive’s strategic vision to foreign constituencies, especially governments not on the US’s summit agenda.
  3. Communicate with select domestic audiences, such as political supporters seeking Presidential recognition of their issues, and those who hope to see a coherent and farsighted strategy they could support.
  4. Create internal consensus on foreign and defense policy within the executive branch.
  5. Contribute to the overall agenda of the President, both in terms of substance and messaging.

Where the incoming executive team has not formulated a national security strategy, such as an after an election in which foreign policy and defense were not important campaign issues, the process of writing the report can be of immense importance:

Few things educate new political appointees faster as to their own strategic sensings, or to the qualities and competencies of the “permanent” government they lead within executive bureaucracies, than to have to commit in writing to the President their plans for the future and how they can be integrated, coordinated and otherwise shared with other agencies and departments. The ability to forge consensus among these competing views on direction, priorities and pace, and getting “on board” important players three political levels down from the president is recognized as an invaluable, if not totally daunting, opportunity for a new administration.[1]

Counterinsurgency objective

In order to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, according to the National Security Strategy of 2010, the United States needs to engage in a large amount of interagency cooperation and communication with the Muslim population in Afghanistan and throughout the world.[2] The objective of the National Security Strategy is to create a stable situation for the world, including those countries struggling with insurgencies. “The most effective long-term measure for conflict and resolution is the promotion of democracy and economic development.”[3] In order to promote democracy and economic development communication with the civilian population of the host-nation is essential. The Stability Operations Field Manual states that success depends on a U.S. ability to build local institutions and in the establishment of a legitimate permanent government, which builds trust between the citizens and the counterinsurgency personnel.”[3] The National Security Strategy establishes the interagency coordination in order to conduct useful public diplomacy to secure the population in the countries of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Previous national security strategies

The National Security Strategy issued on September 17, 2002 was released in the midst of controversy over the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive war which is contained therein.[4] It also contains the notion of military pre-eminence that was reflected in a Department of Defense paper of 1992, “Defense Policy Guidance”, prepared by two principal authors (Paul Wolfowitz and I. Lewis Libby) working under then US Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. The NSS 2002 also repeats and re-emphasizes past initiatives aimed at providing substantial foreign aid to countries that are moving towards Western-style democracy, with the “ambitious and specific target” of “doubl[ing] the size of the world’s poorest economies within a decade.”[4]:p. 21

The Bush doctrine emerges in the context of moving from the old Cold War doctrine of deterrence to a pro-active attempt to adjust policy to the realities of the current situation where the threat is just as likely to come from a terrorist group such as al-Qaeda as from a nation state such as Iraq or Iran.[5]

The document also treats AIDS as a threat to national security, promising substantial efforts to combat its spread and devastating effects.

The 2010 National Security Strategy

On May 26, 2010, the third most recent National Security Strategy was issued by President Barack Obama.[2]:p.8 The new Strategy was referred to by United Nations ambassador Susan Rice as a “dramatic departure” from its predecessor.[6] The Strategy advocated increased engagement with Russia, China and India.[7] The Strategy also identified nuclear non-proliferation and climate change as priorities,[8] while noting that the United States’s security depended on reviving its economy.[9] The drafters of the new Strategy made a conscious decision to remove terms such as “Islamic radicalism”, instead speaking of terrorism generally.[10]

The 2015 National Security Strategy

On February 6, 2015, the second most recent National Security Strategy was issued by President Barack Obama[11]:p.1310 to provide “a vision and strategy for advancing the nation’s interests, universal values, and a rules-based international order through strong and sustainable American leadership.” [12]

The 2017 National Security Strategy

President Donald Trump delivered his first national Security Strategy on December 18, 2017. The new document named China and Russia as “revisionist powers” while removing “climate change” as a national threat.[13] It also characterized the world as a competitive arena rather than a “community of nations” or “international community” as previous documents had.[14] NSS-2017 represents a break with past foreign policy doctrine. “My guess is that members of the Foreign Policy elite will encounter these first pages as a kind of boilerplate, even trite. Notice, though, that those two pages lead directly to a third page that repudiates the whole living body of American foreign policy thought. Everything since Ronald Reagan is rejected in two short paragraphs which explain exactly what four successive administrations got wrong.”[15]

Success, however, bred complacency. A belief emerged, among many, that American power would be unchallenged and self–sustaining. The United States began to drift. We experienced a crisis of confidence and surrendered our advantages in key areas. As we took our political, economic, and military advantages for granted, other actors steadily implemented their long-term plans to challenge America and to advance agendas opposed to the United States, our allies, and our partners.

We stood by while countries exploited the institutions we helped to build. They subsidized their industries, forced technology transfers, and distorted markets. These and other actions challenged America’s economic security. At home, excessive regulations and high taxes stifled growth and weakened free enterprise—history’s greatest antidote to poverty. Each time government encroached on the productive activities of private commerce, it threatened not only our prosperity but also the spirit of creation and innovation that has been key to our national greatness.[16]

See also

References

External links

In the media

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

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1174-1177

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1168-1173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1159-1167

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1151-1158

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1145-1150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1139-1144

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1131-1138

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1124. August 14, 2018, Story 1: Terrorist Vehicle Attack In London Outside Houses of Parliament with Three Injuries — Videos — Story 2: President Trump Outstanding National Defense Speech on Strengthen Armed Forces — Videos — Story 3: Waiting For Mueller To Wrap Up His Counter Intelligence Investigation of Russian Interference in U.S. Election — No Evidence of Russian Trump Collusion — American People Want It Completed Now! — Videos — Story 4: Lady and Trump — Dog Fight — Trump Punches Back At Ungrateful Omarosa Manigault Newman — American People Simply Do Not Care About Omarosa — Why Was She Hired in The First Place? — You Are Fired For Good — Videos

Posted on August 15, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, American History, Barack H. Obama, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Cartoons, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, Communications, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Eating, Elections, Employment, European History, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hate Speech, Health, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Islam, James Comey, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Military Spending, Networking, News, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religion, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Scandals, Security, Social Networking, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Trump Surveillance/Spying, Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1124, August 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1123, August 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1088, June 6, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1087, June 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1086, May 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1085, May 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1084, May 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

See the source imageSee the source imageSee the source imageSee the source image

See the source image

Image result for cartoon that dog doesn't hunt

See the source image

Story 1: Terrorist Vehicle Attack In London Outside Houses of Parliament with Three Injuries — Videos

Suspect is named

It is believed the driver of the car is a 29-year-old British citizen of Sudanese origin called Salih Khater, understood to be from Birmingham

British police say suspect in Parliament crash is not cooperating

Westminster car crash: Man arrested as pedestrians injured – BBC News

Police treating London car crash as act of terror

London incident being investigated as terror attack

Witness of London Terror Attack: ‘Thank God I Wasn’t Actually Hit’

Suspected terror attack outside London parliament

Westminster car crash ‘terror attack’: What we know so far about the incident

A man in his late 20s has been arrested on suspicion of terror offences after the crash in central London

By Zara Whelan

Mirror Reporter
  • 14:04, 14 AUG 2018
  • UPDATED16:00, 15 AUG 2018

A man has been arrested on on suspicion of terrorist offences after a car ploughed into pedestrians and cyclists outside Parliament.

The vehicle was seen careering through Parliament Square in Westminster before smashing into a barrier.

Armed police swooped on the scene and dramatic footage shows officers pull the driver out of the silver Ford at gunpoint.

Those who were nearby have told of how they had to “run” as the scene unfolded in central London at around 7.30am.

The Met Police confirmed a number of pedestrians have been injured in the incident, which occurred during rush hour this morning.

(Image: PA)

Police urged Londoners to remain vigilant, adding: “At this stage, we are treating this as a terrorist incident and the Met’s Counter Terrorism Command is now leading the investigation.”

Terrified eyewitnesses said it appeared the car was deliberately driven into the victims and barriers, and they ran for their lives fearing it was another terror attack in central London, the Mirror reports.

POLICE RESPONDING TO INCIDENT AT WESTMINSTER

The incident happened at the height of the morning commute and put the Palace of Westminster and surrounding area on lockdown.

Afterwards, the man who was arrested was not cooperating with detectives, and police were still trying to formally identify him, said Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu, head of Scotland Yard’s Counter-Terror Command.

Video shows horrifying series of events

Metropolitan Police undated handout photo of the silver Ford Fiesta after it crashed outside the Houses of Parliament in a suspected terror attack (Image: PA)

The harrowing incident was captured on a number of CCTV cameras in the area.

The footage shows the police pulling up and surrounding the driver of the car that had smashed into security barriers.

TIME LINE

Westminister Incident: Timeline of events

    1. 7.40am: Car is seen careering through Parliament Square

      At around 7.40am a car is seen driving erratically through Parliament Square, first crashing into a group of cyclists. The driver then moves off through the roads in the square before smashing into a barrier.

    2. Hundreds of officers swarm the scene

      Seconds later, police officers storm the scene and pull the driver of the vehicle at gunpoint – understood to be a man in his late 20s.
      Reports say he did not resist arrest and remained in the car until the police arrived.

  1. ‘Smoke and flames were coming out the vehicle’

    Bus driver Victor Ogbomo, 49, was driving passengers past the front of Westminster when he saw the crash.

    “All I saw was the smoke coming out of a vehicle, a silver vehicle … I just stopped the bus,” he said.

    “The police said we have to move back, then in less than five minutes the response team came.

    “They went to the vehicle, so we had to push back. I saw the car in the barrier, I didn’t know how it got there.

    “I think someone was inside the vehicle because many police went towards the vehicle.”

    He said officers had their guns out when they arrested the driver.

  2. Car hits cyclists and pedestrians ‘at 40mph’

    There were scenes of panic and chaos as the car crashed at 40mph, leaving victims injured on the floor in the aftermath, say eyewitnesses.

  3. Police assemble cordon

    Police assemble a cordon around Parliament Square and beyond into Westminster.
    Westminster tube station is closed and no-one is allowed in or out of the barriers.
    The cordon remains in place as investigations take place.

  4. Parliament workers told to stay away from windows fearing follow-up attack

    Workers trapped inside parliament square buildings were told to hide in basements and stay away from windows.

    Scott Hawkins, who works in IT support for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors in Westminster, was given the warning by police – sparking fears of snipers or a follow up attack.
    He said: “Police advised us to stay in the basement of our building as being near windows is a security risk right now.
    “I was walking through Parliament Square just before the crash so I missed the actual event.
    “The police have put our building on lockdown.
    “I have no idea when we will be allowed out.
    “They’re going to give us an update at 11am.”

  5. 11am: London Ambulance confirm third person injured

    London Ambulance Service have confirmed a third patient was treated at the scene – but was not taken to hospital.
    In its latest statement the emergency service said: “Two patients were treated at the scene and taken to hospital and a third patient with minor injuries was assessed at the scene.”

  6. 11.30am: MET Police release official statement

    The Metropolitan Police release an official statement.
    The Met Police’s assistant commissioner speaks to members of the press about the incident.

  7. Suspect is “not cooperating”

    Neil Basu said “The man is not co-operating with authorities at this stage.”

  8. Suspect not known to the authorities

    Neil Basu was asked whether the driver was someone that was known to officers or counter intelligence agencies, to which he replied: “We haven’t formally identified him yet and it’s too early to make that judgement.

    “On the details that we have at this moment we don’t believe this person is known to either MI5 or counter-terrorism police.”

  9. A deliberate attack but unknown motive

    Neil Basu asked whether the vehicle was deliberately driven at police officers in a targeted attack, to which he replied: “We can’t say that at this time. It certainly appears to be a deliberate attack act but the motivation is we can’t say.

  10. Transport police putting on extra patrols throughout the city

    British Transport Police (BTP) said it would be putting extra officers on patrols in England, Scotland and Wales on Tuesday afternoon and into the evening following the Westminster terror attack.

    Superintendent Chris Horton from BTP said: “We know incidents such as this are likely to cause concern, so our officers will be highly visible both on board trains and at stations.

    “We are there to reassure the travelling public, so please don’t be alarmed if you see our officers, including firearms officers, on your journey.”

  11. Cobra meeting to be held at 2pm today

    A meeting of the Government’s emergency cobra committee will be held at 2pm.

    This afternoon’s Cobra session will be a meeting of officials, with no cabinet ministers expected to attend at the moment, No 10 said.

    Prime Minister Theresa May is currently away in Switzerland on the second leg of her summer holiday.

  12. No other suspects

    Scotland Yard says there are no other suspects for the Westminster terror incident at this time, only the man arrested early this morning and there is “no intelligence at this time of further danger” to people in the capital

  13. 12.40pm: Forensic officers continue to work at the scene

    Pedestrians Injured As Car Crashes Into Security Barriers At Westminster

  14. Suspect is ‘believed to be from the midlands’

    Sources from Sky News confirm the suspect is believed to be from the midlands.

  15. Westminster Tube is open again

    Westminster Tube station has re-opened.

  16. Tourists seen posing just a few feet from suspected terror attack

    Photos have emerged of tourists posing for selfies on Westminster Bridge, just metres away from the scene of the suspected terror attack.

  17. Suspect is named

    It is believed the driver of the car is a 29-year-old British citizen of Sudanese origin called Salih Khater, understood to be from Birmingham

  18. Police raid tower block in Birmingham

    Police search a 10th floor flat in Brinklow Tower in Highgate Street, Birmingham in relation to the suspected terror attack on Westminster.
    Police in the midlands are carrying out searched in both Birmingham and Nottingham.

Eyewitness says ‘Car hit cyclists on wrong side of road before swerving into barrier’

Barry Williams told the Victoria Derbyshire show: “I heard a commotion and turned around to see a silver car heading towards the cyclists on the other side of the road. They were parked waiting for the lights to change.

“It hit the cyclists then swerved over towards where the safety barrier is where police make sure cars go through.

“It accelerated and hit it at quite a high speed.

“I wasn’t sure whether he meant to hit the cyclist they may just have been in the way but he accelerated hard towards the barrier

“Police were very fast they vaulted over the safety barrier and headed towards the car followed by obviously loads of armed police who were in the area.

He said the police then pushed people back from the crash.

“when it hit the barrier there was quite a lot of smoke and it hit with quite a jog – It actually came off the ground and landed again because it’s quite a light car.

A low-loader arrives at the scene near to the Houses of Parliament, Westminster in central London, after a car crashed into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament (Image: PA)

“(Police) rushed to the scene and they grabbed the bloke but then they seemed to walk away.

“After police got to the car they then started pushing us back towards where the lights were and that’s when I walked past and saw lots of pedestrians but also the cyclists -there was a few on the ground – some were holding their arms.

“There was bikes everywhere.”

He then added: “It was frightening but that’s why I was walking backwards – you never know who’s in the car.”

Attack condemned by many

In a statement on the attack, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said “all Londoners, like me, utterly condemn all acts of terrorism on our city”.

“The response of Londoners today shows that we will never be cowed, intimidated or divided by any terrorist attack,” he said.

PM Theresa May has praised the response from the emergency services:

UK Prime Minister

@10DowningStreet

“My thoughts are with those injured in the incident in Westminster and my thanks to the emergency services for their immediate and courageous response.” – PM @theresa_may

Leader of the Labour Party Jeremy Corbyn wrote: “My thoughts are with those hurt and injured outside Parliament this morning in what is being treated as a terrorist incident.

“Our thanks go to our emergency services who responded immediately. Their bravery keeps us safe day in, day out.”

Jeremy Corbyn

@jeremycorbyn

My thoughts are with those hurt and injured outside Parliament this morning in what is being treated as a terrorist incident.

Our thanks go to our emergency services who responded immediately. Their bravery keeps us safe day in, day out.

US President Donald Trump has tweeted a typically inflammatory statement following the incident.

He wrote: “Another terrorist attack in London…These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength!”

Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump

Another terrorist attack in London…These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength!

Official statement from The Met Police from Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu in relation to this morning’s incident in Westminster:

“At 07:37hrs a silver Ford Fiesta was involved in a collision in front of the Houses of Parliament.

That vehicle collided with cyclists and pedestrians before hitting a barrier and coming to a stop.

Two people have been taken to hospital.

One man has been discharged and one woman remains in hospital being treated for serious but thankfully, non-life threatening injuries.

Another man was also treated at the scene but didn’t require hospital treatment.

The driver of the Fiesta, who was alone in the vehicle, was arrested at the scene by armed officers who were already nearby.

The man, who is in his late 20s, was arrested on suspicion of terrorism offences and has been taken to a south London police station where he remains in custody.

“Given that this appears to be a deliberate act, the method and this being an iconic site we are treating this as a terrorist incident and it is being led by officers from the counter-terrorism command.

“Officers are searching the vehicle and no other weapons have been found at this time.

“At this early stage of the investigation no other suspects have been identified or reported to police.

“There is no intelligence at this time of further danger to Londoners or the rest of the UK connected to this incident.

“Our priority now is to formally identify the suspect and establish his motivation if we can.

“He is not currently co-operating.

A car that crashed into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament stands to the right of a bus in London, Tuesday, Aug. 14, 2018. London police say that a car has crashed into barriers outside the Houses of Parliament and that there are a number of injured. (Image: AP)

“However, as you would expect detectives form the counter-terrorism command are making various other urgent enquiries to ensure there is no outstanding risk to the public.

“Clearly we are treating the scene as a crime scene so cordons are likely to remain outside Parliament for some time.

“Thank you to the public for their patience whilst we deal with the incident.”

“Following questioning about whether police were pursuing the vehicle – as many believed they could see in CCTV of the incident – Mr Basu said: “No, I’ve heard that this morning .There wasn’t a police car in pursuit of the vehicle.

“I believe it was an ambulance on a completely unrelated call.”

A forensic officer attends the scene near the Houses of Parliament, Westminster in central London, (Image: PA)

Mr Basu was then questioned about whether the vehicle was deliberately driven at police officers in a targeted attack, to which he replied: “We can’t say that at this time. It certainly appears to be a deliberate attack act but the motivation is we can’t say.

He was then asked whether the driver was someone that was known to officers or counter intelligence agencies, to which he replied: “We haven’t formally identified him yet and it’s too early to make that judgement.

“On the details that we have at this moment we don’t believe this person is known to either MI5 or counter-terrorism police.”

Anyone with information that could assist with the investigation can call 0800 789 321.

Anyone who may have footage or images of the incident is asked to send them to police via: www.ukpoliceimageappeal.co.uk

Timeline of recent terror attacks in UK

The Metropolitan Police has confirmed its Counter-Terrorism Command is leading the investigation after a car crashed into security barriers outside the Houses of Parliament.

It comes just 11 months after a partially exploded bomb was left on a Tube train – the last major incident to rock Britain.

Here is a timeline of attacks in recent years:

September 15, 2017: A partially exploded device planted on a District line train left more than 51 people injured.

Ahmed Hassan, 18, was jailed for at least 34 years for planting the Parsons Green tube bomb which caused a huge fireball.

June 19, 2017: One man dies and several others are injured after a man rammed his van into worshippers in north London.

Darren Osborne, 47, of no fixed address in Cardiff – who had been radicalised by far-right material, was jailed for at least 43 years after being found guilty in February of murder and attempted murder.

June 3, 2017: Eight people are killed in a terror attack around London Bridge.

A van ploughed into people on the bridge before the three attackers carried out a knife rampage in Borough Market. The perpetrators – Khuram Butt, 27, Rachid Redouane, 30, and Youssef Zaghba, 22 – were shot dead by police.

May 22, 2017: Twenty-two people – including children – are killed in a bombing at a pop concert in Manchester.

Lone suicide attacker Salman Abedi detonated an explosive device as crowds of music fans, many of them youngsters, left Manchester Arena following a performance by US singer Ariana Grande.

March 22, 2017: Five people are killed in a car and knife attack in Westminster.

Khalid Masood drove a hire car over Westminster Bridge, near the Houses of Parliament, mounted the pavement and hit pedestrians before crashing into railings outside the Palace of Westminster.

He stabbed Pc Keith Palmer, 48, to death. Also killed in the atrocity were US tourist Kurt Cochran, Romanian tourist Andreea Cristea, 31, and Britons Aysha Frade, 44, and 75-year-old Leslie Rhodes. Masood was shot dead by police.

June 16, 2016: Labour MP Jo Cox is murdered outside her constituency office in Batley, West Yorkshire.

The mother-of-two, 41, was shot and stabbed multiple times by right-wing extremist Thomas Mair. He was later handed a whole-life prison sentence for her murder.

May 22, 2013: Fusilier Lee Rigby is murdered by Islamist extremists Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale.

The 25-year-old serviceman was walking near his barracks in Woolwich, south-east London, when the pair rammed him with a car before attempting to hack off his head with knives. The killers were jailed at the Old Bailey in February 2014.

July 7, 2005: Four suicide bombers kill 52 and injure hundreds of others in blasts on the London Underground network and a bus.

Twenty-six died in the bombing at Russell Square on the Piccadilly line, six in the bombing at Edgware Road on the Circle line, seven in the bombing at Aldgate on the Circle line, and 13 in the bombing on a bus at Tavistock Square.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/westminster-car-crash-terror-attack-15028520

 

Trump blasts ‘another terror attack in London’ as he hits out at ‘animals’ and hints Britain isn’t being tough enough in tackling extremists

  • Trump hit out following London terror attack which he blamed on ‘crazy animals’
  • He said attackers ‘must be dealt with through toughness and strength’ 
  • At least 10 cyclists were hit by the car, leaving three injured, one seriously
  • A black man in his 20s has been arrested and is being treated as a terror suspect 

President Donald Trump has hit out following ‘another terrorist attack’ in Londonwhich he blamed on ‘crazed animals’.

In an early-morning string of tweets from Washington, Trump wrote: ‘Another terrorist attack in London… These animals are crazy and must be dealt with through toughness and strength!’

Trump has previously accused London Mayor Sadiq Khan of failing to tackle extremism and crime in the city while blaming high levels of immigration.

At least ten cyclists were hit when a silver Ford Fiesta was driven across the sidewalk in central London around 7.30am local time before accelerating toward police outside the Houses of Parliament.

Donald Trump has spoken out after the terror attack in London, hitting out at what he called 'crazy animals' and saying they should be dealt with 'through toughness and strength'

Donald Trump has spoken out after the terror attack in London, hitting out at what he called ‘crazy animals’ and saying they should be dealt with ‘through toughness and strength’

 

Latest Westminster terror attack comes 17 months after Khalid Masood killed five people and injured 50

  • Today’s crash is 18 months after Westminster Bridge attack which left five dead 
  • Muslim convert Khalid Masood drove car into crowds on bridge in March 2017
  • 52-year-old abandoned car then stabbed and killed unarmed PC Keith Palmer 
  • Parliament’s security barriers of steel and concrete were extended after attack

Today’s suspected terror attack outside the Houses of Parliament comes 17 months after the Westminster Bridge attack which left five people dead and 50 injured.

Khalid Masood, 52, ploughed a car into crowds on the bridge in London in March 2017, in the first of five terrorist attacks on Britain last year.

Masood abandoned his car then stabbed and killed unarmed PC Keith Palmer before he was shot by armed police in a courtyard outside Parliament.

This graphic shows Khalid Masood's attack in March 2017, and the latest attack today (in red)

This graphic shows Khalid Masood’s attack in March 2017, and the latest attack today (in red)

Khalid Masood

Pc Keith Palmer,

Khalid Masood (left) ploughed a car into crowds on Westminster Bridge in March 2017, before abandoning his vehicle then stabbing and killing unarmed PC Keith Palmer (right)

A policeman points a gun at Masood on the ground at the Houses of Parliament in March 2017

A policeman points a gun at Masood on the ground at the Houses of Parliament in March 2017

Kurt Cochran (above) from Utah, was one of the victims of the attack. He was on a trip with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary

Kurt Cochran (above) from Utah, was one of the victims of the attack. He was on a trip with his wife to celebrate their 25th wedding anniversary

Masood’s rampage left five people dead – 48-year-old PC Palmer, who was on duty at the Palace of Westminster, along with US tourist Kurt Cochran, Romanian tourist Andreea Cristea, 31, and Britons Aysha Frade, 44, and 75-year-old Leslie Rhodes, who were mown down on the bridge.

Security expert Chris Phillips said: ‘The whole point of those barriers is they are to stop and slow down any vehicles getting close to the building and people inside.’

On ITV’s Good Morning Britain today, he added: ‘If you tried to crash through those barriers, it just wouldn’t work. They’re strong enough to stop a vehicle at 50mph.’

Masood was a Muslim convert with a history of violent crime – and unleashed his rampage more than a decade after turning his back on his family in Birmingham.

People stand near the crashed car and a injured person lying on the ground after the attack

People stand near the crashed car and a injured person lying on the ground after the attack

The scene on Westminster Bridge in London following the terrorist attack in March 2017

Scotland Yard says they ‘treating this as a terrorist incident’

The father-of-three, born Adrian Elms in Kent, changed his name after amassing a series of criminal convictions and spent years living in a series of terrorist hotbeds.

After Masood’s rampage, there were four further attacks – at the Manchester Arena, London Bridge, Finsbury Park in North London and Parsons Green in West London.

Last week, a Muslim convert admitted plotting to kill more than 100 people by driving a truck into pedestrians on Oxford Street in the capital’s West End.

Britain is on its second highest threat level of ‘severe’, meaning an attack by militants is ‘highly likely’. Scotland Yard’s counter-terrorism unit is leading today’s probe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6058517/How-todays-crash-comes-17-months-Westminster-Bridge-attack.html

 

Story 2: President Trump Outstanding National Defense Speech on Strengthen Armed Forces — Videos —

Image result for president trump at fort drum speech august 13, 2018

 

SIMPLY AMAZING: President Trump Speech in Fort Drum, New York – August 13, 2018

AMAZING 🔴 President Trump EXPLOSIVE Speech in Fort Drum NY, Signs National Defense Authorization Act

President Trump Delivers Remarks and Participates in a Signing Ceremony for H.R. 5515, the “John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019” – President Trump Speech in Fort Drum, New York – August 13, 2018 – President Trump Press Conference

 

Story 3: Waiting For Mueller To Wrap Up His Counter Intelligence Investigation of Russian Interference in U.S. Election — No Evidence of Russian Trump Collusion — American People Want It Completed Now! — Videos —

CNN’s Poll on the Mueller Investigation Reveals the Exact OPPOSITE of What They Wanted

Judge Jeanine: I want the Mueller probe to go on and on

Gowdy: Peter Strzok didn’t need my help to get fired

Sekulow: Russia investigation ‘corrupt at its inception’

Here’s How Much Americans Bitterly Disagree About The Mueller Investigation

CNN poll: Most say Mueller should try to end investigation before Election Day

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/14/politics/cnn-poll-trump-russia-election/index.html

 

 

Story 4: Lady and Trump — Dog Fight — Trump Punches Back At Ungrateful Omarosa Manigault Newman — American People Simply Do Not Care About Omarosa — Why Was She Hired in The First Place? — You Are Fired For Good — Videos

 

 

See the source image

Trump and Omarosa exchange barbs over bombshell book

Omarosa: ‘I Had A Blind Spot Where It Came To Donald Trump’ (Full) | Meet The Press | NBC News

 

WH insists Trump’s no racist as he vilifies another minority

President Donald Trump unloaded on former aide Omarosa Manigault Newman Tuesday, calling her a “crazed, crying lowlife” and “that dog,” as a clash rooted in the reality star’s accusations of racism focused new attention on his frequent disparagement of prominent African-Americans.

The public conflict showed no signs of slowing, as Manigault Newman did another round of interviews to promote her tell-all book and Trump’s presidential campaign filed arbitration action against her alleging she breached a confidentiality agreement.

Manigault Newman, who has painted a damning picture of Trump and alleged there is a videotape of him using a racial slur, told The Associated Press she is not going away.

“I will not be silenced. I will not be intimidated. And I’m not going to be bullied by Donald Trump,” she said.

Trump, who has denied the existence of any such tape, assailed Manigault Newman in language that stood out even by his trash-talking standards, praising his chief of staff, John Kelly, “for quickly firing that dog!”

That slam follows a pattern of inflammatory language about women and minorities. In 2015, shortly before he launched his campaign, Trump described Huffington Post founder Arianna Huffington as “a dog.” He has recently targeted California Rep. Maxine Waters, basketball star LeBron James and TV journalist Don Lemon, all African-Americans, and has repeatedly attacked black football players for kneeling during the national anthem in social protest.

Manigault Newman told the AP that “at every single opportunity he insults African-Americans,” and she accused him of trying to start a “race war.”

During the campaign and her White House tenure, Manigault Newman, who was the highest ranking black official in the West Wing, stood by Trump even at moments of racial strife, including the clashes between white supremacists and counterprotesters in Charlottesville, Virginia, and Trump’s targeting of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem in social protest.

Fired by Kelly in December, Manigault Newman now says many of Trump’s actions gave her pause but she was sympathetic to him as a longtime friend and mentor.

In her book, she casts herself as a strong black woman who overcame humble beginnings and has often navigated hostile work environments with aplomb.

Now she is aligning herself with Trump’s victims, said Leah Wright Rigueur, a historian at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government.

“She’s drawing a direct line of comparison between herself and other black women Trump has attacked,” Rigueur said. “She’s suggesting that the president is racist and sexist and using herself as evidence.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Huckabee Sanders insisted Tuesday that the president’s insults were not racially motivated, saying: “This has absolutely nothing to do with race and everything to do with the president calling out someone’s integrity.”

A contestant on the first season of Trump’s TV show “The Apprentice” and a veteran of reality television, Manigault Newman has managed her explosive book tour for maximum effect, conducting back-to-back interviews and teasing out new bits of information in each one, successfully baiting the television-watching president.

Central to her argument that Trump is racist is her claim that she had heard an audiotape of him using the N-word. Trump has pushed back hard, tweeting that he had received a call from the producer of “The Apprentice” assuring him “there are NO TAPES of the Apprentice where I used such a terrible and disgusting word as attributed by Wacky and Deranged Omarosa.”

White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders said she could not guarantee Trump had never used a racial slur. Asked if she could say with certainty that Trump had never used the N-word, she said, “I haven’t been in every single room,” though she stressed that the president has addressed the question and denied ever using such language.

Manigault Newman continued to stir the pot Tuesday, providing CBS another audio recording that she said showed campaign workers discussing the alleged recording.

Her allegations put Trump allies on their heels and clearly got under the president’s skin.

Trump insisted, “I don’t have that word in my vocabulary, and never have.” He said Manigault Newman had called him “a true champion of civil rights” until she was fired.

Manigault Newman writes in her book that she’d heard such tapes of Trump language existed. She said Sunday that she had listened to one after the book closed.

Asked if the book can be backed up by email or recordings, Manigault Newman said on CBS that every quote in the book “can be verified, corroborated and it’s well documented,” suggesting she may have more information to release.

She told MSNBC that she’s been interviewed by special counsel Robert Mueller’s team investigating Russian election interference, though she did not provide any details to the network or the AP. A person familiar with the White House response to the investigation said that at no time prior to her departure did the Mueller team request documents related to her or seek an interview with her. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss the investigation.

Manigault Newman also asserted on MSNBC that Trump knew in advance about the release of Hillary Clinton’s emails by WikiLeaks, but did not provide any evidence.

In her interviews, Manigault Newman has also revealed two audio recordings from her time at the White House, including her firing by Kelly, which she says occurred in the high-security Situation Room, and a phone call with Trump after she was fired.

She also alleges that Trump allies tried to buy her silence after she left the White House, offering her $15,000 a month to accept a “senior position” on his 2020 re-election campaign along with a stringent nondisclosure agreement.

https://apnews.com/e90365d3ea744dd790bfd874b65a5fc4/Trump-lashes-out-at-Omarosa,-calls-her-‘that-dog’

 

Omarosa’s memoir marks a new peak in disgrace: EW review

August 14, 2018 at 10:06 AM EDT

Omarosa Manigault Newman has a story to tell. It’s certainly not a wholly truthful one, nor — for those who’ve been paying attention — is it a particularly surprising one. But it’s the one we get: the one to take hold of a weekend news cycle, to force a reexamination of the president’s racist and dishonest tendencies, to have the nation on the edge of their seat as they ponder, What does she know?

We’ve been here before. There was Michael Wolff’s Fire and Fury, a lurid foray into the White House’s day-to-day. There was James Comey’s A Higher Loyalty, an earnest, bitter, rather disingenuous image rehabilitation project disguised as a leadership manifesto. Both topped best-seller lists, dominated headlines, and inspired many an infuriated @realDonaldTrump tweet before fading into the ether of Trump takedowns, come and gone.

Now there’s Omarosa’s tell-all: the logical next step in our collective, steep, seemingly endless descent toward disgrace.

Above all else, Unhinged is a meta-commentary on the bleakness of our political culture. Trump’s former Director of Communications for the Office of Public Liaison has, admittedly, executed an impressive rollout — of a style and, yes, substance more newsworthy than the book’s contents. The memoir’s very existence was leaked just weeks before publication to The Daily Mail; its juiciest material made its way online early, and came with receipts. Indeed, the prologue, in which Manigault Newman describes how Chief of Staff John Kelly met with her in the Situation Room last December and effectively fired her, is (ta-da!) backed up by a tape recording. So too, it turns out, is the conversation which appears near the book’s end, between President Trump and his former Apprentice villain after she’d been let go, as he bafflingly expresses confusion over her departure — as if he knew nothing about it.

On Meet the Press and Today, respectively, Manigault Newman quietly reveled in the implications of what she was revealing — that she could record a sensitive conversation in the uber-sensitive Situation Room. That she could record a sensitive conversation with the president of the United States. That she could prove, as The Washington Post authenticated, that she’d been offered a healthy sum of money by the Trump machine in exchange for her silence. Here was what would hurl her memoir toward legitimacy.

It’s useless to review Unhinged as a standalone written product. It’s engineered as a media tool, structured in a fashion that complements what its author says on TV and reveals in a steady stream of recorded semi-bombshells. The book itself reads mostly like the Fire and Fury sequel you never wanted: a swift account of the major events to surround Trump since he began his campaign for president, filled out with one adviser’s observations, opinions, and insider “knowledge.” Like her old boss, she “hears” many things. She throws out, for instance, that she “heard” Trump was having a sexual relationship with evangelical leader Paula White. “I could not stop myself from contemplating whether her position as his spiritual advisor had ever been missionary,” she writes. (Really.)

https://ew.com/books/2018/08/14/omarosa-memoir-review/

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122-1124

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or 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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018, Story 1: President Trump For Criminal Justice and Prison Reform and First Step Act — Good Policy and Fiscally Sound — Videos — Story 2: Vice President Mike Pence and Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis On Establishing United States Space Force Plan As Sixth Military Service — Space Arms Race — Videos — Story 3: Attorney General Jeff Session on Importance of Religious Liberty — Videos –Story 4: U.S. vs. China Trade Dispute — Who Will Cry Uncle First? — China — Videos

Posted on August 10, 2018. Filed under: Addiction, Addiction, American History, Applications, Barack H. Obama, Benghazi, Bill Clinton, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribes, British Pound, Budgetary Policy, Business, Cartoons, China, Clinton Obama Democrat Criminal Conspiracy, College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Culture, Currencies, Deep State, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Education, Elections, Empires, Employment, Energy, Euro, European History, European Union, Extortion, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Government, First Amendment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Former President Barack Obama, Free Trade, Freedom of Speech, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hardware, Hate Speech, Health, Health Care, Health Care Insurance, High Crimes, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Housing, Human, Human Behavior, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Islam, Islamic Republic of Iran, James Comey, Killing, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Lying, Media, Medicare, Mental Illness, Middle East, Monetary Policy, National Interest, Natural Gas, Networking, News, Nuclear Weapons, Obama, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, President Trump, Presidential Appointments, Privacy, Public Corruption, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Republican Candidates For President 2016, Resources, Robert S. Mueller III, Rule of Law, Russia, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senator Jeff Sessions, Servers, Social Networking, Social Security, Software, South Korea, Spying, Success, Surveillance and Spying On American People, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Trade Policy, Treason, Trump Surveillance/Spying, U.S. Dollar, U.S. Space Program, Unemployment, United Kingdom, United States Constitution, United States of America, United States Space Force, United States Supreme Court, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weather, Welfare Spending, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 1122, August 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1121, August 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1120, August 6, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1119, August 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1118, August 1, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1117, July 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1116, July 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1115, July 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1114, July 25, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1113, July 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1112, July 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1111, July 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1110, July 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1109, July 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1108, July 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1107, July 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1106, July 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1105, July 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1104, July 9, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1103, July 5, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1102, JUly 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1101, July 2, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1100, June 28, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1099, June 26, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1098, June 25, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1097, June 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1096, June 20, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1095, June 19, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1094, June 18, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1093, June 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1092, June 13, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1091, June 12, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1090, June 11, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1089, June 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1088, June 6, 2018 

Pronk Pops Show 1087, June 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1086, May 31, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1085, May 30, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1084, May 29, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1083, May 24, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1082, May 23, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1081, May 22, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1080, May 21, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1079, May 17, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1078, May 16, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1077, May 15, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1076, May 14, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1075, May 10, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1073, May 8, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1072, May 7, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1071, May 4, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1070, May 3, 2018

Pronk Pops Show 1069, May 2, 2018

Image result for prison reform trump meeting august 9, 2018Image result for pence and mattis on united states space force august 9, 2018Image result for attorney general jeff sessions speech at ADF summit august 7, 2018Image result for cartoons us space forceImage result for branco cartoons us space force

See the source image

Image result for branco cartoons us space force

Story 1: President Trump For Criminal Justice and Prison Reform — Good Policy and Fiscally Sound — Videos

See the source image

See the source image

See the source image

BREAKING 🔴 President Trump URGENT Speech at IMPORTANT Roundtable in Bedminster, NJ August 9, 2018

Pastor says he faced backlash over meeting with Trump

Published on Aug 3, 2018

Trump pushes for prison reform bill

Published on May 18, 2018

Trump takes on prison reform

Published on Jan 12, 2018

Van Jones is teaming up with the White House on prison reform

Trump, Congress try to breathe life into long-delayed criminal justice reform package

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1122

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1112-1121

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1101-1111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1091-1100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1082-1090

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1073-1081

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1066-1073

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1058-1065

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1048-1057

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1041-1047

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1033-1040

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1023-1032

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1017-1022

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1010-1016

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1001-1009

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 993-1000

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 984-992

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 977-983

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 970-976

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 963-969

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 955-962

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 946-954

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 938-945

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 926-937

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 916-925

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 906-915

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 889-896

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 884-888

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 878-883

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 870-877

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 864-869

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 857-863

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 850-856

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or 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

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

The Pronk Pops Show 849, March 1, 2017, Part 1 — Story 1: President Trump’s Awesome Address To Congress — Videos

Posted on February 28, 2017. Filed under: Breaking News, Business, College, Communications, Corruption, Countries, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 849: March, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 848: February 28, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 847: February 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 846: February 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 845: February 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 844: February 22, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 843: February 21, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 842: February 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 841: February 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 840: February 16, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 839: February 15, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 838: February 14, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 837: February 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 836: February 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 835: February 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 834: February 8, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 833: February 7, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 832: February 6, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 831: February 3, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 830: February 2, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 829: February 1, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 828: January 31, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 827: January 30, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 826: January 27, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 825: January 26, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 824: January 25, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 823: January 24, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 822: January 23, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 821: January 20, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 820: January 19, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 819: January 18, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 818: January 17, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 817: January 13, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 816: January 12, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 815: January 11, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 814: January 10, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 813: January 9, 2017

Pronk Pops Show 812: December 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 811: December 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 810: December 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 809: December 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 808: December 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 807: December 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 806: December 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 805: December 1, 2016

Story 1: President Trump’s Awesome Address To Congress —  Videos

Image result for President Trump addresses congressImage result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for The Widow Of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.Image result for trump's Speech To Congress.Image result for trump's Speech To Congress.
Image result for President Trump addresses congress february 28, 2017

President Donald Trump Speech to Joint Session Of Congress 2/28/2017

FULL SPEECH: President Donald Trump Speech to Joint Session Of Congress 2/28/2017 Trump Live Speech

This is an address before a joint session of the United States Congress similar to a State of the Union address that may be given on February 28, 2017 by Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States. It will be delivered before the 115th United States Congress in the Chamber of the United States House of Representatives. It will be President Trump’s first speech addressed to Congress

President Trump Honors The Widow of William “Ryan” Owens During His Speech To Congress.

Renewal of the American Spirit’ the theme of Trump’s speech to Congress

FULL COVERAGE: President Donald Trump Address To Congress

Poll group gets heated giving opinions on Trump speech

Sen. Ted Cruz Reaction to President Trump’s Address to a Joint session of Congress – 2/28/17

Chris Wallace: ‘I Feel Like Tonight Donald Trump Became the President of the United States’

Laura Ingraham Reaction to President Trump’s Address to a Joint session of Congress – 2/28/17

Tucker Carlson Reacts To President Trump’s Speech – 2/28/17

Sean Hannity Reacts To President Trump’s Speech 2/28/17 | Hannity Full Show (Part 1)

LIVE: Members of Congress React to President Trump’s Address

Democratic response to Trump speech

“Democrat should have become worried tonight” Van Jones on Donald Trump’s address to congress

Read the Full Text of Donald Trump’s Speech to Congress

PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP’S ADDRESS TO A JOINT SESSION OF CONGRESS

Remarks as prepared for delivery TO THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and Citizens of America: Tonight, as we mark the conclusion of our celebration of Black History Month, we are reminded of our Nation’s path toward civil rights and the work that still remains. Recent threats targeting Jewish Community Centers and vandalism of Jewish cemeteries, as well as last week’s shooting in Kansas City, remind us that while we may be a Nation divided on policies, we are a country that stands united in condemning hate and evil in all its forms.

Each American generation passes the torch of truth, liberty and justice –- in an unbroken chain all the way down to the present.

That torch is now in our hands. And we will use it to light up the world. I am here tonight to deliver a message of unity and strength, and it is a message deeply delivered from my heart.

A new chapter of American Greatness is now beginning.

A new national pride is sweeping across our Nation.

And a new surge of optimism is placing impossible dreams firmly within our grasp.

What we are witnessing today is the Renewal of the American Spirit.

Our allies will find that America is once again ready to lead.

All the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.

In 9 years, the United States will celebrate the 250th anniversary of our founding — 250 years since the day we declared our Independence.

It will be one of the great milestones in the history of the world.

But what will America look like as we reach our 250th year? What kind of country will we leave for our children?

I will not allow the mistakes of recent decades past to define the course of our future.

For too long, we’ve watched our middle class shrink as we’ve exported our jobs and wealth to foreign countries.

We’ve financed and built one global project after another, but ignored the fates of our children in the inner cities of Chicago, Baltimore, Detroit — and so many other places throughout our land.

We’ve defended the borders of other nations, while leaving our own borders wide open, for anyone to cross — and for drugs to pour in at a now unprecedented rate.

And we’ve spent trillions of dollars overseas, while our infrastructure at home has so badly crumbled.

Then, in 2016, the earth shifted beneath our feet. The rebellion started as a quiet protest, spoken by families of all colors and creeds -– families who just wanted a fair shot for their children, and a fair hearing for their concerns.

But then the quiet voices became a loud chorus — as thousands of citizens now spoke out together, from cities small and large, all across our country.

Finally, the chorus became an earthquake – and the people turned out by the tens of millions, and they were all united by one very simple, but crucial demand, that America must put its own citizens first … because only then, can we truly MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN.

Dying industries will come roaring back to life. Heroic veterans will get the care they so desperately need.

Our military will be given the resources its brave warriors so richly deserve.

Crumbling infrastructure will be replaced with new roads, bridges, tunnels, airports and railways gleaming across our beautiful land.

Our terrible drug epidemic will slow down and ultimately, stop.

And our neglected inner cities will see a rebirth of hope, safety, and opportunity.

Above all else, we will keep our promises to the American people.

It’s been a little over a month since my inauguration, and I want to take this moment to update the Nation on the progress I’ve made in keeping those promises.

Since my election, Ford, Fiat-Chrysler, General Motors, Sprint, Softbank, Lockheed, Intel, Walmart, and many others, have announced that they will invest billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs.

The stock market has gained almost three trillion dollars in value since the election on November 8th, a record. We’ve saved taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars by bringing down the price of the fantastic new F-35 jet fighter, and will be saving billions more dollars on contracts all across our Government. We have placed a hiring freeze on non-military and non-essential Federal workers.

We have begun to drain the swamp of government corruption by imposing a 5 year ban on lobbying by executive branch officials –- and a lifetime ban on becoming lobbyists for a foreign government.

We have undertaken a historic effort to massively reduce job‑crushing regulations, creating a deregulation task force inside of every Government agency; imposing a new rule which mandates that for every 1 new regulation, 2 old regulations must be eliminated; and stopping a regulation that threatens the future and livelihoods of our great coal miners.

We have cleared the way for the construction of the Keystone and Dakota Access Pipelines — thereby creating tens of thousands of jobs — and I’ve issued a new directive that new American pipelines be made with American steel.

We have withdrawn the United States from the job-killing Trans-Pacific Partnership.

With the help of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, we have formed a Council with our neighbors in Canada to help ensure that women entrepreneurs have access to the networks, markets and capital they need to start a business and live out their financial dreams.

To protect our citizens, I have directed the Department of Justice to form a Task Force on Reducing Violent Crime.

I have further ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.

We will stop the drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth — and we will expand treatment for those who have become so badly addicted.

At the same time, my Administration has answered the pleas of the American people for immigration enforcement and border security. By finally enforcing our immigration laws, we will raise wages, help the unemployed, save billions of dollars, and make our communities safer for everyone. We want all Americans to succeed –- but that can’t happen in an environment of lawless chaos. We must restore integrity and the rule of law to our borders.

For that reason, we will soon begin the construction of a great wall along our southern border. It will be started ahead of schedule and, when finished, it will be a very effective weapon against drugs and crime.

As we speak, we are removing gang members, drug dealers and criminals that threaten our communities and prey on our citizens. Bad ones are going out as I speak tonight and as I have promised.

To any in Congress who do not believe we should enforce our laws, I would ask you this question: what would you say to the American family that loses their jobs, their income, or a loved one, because America refused to uphold its laws and defend its borders?

Our obligation is to serve, protect, and defend the citizens of the United States. We are also taking strong measures to protect our Nation from Radical Islamic Terrorism.

According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted for terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country. We have seen the attacks at home -– from Boston to San Bernardino to the Pentagon and yes, even the World Trade Center.

We have seen the attacks in France, in Belgium, in Germany and all over the world.

It is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur. Those given the high honor of admission to the United States should support this country and love its people and its values.

We cannot allow a beachhead of terrorism to form inside America — we cannot allow our Nation to become a sanctuary for extremists.

That is why my Administration has been working on improved vetting procedures, and we will shortly take new steps to keep our Nation safe — and to keep out those who would do us harm.

As promised, I directed the Department of Defense to develop a plan to demolish and destroy ISIS — a network of lawless savages that have slaughtered Muslims and Christians, and men, women, and children of all faiths and beliefs. We will work with our allies, including our friends and allies in the Muslim world, to extinguish this vile enemy from our planet.

I have also imposed new sanctions on entities and individuals who support Iran’s ballistic missile program, and reaffirmed our unbreakable alliance with the State of Israel.

Finally, I have kept my promise to appoint a Justice to the United States Supreme Court — from my list of 20 judges — who will defend our Constitution. I am honored to have Maureen Scalia with us in the gallery tonight. Her late, great husband, Antonin Scalia, will forever be a symbol of American justice. To fill his seat, we have chosen Judge Neil Gorsuch, a man of incredible skill, and deep devotion to the law. He was confirmed unanimously to the Court of Appeals, and I am asking the Senate to swiftly approve his nomination.

Tonight, as I outline the next steps we must take as a country, we must honestly acknowledge the circumstances we inherited.

Ninety-four million Americans are out of the labor force.

Over 43 million people are now living in poverty, and over 43 million Americans are on food stamps.

More than 1 in 5 people in their prime working years are not working.

We have the worst financial recovery in 65 years.

In the last 8 years, the past Administration has put on more new debt than nearly all other Presidents combined.

We’ve lost more than one-fourth of our manufacturing jobs since NAFTA was approved, and we’ve lost 60,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Our trade deficit in goods with the world last year was nearly $800 billion dollars.

And overseas, we have inherited a series of tragic foreign policy disasters.

Solving these, and so many other pressing problems, will require us to work past the differences of party. It will require us to tap into the American spirit that has overcome every challenge throughout our long and storied history.

But to accomplish our goals at home and abroad, we must restart the engine of the American economy — making it easier for companies to do business in the United States, and much harder for companies to leave.

Right now, American companies are taxed at one of the highest rates anywhere in the world.

My economic team is developing historic tax reform that will reduce the tax rate on our companies so they can compete and thrive anywhere and with anyone. At the same time, we will provide massive tax relief for the middle class.

We must create a level playing field for American companies and workers.

Currently, when we ship products out of America, many other countries make us pay very high tariffs and taxes — but when foreign companies ship their products into America, we charge them almost nothing.

I just met with officials and workers from a great American company, Harley-Davidson. In fact, they proudly displayed five of their magnificent motorcycles, made in the USA, on the front lawn of the White House.

At our meeting, I asked them, how are you doing, how is business? They said that it’s good. I asked them further how they are doing with other countries, mainly international sales. They told me — without even complaining because they have been mistreated for so long that they have become used to it — that it is very hard to do business with other countries because they tax our goods at such a high rate. They said that in one case another country taxed their motorcycles at 100 percent.

They weren’t even asking for change. But I am.

I believe strongly in free trade but it also has to be FAIR TRADE.

The first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, warned that the “abandonment of the protective policy by the American Government [will] produce want and ruin among our people.”

Lincoln was right — and it is time we heeded his words. I am not going to let America and its great companies and workers, be taken advantage of anymore.

I am going to bring back millions of jobs. Protecting our workers also means reforming our system of legal immigration. The current, outdated system depresses wages for our poorest workers, and puts great pressure on taxpayers.

Nations around the world, like Canada, Australia and many others –- have a merit-based immigration system. It is a basic principle that those seeking to enter a country ought to be able to support themselves financially. Yet, in America, we do not enforce this rule, straining the very public resources that our poorest citizens rely upon. According to the National Academy of Sciences, our current immigration system costs America’s taxpayers many billions of dollars a year.

Switching away from this current system of lower-skilled immigration, and instead adopting a merit-based system, will have many benefits: it will save countless dollars, raise workers’ wages, and help struggling families –- including immigrant families –- enter the middle class. I believe that real and positive immigration reform is possible, as long as we focus on the following goals: to improve jobs and wages for Americans, to strengthen our nation’s security, and to restore respect for our laws. If we are guided by the well-being of American citizens then I believe Republicans and Democrats can work together to achieve an outcome that has eluded our country for decades.

Another Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, initiated the last truly great national infrastructure program –- the building of the interstate highway system. The time has come for a new program of national rebuilding.

America has spent approximately six trillion dollars in the Middle East, all this while our infrastructure at home is crumbling. With this six trillion dollars we could have rebuilt our country –- twice. And maybe even three times if we had people who had the ability to negotiate.

To launch our national rebuilding, I will be asking the Congress to approve legislation that produces a $1 trillion investment in the infrastructure of the United States — financed through both public and private capital –- creating millions of new jobs.

This effort will be guided by two core principles: Buy American, and Hire American.

Tonight, I am also calling on this Congress to repeal and replace Obamacare with reforms that expand choice, increase access, lower costs, and at the same time, provide better Healthcare.

Mandating every American to buy government-approved health insurance was never the right solution for America. The way to make health insurance available to everyone is to lower the cost of health insurance, and that is what we will do.

Obamacare premiums nationwide have increased by double and triple digits. As an example, Arizona went up 116 percent last year alone. Governor Matt Bevin of Kentucky just said Obamacare is failing in his State — it is unsustainable and collapsing.

One third of counties have only one insurer on the exchanges –- leaving many Americans with no choice at all.

Remember when you were told that you could keep your doctor, and keep your plan?

We now know that all of those promises have been broken.

Obamacare is collapsing –- and we must act decisively to protect all Americans. Action is not a choice –- it is a necessity.

So I am calling on all Democrats and Republicans in the Congress to work with us to save Americans from this imploding Obamacare disaster.

Here are the principles that should guide the Congress as we move to create a better healthcare system for all Americans:

First, we should ensure that Americans with pre-existing conditions have access to coverage, and that we have a stable transition for Americans currently enrolled in the healthcare exchanges.

Secondly, we should help Americans purchase their own coverage, through the use of tax credits and expanded Health Savings Accounts –- but it must be the plan they want, not the plan forced on them by the Government.

Thirdly, we should give our great State Governors the resources and flexibility they need with Medicaid to make sure no one is left out.

Fourthly, we should implement legal reforms that protect patients and doctors from unnecessary costs that drive up the price of insurance – and work to bring down the artificially high price of drugs and bring them down immediately.

Finally, the time has come to give Americans the freedom to purchase health insurance across State lines –- creating a truly competitive national marketplace that will bring cost way down and provide far better care.

Everything that is broken in our country can be fixed. Every problem can be solved. And every hurting family can find healing, and hope.

Our citizens deserve this, and so much more –- so why not join forces to finally get it done? On this and so many other things, Democrats and Republicans should get together and unite for the good of our country, and for the good of the American people.

My administration wants to work with members in both parties to make childcare accessible and affordable, to help ensure new parents have paid family leave, to invest in women’s health, and to promote clean air and clear water, and to rebuild our military and our infrastructure.

True love for our people requires us to find common ground, to advance the common good, and to cooperate on behalf of every American child who deserves a brighter future.

An incredible young woman is with us this evening who should serve as an inspiration to us all.

Today is Rare Disease day, and joining us in the gallery is a Rare Disease Survivor, Megan Crowley. Megan was diagnosed with Pompe Disease, a rare and serious illness, when she was 15 months old. She was not expected to live past 5.

On receiving this news, Megan’s dad, John, fought with everything he had to save the life of his precious child. He founded a company to look for a cure, and helped develop the drug that saved Megan’s life. Today she is 20 years old — and a sophomore at Notre Dame.

Megan’s story is about the unbounded power of a father’s love for a daughter.

But our slow and burdensome approval process at the Food and Drug Administration keeps too many advances, like the one that saved Megan’s life, from reaching those in need.

If we slash the restraints, not just at the FDA but across our Government, then we will be blessed with far more miracles like Megan.

In fact, our children will grow up in a Nation of miracles.

But to achieve this future, we must enrich the mind –- and the souls –- of every American child.

Education is the civil rights issue of our time.

I am calling upon Members of both parties to pass an education bill that funds school choice for disadvantaged youth, including millions of African-American and Latino children. These families should be free to choose the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school that is right for them.

Joining us tonight in the gallery is a remarkable woman, Denisha Merriweather. As a young girl, Denisha struggled in school and failed third grade twice. But then she was able to enroll in a private center for learning, with the help of a tax credit scholarship program. Today, she is the first in her family to graduate, not just from high school, but from college. Later this year she will get her masters degree in social work.

We want all children to be able to break the cycle of poverty just like Denisha.

But to break the cycle of poverty, we must also break the cycle of violence.

The murder rate in 2015 experienced its largest single-year increase in nearly half a century.

In Chicago, more than 4,000 people were shot last year alone –- and the murder rate so far this year has been even higher.

This is not acceptable in our society.

Every American child should be able to grow up in a safe community, to attend a great school, and to have access to a high-paying job.

But to create this future, we must work with –- not against -– the men and women of law enforcement.

We must build bridges of cooperation and trust –- not drive the wedge of disunity and division.

Police and sheriffs are members of our community. They are friends and neighbors, they are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters – and they leave behind loved ones every day who worry whether or not they’ll come home safe and sound.

We must support the incredible men and women of law enforcement.

And we must support the victims of crime.

I have ordered the Department of Homeland Security to create an office to serve American Victims. The office is called VOICE –- Victims Of Immigration Crime Engagement. We are providing a voice to those who have been ignored by our media, and silenced by special interests.

Joining us in the audience tonight are four very brave Americans whose government failed them.

Their names are Jamiel Shaw, Susan Oliver, Jenna Oliver, and Jessica Davis.

Jamiel’s 17-year-old son was viciously murdered by an illegal immigrant gang member, who had just been released from prison. Jamiel Shaw Jr. was an incredible young man, with unlimited potential who was getting ready to go to college where he would have excelled as a great quarterback. But he never got the chance. His father, who is in the audience tonight, has become a good friend of mine.

Also with us are Susan Oliver and Jessica Davis. Their husbands –- Deputy Sheriff Danny Oliver and Detective Michael Davis –- were slain in the line of duty in California. They were pillars of their community. These brave men were viciously gunned down by an illegal immigrant with a criminal record and two prior deportations.

Sitting with Susan is her daughter, Jenna. Jenna: I want you to know that your father was a hero, and that tonight you have the love of an entire country supporting you and praying for you.

To Jamiel, Jenna, Susan and Jessica: I want you to know –- we will never stop fighting for justice. Your loved ones will never be forgotten, we will always honor their memory.

Finally, to keep America Safe we must provide the men and women of the United States military with the tools they need to prevent war and –- if they must –- to fight and to win.

I am sending the Congress a budget that rebuilds the military, eliminates the Defense sequester, and calls for one of the largest increases in national defense spending in American history.

My budget will also increase funding for our veterans.

Our veterans have delivered for this Nation –- and now we must deliver for them.

The challenges we face as a Nation are great. But our people are even greater.

And none are greater or braver than those who fight for America in uniform.

We are blessed to be joined tonight by Carryn Owens, the widow of a U.S. Navy Special Operator, Senior Chief William “Ryan” Owens. Ryan died as he lived: a warrior, and a hero –- battling against terrorism and securing our Nation.

I just spoke to General Mattis, who reconfirmed that, and I quote, “Ryan was a part of a highly successful raid that generated large amounts of vital intelligence that will lead to many more victories in the future against our enemies.” Ryan’s legacy is etched into eternity. For as the Bible teaches us, there is no greater act of love than to lay down one’s life for one’s friends. Ryan laid down his life for his friends, for his country, and for our freedom –- we will never forget him.

To those allies who wonder what kind of friend America will be, look no further than the heroes who wear our uniform.

Our foreign policy calls for a direct, robust and meaningful engagement with the world. It is American leadership based on vital security interests that we share with our allies across the globe.

We strongly support NATO, an alliance forged through the bonds of two World Wars that dethroned fascism, and a Cold War that defeated communism.

But our partners must meet their financial obligations.

And now, based on our very strong and frank discussions, they are beginning to do just that.

We expect our partners, whether in NATO, in the Middle East, or the Pacific –- to take a direct and meaningful role in both strategic and military operations, and pay their fair share of the cost.

We will respect historic institutions, but we will also respect the sovereign rights of nations.

Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people –- and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America. But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict — not more.

We must learn from the mistakes of the past –- we have seen the war and destruction that have raged across our world.

The only long-term solution for these humanitarian disasters is to create the conditions where displaced persons can safely return home and begin the long process of rebuilding.

America is willing to find new friends, and to forge new partnerships, where shared interests align. We want harmony and stability, not war and conflict.

We want peace, wherever peace can be found. America is friends today with former enemies. Some of our closest allies, decades ago, fought on the opposite side of these World Wars. This history should give us all faith in the possibilities for a better world.

Hopefully, the 250th year for America will see a world that is more peaceful, more just and more free.

On our 100th anniversary, in 1876, citizens from across our Nation came to Philadelphia to celebrate America’s centennial. At that celebration, the country’s builders and artists and inventors showed off their creations.

Alexander Graham Bell displayed his telephone for the first time.

Remington unveiled the first typewriter. An early attempt was made at electric light.

Thomas Edison showed an automatic telegraph and an electric pen.

Imagine the wonders our country could know in America’s 250th year.

Think of the marvels we can achieve if we simply set free the dreams of our people.

Cures to illnesses that have always plagued us are not too much to hope.

American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.

Millions lifted from welfare to work is not too much to expect.

And streets where mothers are safe from fear — schools where children learn in peace — and jobs where Americans prosper and grow — are not too much to ask.

When we have all of this, we will have made America greater than ever before. For all Americans.

This is our vision. This is our mission.

But we can only get there together.

We are one people, with one destiny.

We all bleed the same blood.

We all salute the same flag.

And we are all made by the same God.

And when we fulfill this vision; when we celebrate our 250 years of glorious freedom, we will look back on tonight as when this new chapter of American Greatness began.

The time for small thinking is over. The time for trivial fights is behind us.

We just need the courage to share the dreams that fill our hearts.

The bravery to express the hopes that stir our souls.

And the confidence to turn those hopes and dreams to action.

From now on, America will be empowered by our aspirations, not burdened by our fears –-

inspired by the future, not bound by the failures of the past –-

and guided by our vision, not blinded by our doubts.

I am asking all citizens to embrace this Renewal of the American Spirit. I am asking all members of Congress to join me in dreaming big, and bold and daring things for our country. And I am asking everyone watching tonight to seize this moment and —

Believe in yourselves.

Believe in your future.

And believe, once more, in America.

Thank you, God bless you, and God Bless these United States.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/read-full-text-donald-trumps-speech-congress

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 845-849

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 840-844

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 833-839

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 827-832

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 821-826

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 815-820

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 806-814

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 800-805

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 793-799

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 785-792

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 777-784

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 769-776

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 759-768

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-758

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 757, September 16, 2016, Story 1: Dissecting Trump’s Economic Plan — Right Direction But Huge Missed Opportunity To Change From Income To Consumption Based Taxation (Fair Tax Less) — Absolutely No Details As To When and How The U.S. Federal Budget Will Be Balanced And The National Debt and Unpaid Liabilities Will Be Paid Down– Growth Is The Answer Provided Government Spending Is Cut By $500 Billion Per Year Not $100 Billion — Kicking The Can Down The Road To 2030 When Debt Bomb Explodes As All The Baby Boomers Become Eligible And Collect Social Security and Medicare Entitlement Benefits! — Videos

Posted on September 16, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Cruise Missiles, Defense Spending, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Empires, Energy, Fast and Furious, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Human, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Iran Nuclear Weapons Deal, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Medicare, MIssiles, Monetary Policy, Natural Gas, Obama, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Scandals, Second Amendment, Security, Senate, Social Security, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, Unions, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 757: September 16, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 756: September 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 755: September 14, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 754: September 13, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 753: September 12, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 752: September 9, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 751: September 8, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

 Story 1: Dissecting Trump’s Economic Plan — Right Direction But Huge Missed Opportunity To Change From Income To Consumption Based Taxation (Fair Tax Less) — Absolutely No Details As To When and How The U.S. Federal Budget Will Be Balanced And The National Debt and Unpaid Liabilities Will Be Paid Down– Growth Is The Answer Provided Government Spending Is Cut By $500 Billion Per Year Not $100 Billion — Kicking The Can Down The Road To 2030 When Debt Bomb Explodes As All The Baby Boomers Become Eligible And Collect Social Security and Medicare Entitlement Benefits! — Videos

U.S. Debt Clock.org

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

For Fiscal Year 2016

513,662,000,000 Budget Deficit Through July 2016

 

Image result for cartoons trump new economic planImage result for cartoons trump new economic planImage result for cartoons trump new economic plantrump-the-economic-club-of-new-yorkImage result for cartoons trump new economic plan

Image result for cartoons trump new economic plan

Fiscal Year 2015

Image result for cartoons trump new economic plan

What are the Federal Budget Actuals for FY 2015?

From US Treasury Monthly Report for September 2015.

Total Federal Outlays: $3.69 trillion

Total Federal Receipts: $3.25 trillion

Federal Deficit: $438 billion

Total Federal Debt: $18.1 trillion

Details of Budgeted vs. Actual Outlays for FY 2015

 

Bar Chart of Government Spending by Agency

The bar chart comes directly from the Monthly Treasury Statement published by the U. S. Treasury Department.<—- Click on the chart for more info.

The “Debt Total” bar chart is generated from the Treasury Department’s “Debt Report” found on the Treasury Direct web site. It has links to search the debt for any given date range, and access to debt interest information. It is a direct source to government provided budget information.

 

http://www.federalbudget.com/

“Deficit” vs. “Debt”

Suppose you spend more money this month than your income. This situation is called a “budget deficit”. So you borrow (ie; use your credit card). The amount you borrowed (and now owe) is called your debt. You have to pay interest on your debt. If next month you spend more than your income, another deficit, you must borrow some more, and you’ll still have to pay the interest on your debt (now larger). If you have a deficit every month, you keep borrowing and your debt grows. Soon the interest payment on your loan is bigger than any other item in your budget. Eventually, all you can do is pay the interest payment, and you don’t have any money left over for anything else. This situation is known as bankruptcy.

“Reducing the deficit” is a meaningless soundbite. If theDEFICIT is any amount more than ZERO, we have to borrow more and the DEBT grows.

Each year since 1969, Congress has spent more money than its income. The Treasury Department has to borrow money to meet Congress’s appropriations. Here is a direct link to the Congressional Budget Office web site. Check out the CBO’s assessment of the Debt. We have to pay interest* on that huge, growing debt; and it dramatically cuts into our budget.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

fbip-main-30Image result for us federal budget and deficits 2016

http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/unsustainable-budget-deficits/

FBIP-MAIN-01-0516

http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/where-does-all-the-money-go/

fbip-main-33

Image result for us federal budget and deficits

http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/revenue-sources/

fbip-main-31

Social Security’s Deficits to Triple in 10 Years

FBIP-MAIN-16

http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/how-the-budget-has-changed/

fbip-main-28

http://federalbudgetinpictures.com/entitlements-to-consume-all-taxes/

fbip-main-34

ttp://federalbudgetinpictures.com/social-security-recipient-worker-ratio/

Image result for fairtax benefits Image result for fairtax the truth

Image result for fairtax benefits

h

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic policy

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan

Image result for cartoon trump

Image result for cartoon trump economic plan new york economic club

Image result for cartoon trump jobs

Image result for cartoon trump jobs

Image result for cartoon trump jobs

Image result for cartoon hillary clinton on obama birth certificate

Image result for cartoon hillary clinton on obama birth certificate

 

Dissecting Donald Trump’s economic plan

Donald Trump’s Economic Plan – Cashin’ In

Economic Outlook – Trump Outlines Plan For Growth – Journal Editorial Report

Donald Trump Economic Club of New York Event [ AMAZING ]

Donald Trump Answers Questions at Economic Club of New York

‘Trump doubling down on the American worker’ – GOP strategist

Dissecting Donald Trump’s economic plan

Breaking down Trump’s economic plan

Trump economic advisor breaks down Trump’s tax plan

Trump pitches economic plan

Welch responds to Mark Cuban, talks Trump’s economic plan

EAT THE RICH!

Do the Rich Pay Their Fair Share?

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

Bill Gates: A conversation on poverty and prosperity

The Rich Are Taxed Enough- Debate -Intelligence Squared U.S.

FairTax: Fire Up Our Economic Engine (Official HD)

Rep. Woodall Discusses FairTax with Colleagues on House Floor

Rep. Woodall Discusses Nation’s Fiscal Issues on House Floor

FAIRtax-What is It? Replaces income tax and payroll tax with sales tax

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.1

Q&A on the FAIRTAX pt.2

FairTax Prebate Explained

The FairTax: It’s Time

Pence on the Fair Tax

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

Freedom from the IRS! – FairTax Explained in Detail

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 1 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 2 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 3 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 4 of 5

John Stossel Inconvenient Taxes Part 5 of 5

A Blueprint for Balance

Which takes up a greater percentage of the federal budget — national defense or entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare?

Even if you picked the right answer (entitlements), you may be surprised by the gap between the two. National defense accounts for 16 percent of the federal budget. Entitlements? 52 percent.

Social Security alone dwarfs defense spending, taking up 24 percent. That’s right: One out of every four dollars spent at the national level goes toward the mammoth New Deal program. Medicare, Medicaid and other health care spending gets 28 percent of every federal dollar.

This is just one of the facts you can learn at a glance in FederalBudgetInPictures.com. You’ll find plenty of charts there to put the fiscal debate into sharper focus.

Not that you’ll necessarily enjoy getting a more accurate perspective on our nation’s spending. The “U.S. Budget vs. Family Budget” chart is particularly startling: “If a median-income American family spent money like the U.S. government, it would have spent all of its earnings, and then put $7,000 on the credit card in 2015, even though it was already $260,000 in debt.”

How often, when we hear news about Congress and the budget, do terms like “deficit spending” just wash over us, the numbers too big to comprehend, the terms too vague to have any real meaning? And yet, that’s our money that they’re mishandling. That’s our children’s future they’re mortgaging. Do we care?

A child born this year will have a $42,000 share of publicly held federal debt. That’s up from less than $10,000 for a child born in 1970. And the 2016 child, at current rates of spending, will see that debt climb to $68,454 by the time he’s 18, then hit $116,904 by the time he’s 34 (in 2050). This is unsustainable.

Speaking of unsustainable, another chart shows that we’re on pace for entitlement spending and interest on the debt to consume every dime of tax revenue by 2033. That’s right. By then, everything the federal government takes in via taxes will go toward Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other health care programs, along with the net interest on the massive national debt.

Worse, this is all set to happen automatically. Another chart, “Autopilot Spending Devours Budget,” shows why: “Congress only appropriates funds for the discretionary portion of the budget on an annual basis. Autopilot spending makes up more than two-thirds of the budget and is growing rapidly.”

So even if you vote in a fiscal hawk from your congressional district, and he sincerely tries to get spending under control, there’s only so much he can do. Absent a true overhaul, we’re headed toward a fiscal cliff — and the brakes are gone.

No problem, some people say. We just need to tax the rich more. Get those fat cats to cough up some extra dough, and we’ll be set.

Good luck with that. The federal income tax system is already highly progressive. In 2012 (the latest year with available data), the top 10 percent of income earners earned 48 percent of all income and paid 70 percent of all federal income taxes. How much more can we bleed the golden goose before it’s dead?

OK, some may reply, then we just need to raise taxes on corporations. Sorry: Among developed nations, the United States has the highest corporate tax rate, at 39 percent. That’s substantially higher than that of other global regional leaders, such as Canada (26.3 percent), Chile (22.5 percent) and Hong Kong (16.5 percent).

That doesn’t mean we have to despair. It won’t be easy, but the problem can be fixed. By creating a budget that restores fiscal responsibility, we can not only balance the budget, we can create surpluses to reduce the national debt. Heritage has already outlined such a plan, in detail, in its “Blueprint for Balance.”

We don’t tolerate fiscal irresponsibility at home. Why should we put up with it in Washington?

http://www.heritage.org/research/commentary/2016/6/a-blueprint-for-balance

 

Summary of the Latest Federal Income Tax Data, 2015 Update

November 19, 2015

The Internal Revenue Service has recently released new data on individual income taxes for calendar year 2013, showing the number of taxpayers, adjusted gross income, and income tax shares by income percentiles.[1]

The data demonstrates that the U.S. individual income tax continues to be progressive, borne mainly by the highest income earners.

Key Findings

  • In 2013, 138.3 million taxpayers reported earning $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income and paid $1.23 trillion in income taxes.
  • Every income group besides the top 1 percent of taxpayers reported higher income in 2013 than the previous year. All income groups paid higher taxes in 2013 than the previous year.
  • The share of income earned by the top 1 percent of taxpayers fell to 19.0 percent in 2013. Their share of federal income taxes fell slightly to 37.8 percent.
  • In 2012, the top 50 percent of all taxpayers (69.2 million filers) paid 97.2 percent of all income taxes while the bottom 50 percent paid the remaining 2.8 percent.
  • The top 1 percent (1.3 million filers) paid a greater share of income taxes (37.8 percent) than the bottom 90 percent (124.5 million filers) combined (30.2 percent).
  • The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid a higher effective income tax rate than any other group, at 27.1 percent, which is over 8 times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50 percent (3.3 percent).

Reported Income Decreased in 2013, but Taxes Increase

Taxpayers reported $9.03 trillion in adjusted gross income (AGI) on 138.3 million tax returns in 2013. While the U.S. economy grew in 2013, total AGI fell by $8 billion from 2012 levels. Furthermore, there were 2.2 million more returns filed in 2013 than 2012, meaning that average AGI fell by $1,131 per return.

The most likely explanation behind lower AGI in 2013 is unusually high capital gains realizations in 2012.[2] Because the top tax rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends was set to rise from 15 percent to 23.8 percent in 2013, many high-income Americans realized their capital gains in 2012, to take advantage of low tax rates.  As capital gains realizations fell to normal levels in 2013, overall AGI decreased. Accordingly, only the top 1 percent of taxpayers saw a decrease in income in 2013; all other groups saw their income increase.

Despite the decrease in overall income reported, taxes paid increased by $46 billion to $1.232 trillion in 2013. Taxes paid increased for all income groups.

The share of income earned by the top 1 percent fell to 19.04 percent of total AGI, down from 21.86 percent in 2012. The share of the income tax burden for the top 1 percent also fell slightly, from 38.09 percent in 2012 to 37.80 percent in 2013.

Table 1. Summary of Federal Income Tax Data, 2013
Number of Returns* AGI ($ millions) Income Taxes Paid ($ millions) Group’s Share of Total AGI Group’s Share of Income Taxes Income Split Point Average Tax Rate
All Taxpayers 138,313,155 $9,033,840 $1,231,911 100.00% 100.00%
Top 1% 1,383,132 $1,719,794 $465,705 19.04% 37.80% $428,713 27.08%
1-5% 5,532,526 $1,389,594 $255,537 15.38% 20.74% 18.39%
Top 5% 6,915,658 $3,109,388 $721,242 34.42% 58.55% $179,760 23.20%
5-10% 6,915,658 $1,034,110 $138,621 11.45% 11.25% 13.40%
Top 10% 13,831,316 $4,143,498 $859,863 45.87% 69.80% $127,695 20.75%
10-25% 20,746,973 $2,008,180 $202,935 22.23% 16.47% 10.11%
Top 25% 34,578,289 $6,151,678 $1,062,798 68.10% 86.27% $74,955 17.28%
25-50% 34,578,289 $1,843,925 $134,805 20.41% 10.94% 7.31%
Top 50% 69,156,578 $7,995,603 $1,197,603 88.51% 97.22% $36,841 14.98%
Bottom 50% 69,156,578 $1,038,237 $34,307 11.49% 2.78% $36,841 3.30%
*Does not include dependent filers.

Source: Internal Revenue Service.

High-Income Americans Paid the Majority of Federal Taxes

In 2013, the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (those with AGIs below $36,841) earned 11.49 percent of total AGI. This group of taxpayers paid approximately $34 billion in taxes, or 2.78 percent of all income taxes in 2013.

In contrast, the top 1 percent of all taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs of $428,713 and above), earned 19.04 percent of all AGI in 2013, but paid 37.80 percent of all federal income taxes.

In 2013, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid $465 billion, or 37.80 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid $372 billion, or 30.20 percent of all income taxes.

Chart 1.

High-Income Taxpayers Pay the Highest Average Tax Rates

The 2013 IRS data shows that taxpayers with higher incomes pay much higher average income tax rates than lower-income taxpayers.

The bottom 50 percent of taxpayers (taxpayers with AGIs below $36,841) faced an average income tax rate of 3.3 percent. Other taxpayers face much higher rates: for example, taxpayers with AGIs between the 10th and 5th percentile ($127,695 and $179,760) pay an average effective rate of 13.4 percent – four times the rate paid by those in the bottom 50 percent.

The top 1 percent of taxpayers (AGI of $428,713 and above) paid the highest effective income tax rate at 27.1 percent, 8.19 times the rate faced by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers.

Chart 2.

Taxpayers at the very top of the income distribution, the top 0.1 percent (with AGIs over $1.86 million), paid an even higher average tax rate, of 27.9 percent.

The average tax rate of the top 1 percent of taxpayers rose significantly in 2013, from 21.9 percent in 2012 to 27.1 percent in 2013. This increase in the average tax rate of the 1 percent was largely due to several changes to the federal tax code, imposed at the end of 2012 as part of the “fiscal cliff” tax deal: a new 39.6 percent income tax bracket, a higher top rate on capital gains and dividends, and the reintroduction of the Pease limitation on itemized deductions.[3]

Appendix

Table 2. Number of Federal Individual Income Tax Returns Filed, 1980–2013 (in thousands)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 93,239 932 4,662 4,662 9,324 13,986 23,310 23,310 46,619 46,619
1981 94,587 946 4,729 4,729 9,459 14,188 23,647 23,647 47,293 47,293
1982 94,426 944 4,721 4,721 9,443 14,164 23,607 23,607 47,213 47,213
1983 95,331 953 4,767 4,767 9,533 14,300 23,833 23,833 47,665 47,665
1984 98,436 984 4,922 4,922 9,844 14,765 24,609 24,609 49,218 49,219
1985 100,625 1,006 5,031 5,031 10,063 15,094 25,156 25,156 50,313 50,313
1986 102,088 1,021 5,104 5,104 10,209 15,313 25,522 25,522 51,044 51,044
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 106,155 1,062 5,308 5,308 10,615 15,923 26,539 26,539 53,077 53,077
1988 108,873 1,089 5,444 5,444 10,887 16,331 27,218 27,218 54,436 54,436
1989 111,313 1,113 5,566 5,566 11,131 16,697 27,828 27,828 55,656 55,656
1990 112,812 1,128 5,641 5,641 11,281 16,922 28,203 28,203 56,406 56,406
1991 113,804 1,138 5,690 5,690 11,380 17,071 28,451 28,451 56,902 56,902
1992 112,653 1,127 5,633 5,633 11,265 16,898 28,163 28,163 56,326 56,326
1993 113,681 1,137 5,684 5,684 11,368 17,052 28,420 28,420 56,841 56,841
1994 114,990 1,150 5,749 5,749 11,499 17,248 28,747 28,747 57,495 57,495
1995 117,274 1,173 5,864 5,864 11,727 17,591 29,319 29,319 58,637 58,637
1996 119,442 1,194 5,972 5,972 11,944 17,916 29,860 29,860 59,721 59,721
1997 121,503 1,215 6,075 6,075 12,150 18,225 30,376 30,376 60,752 60,752
1998 123,776 1,238 6,189 6,189 12,378 18,566 30,944 30,944 61,888 61,888
1999 126,009 1,260 6,300 6,300 12,601 18,901 31,502 31,502 63,004 63,004
2000 128,227 1,282 6,411 6,411 12,823 19,234 32,057 32,057 64,114 64,114
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 119,371 119 1,194 5,969 5,969 11,937 17,906 29,843 29,843 59,685 59,685
2002 119,851 120 1,199 5,993 5,993 11,985 17,978 29,963 29,963 59,925 59,925
2003 120,759 121 1,208 6,038 6,038 12,076 18,114 30,190 30,190 60,379 60,379
2004 122,510 123 1,225 6,125 6,125 12,251 18,376 30,627 30,627 61,255 61,255
2005 124,673 125 1,247 6,234 6,234 12,467 18,701 31,168 31,168 62,337 62,337
2006 128,441 128 1,284 6,422 6,422 12,844 19,266 32,110 32,110 64,221 64,221
2007 132,655 133 1,327 6,633 6,633 13,265 19,898 33,164 33,164 66,327 66,327
2008 132,892 133 1,329 6,645 6,645 13,289 19,934 33,223 33,223 66,446 66,446
2009 132,620 133 1,326 6,631 6,631 13,262 19,893 33,155 33,155 66,310 66,310
2010 135,033 135 1,350 6,752 6,752 13,503 20,255 33,758 33,758 67,517 67,517
2011 136,586 137 1,366 6,829 6,829 13,659 20,488 34,146 34,146 68,293 68,293
2012 136,080 136 1,361 6,804 6,804 13,608 20,412 34,020 34,020 68,040 68,040
2013 138,313 138 1,383 6,916 6,916 13,831 20,747 34,578 34,578 69,157 69,157
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 3. Adjusted Gross Income of Taxpayers in Various Income Brackets, 1980–2013 (in Billions of Dollars)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 $1,627 $138 $342 $181 $523 $400 $922 $417 $1,339 $288
1981 $1,791 $149 $372 $201 $573 $442 $1,015 $458 $1,473 $318
1982 $1,876 $167 $398 $207 $605 $460 $1,065 $478 $1,544 $332
1983 $1,970 $183 $428 $217 $646 $481 $1,127 $498 $1,625 $344
1984 $2,173 $210 $482 $240 $723 $528 $1,251 $543 $1,794 $379
1985 $2,344 $235 $531 $260 $791 $567 $1,359 $580 $1,939 $405
1986 $2,524 $285 $608 $278 $887 $604 $1,490 $613 $2,104 $421
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $2,814 $347 $722 $316 $1,038 $671 $1,709 $664 $2,374 $440
1988 $3,124 $474 $891 $342 $1,233 $718 $1,951 $707 $2,658 $466
1989 $3,299 $468 $918 $368 $1,287 $768 $2,054 $751 $2,805 $494
1990 $3,451 $483 $953 $385 $1,338 $806 $2,144 $788 $2,933 $519
1991 $3,516 $457 $943 $400 $1,343 $832 $2,175 $809 $2,984 $532
1992 $3,681 $524 $1,031 $413 $1,444 $856 $2,299 $832 $3,131 $549
1993 $3,776 $521 $1,048 $426 $1,474 $883 $2,358 $854 $3,212 $563
1994 $3,961 $547 $1,103 $449 $1,552 $929 $2,481 $890 $3,371 $590
1995 $4,245 $620 $1,223 $482 $1,705 $985 $2,690 $938 $3,628 $617
1996 $4,591 $737 $1,394 $515 $1,909 $1,043 $2,953 $992 $3,944 $646
1997 $5,023 $873 $1,597 $554 $2,151 $1,116 $3,268 $1,060 $4,328 $695
1998 $5,469 $1,010 $1,797 $597 $2,394 $1,196 $3,590 $1,132 $4,721 $748
1999 $5,909 $1,153 $2,012 $641 $2,653 $1,274 $3,927 $1,199 $5,126 $783
2000 $6,424 $1,337 $2,267 $688 $2,955 $1,358 $4,314 $1,276 $5,590 $834
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 $6,116 $492 $1,065 $1,934 $666 $2,600 $1,334 $3,933 $1,302 $5,235 $881
2002 $5,982 $421 $960 $1,812 $660 $2,472 $1,339 $3,812 $1,303 $5,115 $867
2003 $6,157 $466 $1,030 $1,908 $679 $2,587 $1,375 $3,962 $1,325 $5,287 $870
2004 $6,735 $615 $1,279 $2,243 $725 $2,968 $1,455 $4,423 $1,403 $5,826 $908
2005 $7,366 $784 $1,561 $2,623 $778 $3,401 $1,540 $4,940 $1,473 $6,413 $953
2006 $7,970 $895 $1,761 $2,918 $841 $3,760 $1,652 $5,412 $1,568 $6,980 $990
2007 $8,622 $1,030 $1,971 $3,223 $905 $4,128 $1,770 $5,898 $1,673 $7,571 $1,051
2008 $8,206 $826 $1,657 $2,868 $905 $3,773 $1,782 $5,555 $1,673 $7,228 $978
2009 $7,579 $602 $1,305 $2,439 $878 $3,317 $1,740 $5,058 $1,620 $6,678 $900
2010 $8,040 $743 $1,517 $2,716 $915 $3,631 $1,800 $5,431 $1,665 $7,096 $944
2011 $8,317 $737 $1,556 $2,819 $956 $3,775 $1,866 $5,641 $1,716 $7,357 $961
2012 $9,042 $1,017 $1,977 $3,331 $997 $4,328 $1,934 $6,262 $1,776 $8,038 $1,004
2013 $9,034 $816 $1,720 $3,109 $1,034 $4,143 $2,008 $6,152 $1,844 $7,996 $1,038
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
 Table 4. Total Income Tax after Credits, 1980–2013 (in Billions of Dollars)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 $249 $47 $92 $31 $123 $59 $182 $50 $232 $18
1981 $282 $50 $99 $36 $135 $69 $204 $57 $261 $21
1982 $276 $53 $100 $34 $134 $66 $200 $56 $256 $20
1983 $272 $55 $101 $34 $135 $64 $199 $54 $252 $19
1984 $297 $63 $113 $37 $150 $68 $219 $57 $276 $22
1985 $322 $70 $125 $41 $166 $73 $238 $60 $299 $23
1986 $367 $94 $156 $44 $201 $78 $279 $64 $343 $24
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $369 $92 $160 $46 $205 $79 $284 $63 $347 $22
1988 $413 $114 $188 $48 $236 $85 $321 $68 $389 $24
1989 $433 $109 $190 $51 $241 $93 $334 $73 $408 $25
1990 $447 $112 $195 $52 $248 $97 $344 $77 $421 $26
1991 $448 $111 $194 $56 $250 $96 $347 $77 $424 $25
1992 $476 $131 $218 $58 $276 $97 $374 $78 $452 $24
1993 $503 $146 $238 $60 $298 $101 $399 $80 $479 $24
1994 $535 $154 $254 $64 $318 $108 $425 $84 $509 $25
1995 $588 $178 $288 $70 $357 $115 $473 $88 $561 $27
1996 $658 $213 $335 $76 $411 $124 $535 $95 $630 $28
1997 $727 $241 $377 $82 $460 $134 $594 $102 $696 $31
1998 $788 $274 $425 $88 $513 $139 $652 $103 $755 $33
1999 $877 $317 $486 $97 $583 $150 $733 $109 $842 $35
2000 $981 $367 $554 $106 $660 $164 $824 $118 $942 $38
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 $885 $139 $294 $462 $101 $564 $158 $722 $120 $842 $43
2002 $794 $120 $263 $420 $93 $513 $143 $657 $104 $761 $33
2003 $746 $115 $251 $399 $85 $484 $133 $617 $98 $715 $30
2004 $829 $142 $301 $467 $91 $558 $137 $695 $102 $797 $32
2005 $932 $176 $361 $549 $98 $647 $145 $793 $106 $898 $33
2006 $1,020 $196 $402 $607 $108 $715 $157 $872 $113 $986 $35
2007 $1,112 $221 $443 $666 $117 $783 $170 $953 $122 $1,075 $37
2008 $1,029 $187 $386 $597 $115 $712 $168 $880 $117 $997 $32
2009 $863 $146 $314 $502 $101 $604 $146 $749 $93 $842 $21
2010 $949 $170 $355 $561 $110 $670 $156 $827 $100 $927 $22
2011 $1,043 $168 $366 $589 $123 $712 $181 $893 $120 $1,012 $30
2012 $1,185 $220 $451 $699 $133 $831 $193 $1,024 $128 $1,152 $33
2013 $1,232 $228 $466 $721 $139 $860 $203 $1,063 $135 $1,198 $34
Table 5. Adjusted Gross Income Shares, 1980–2013 (Percent of Total AGI Earned by Each Group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 8.46% 21.01% 11.12% 32.13% 24.57% 56.70% 25.62% 82.32% 17.68%
1981 100% 8.30% 20.78% 11.20% 31.98% 24.69% 56.67% 25.59% 82.25% 17.75%
1982 100% 8.91% 21.23% 11.03% 32.26% 24.53% 56.79% 25.50% 82.29% 17.71%
1983 100% 9.29% 21.74% 11.04% 32.78% 24.44% 57.22% 25.30% 82.52% 17.48%
1984 100% 9.66% 22.19% 11.06% 33.25% 24.31% 57.56% 25.00% 82.56% 17.44%
1985 100% 10.03% 22.67% 11.10% 33.77% 24.21% 57.97% 24.77% 82.74% 17.26%
1986 100% 11.30% 24.11% 11.02% 35.12% 23.92% 59.04% 24.30% 83.34% 16.66%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 100% 12.32% 25.67% 11.23% 36.90% 23.85% 60.75% 23.62% 84.37% 15.63%
1988 100% 15.16% 28.51% 10.94% 39.45% 22.99% 62.44% 22.63% 85.07% 14.93%
1989 100% 14.19% 27.84% 11.16% 39.00% 23.28% 62.28% 22.76% 85.04% 14.96%
1990 100% 14.00% 27.62% 11.15% 38.77% 23.36% 62.13% 22.84% 84.97% 15.03%
1991 100% 12.99% 26.83% 11.37% 38.20% 23.65% 61.85% 23.01% 84.87% 15.13%
1992 100% 14.23% 28.01% 11.21% 39.23% 23.25% 62.47% 22.61% 85.08% 14.92%
1993 100% 13.79% 27.76% 11.29% 39.05% 23.40% 62.45% 22.63% 85.08% 14.92%
1994 100% 13.80% 27.85% 11.34% 39.19% 23.45% 62.64% 22.48% 85.11% 14.89%
1995 100% 14.60% 28.81% 11.35% 40.16% 23.21% 63.37% 22.09% 85.46% 14.54%
1996 100% 16.04% 30.36% 11.23% 41.59% 22.73% 64.32% 21.60% 85.92% 14.08%
1997 100% 17.38% 31.79% 11.03% 42.83% 22.22% 65.05% 21.11% 86.16% 13.84%
1998 100% 18.47% 32.85% 10.92% 43.77% 21.87% 65.63% 20.69% 86.33% 13.67%
1999 100% 19.51% 34.04% 10.85% 44.89% 21.57% 66.46% 20.29% 86.75% 13.25%
2000 100% 20.81% 35.30% 10.71% 46.01% 21.15% 67.15% 19.86% 87.01% 12.99%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 100% 8.05% 17.41% 31.61% 10.89% 42.50% 21.80% 64.31% 21.29% 85.60% 14.40%
2002 100% 7.04% 16.05% 30.29% 11.04% 41.33% 22.39% 63.71% 21.79% 85.50% 14.50%
2003 100% 7.56% 16.73% 30.99% 11.03% 42.01% 22.33% 64.34% 21.52% 85.87% 14.13%
2004 100% 9.14% 18.99% 33.31% 10.77% 44.07% 21.60% 65.68% 20.83% 86.51% 13.49%
2005 100% 10.64% 21.19% 35.61% 10.56% 46.17% 20.90% 67.07% 19.99% 87.06% 12.94%
2006 100% 11.23% 22.10% 36.62% 10.56% 47.17% 20.73% 67.91% 19.68% 87.58% 12.42%
2007 100% 11.95% 22.86% 37.39% 10.49% 47.88% 20.53% 68.41% 19.40% 87.81% 12.19%
2008 100% 10.06% 20.19% 34.95% 11.03% 45.98% 21.71% 67.69% 20.39% 88.08% 11.92%
2009 100% 7.94% 17.21% 32.18% 11.59% 43.77% 22.96% 66.74% 21.38% 88.12% 11.88%
2010 100% 9.24% 18.87% 33.78% 11.38% 45.17% 22.38% 67.55% 20.71% 88.26% 11.74%
2011 100% 8.86% 18.70% 33.89% 11.50% 45.39% 22.43% 67.82% 20.63% 88.45% 11.55%
2012 100% 11.25% 21.86% 36.84% 11.03% 47.87% 21.39% 69.25% 19.64% 88.90% 11.10%
2013 100% 9.03% 19.04% 34.42% 11.45% 45.87% 22.23% 68.10% 20.41% 88.51% 11.49%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 6. Total Income Tax Shares, 1980–2013 (Percent of Federal Income Tax Paid by Each Group)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 100% 19.05% 36.84% 12.44% 49.28% 23.74% 73.02% 19.93% 92.95% 7.05%
1981 100% 17.58% 35.06% 12.90% 47.96% 24.33% 72.29% 20.26% 92.55% 7.45%
1982 100% 19.03% 36.13% 12.45% 48.59% 23.91% 72.50% 20.15% 92.65% 7.35%
1983 100% 20.32% 37.26% 12.44% 49.71% 23.39% 73.10% 19.73% 92.83% 7.17%
1984 100% 21.12% 37.98% 12.58% 50.56% 22.92% 73.49% 19.16% 92.65% 7.35%
1985 100% 21.81% 38.78% 12.67% 51.46% 22.60% 74.06% 18.77% 92.83% 7.17%
1986 100% 25.75% 42.57% 12.12% 54.69% 21.33% 76.02% 17.52% 93.54% 6.46%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 100% 24.81% 43.26% 12.35% 55.61% 21.31% 76.92% 17.02% 93.93% 6.07%
1988 100% 27.58% 45.62% 11.66% 57.28% 20.57% 77.84% 16.44% 94.28% 5.72%
1989 100% 25.24% 43.94% 11.85% 55.78% 21.44% 77.22% 16.94% 94.17% 5.83%
1990 100% 25.13% 43.64% 11.73% 55.36% 21.66% 77.02% 17.16% 94.19% 5.81%
1991 100% 24.82% 43.38% 12.45% 55.82% 21.46% 77.29% 17.23% 94.52% 5.48%
1992 100% 27.54% 45.88% 12.12% 58.01% 20.47% 78.48% 16.46% 94.94% 5.06%
1993 100% 29.01% 47.36% 11.88% 59.24% 20.03% 79.27% 15.92% 95.19% 4.81%
1994 100% 28.86% 47.52% 11.93% 59.45% 20.10% 79.55% 15.68% 95.23% 4.77%
1995 100% 30.26% 48.91% 11.84% 60.75% 19.62% 80.36% 15.03% 95.39% 4.61%
1996 100% 32.31% 50.97% 11.54% 62.51% 18.80% 81.32% 14.36% 95.68% 4.32%
1997 100% 33.17% 51.87% 11.33% 63.20% 18.47% 81.67% 14.05% 95.72% 4.28%
1998 100% 34.75% 53.84% 11.20% 65.04% 17.65% 82.69% 13.10% 95.79% 4.21%
1999 100% 36.18% 55.45% 11.00% 66.45% 17.09% 83.54% 12.46% 96.00% 4.00%
2000 100% 37.42% 56.47% 10.86% 67.33% 16.68% 84.01% 12.08% 96.09% 3.91%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 100% 15.68% 33.22% 52.24% 11.44% 63.68% 17.88% 81.56% 13.54% 95.10% 4.90%
2002 100% 15.09% 33.09% 52.86% 11.77% 64.63% 18.04% 82.67% 13.12% 95.79% 4.21%
2003 100% 15.37% 33.69% 53.54% 11.35% 64.89% 17.87% 82.76% 13.17% 95.93% 4.07%
2004 100% 17.12% 36.28% 56.35% 10.96% 67.30% 16.52% 83.82% 12.31% 96.13% 3.87%
2005 100% 18.91% 38.78% 58.93% 10.52% 69.46% 15.61% 85.07% 11.35% 96.41% 3.59%
2006 100% 19.24% 39.36% 59.49% 10.59% 70.08% 15.41% 85.49% 11.10% 96.59% 3.41%
2007 100% 19.84% 39.81% 59.90% 10.51% 70.41% 15.30% 85.71% 10.93% 96.64% 3.36%
2008 100% 18.20% 37.51% 58.06% 11.14% 69.20% 16.37% 85.57% 11.33% 96.90% 3.10%
2009 100% 16.91% 36.34% 58.17% 11.72% 69.89% 16.85% 86.74% 10.80% 97.54% 2.46%
2010 100% 17.88% 37.38% 59.07% 11.55% 70.62% 16.49% 87.11% 10.53% 97.64% 2.36%
2011 100% 16.14% 35.06% 56.49% 11.77% 68.26% 17.36% 85.62% 11.50% 97.11% 2.89%
2012 100% 18.60% 38.09% 58.95% 11.22% 70.17% 16.25% 86.42% 10.80% 97.22% 2.78%
2013 100% 18.48% 37.80% 58.55% 11.25% 69.80% 16.47% 86.27% 10.94% 97.22% 2.78%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.
Table 7. Dollar Cut-Off, 1980–2013 (Minimum AGI for Tax Returns to Fall into Various Percentiles; Thresholds Not Adjusted for Inflation)
Year Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Top 10% Top 25% Top 50%
1980 $80,580 $43,792 $35,070 $23,606 $12,936
1981 $85,428 $47,845 $38,283 $25,655 $14,000
1982 $89,388 $49,284 $39,676 $27,027 $14,539
1983 $93,512 $51,553 $41,222 $27,827 $15,044
1984 $100,889 $55,423 $43,956 $29,360 $15,998
1985 $108,134 $58,883 $46,322 $30,928 $16,688
1986 $118,818 $62,377 $48,656 $32,242 $17,302
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 $139,289 $68,414 $52,921 $33,983 $17,768
1988 $157,136 $72,735 $55,437 $35,398 $18,367
1989 $163,869 $76,933 $58,263 $36,839 $18,993
1990 $167,421 $79,064 $60,287 $38,080 $19,767
1991 $170,139 $81,720 $61,944 $38,929 $20,097
1992 $181,904 $85,103 $64,457 $40,378 $20,803
1993 $185,715 $87,386 $66,077 $41,210 $21,179
1994 $195,726 $91,226 $68,753 $42,742 $21,802
1995 $209,406 $96,221 $72,094 $44,207 $22,344
1996 $227,546 $101,141 $74,986 $45,757 $23,174
1997 $250,736 $108,048 $79,212 $48,173 $24,393
1998 $269,496 $114,729 $83,220 $50,607 $25,491
1999 $293,415 $120,846 $87,682 $52,965 $26,415
2000 $313,469 $128,336 $92,144 $55,225 $27,682
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 $1,393,718 $306,635 $132,082 $96,151 $59,026 $31,418
2002 $1,245,352 $296,194 $130,750 $95,699 $59,066 $31,299
2003 $1,317,088 $305,939 $133,741 $97,470 $59,896 $31,447
2004 $1,617,918 $339,993 $140,758 $101,838 $62,794 $32,622
2005 $1,938,175 $379,261 $149,216 $106,864 $64,821 $33,484
2006 $2,124,625 $402,603 $157,390 $112,016 $67,291 $34,417
2007 $2,251,017 $426,439 $164,883 $116,396 $69,559 $35,541
2008 $1,867,652 $392,513 $163,512 $116,813 $69,813 $35,340
2009 $1,469,393 $351,968 $157,342 $114,181 $68,216 $34,156
2010 $1,634,386 $369,691 $161,579 $116,623 $69,126 $34,338
2011 $1,717,675 $388,905 $167,728 $120,136 $70,492 $34,823
2012 $2,161,175 $434,682 $175,817 $125,195 $73,354 $36,055
2013 $1,860,848 $428,713 $179,760 $127,695 $74,955 $36,841
Source: Internal Revenue Service.

 

Table 8. Average Tax Rate, 1980–2013 (Percent of AGI Paid in Income Taxes)
Year Total Top 0.1% Top 1% Top 5% Between 5% & 10% Top 10% Between 10% & 25% Top 25% Between 25% & 50% Top 50% Bottom 50%
1980 15.31% 34.47% 26.85% 17.13% 23.49% 14.80% 19.72% 11.91% 17.29% 6.10%
1981 15.76% 33.37% 26.59% 18.16% 23.64% 15.53% 20.11% 12.48% 17.73% 6.62%
1982 14.72% 31.43% 25.05% 16.61% 22.17% 14.35% 18.79% 11.63% 16.57% 6.10%
1983 13.79% 30.18% 23.64% 15.54% 20.91% 13.20% 17.62% 10.76% 15.52% 5.66%
1984 13.68% 29.92% 23.42% 15.57% 20.81% 12.90% 17.47% 10.48% 15.35% 5.77%
1985 13.73% 29.86% 23.50% 15.69% 20.93% 12.83% 17.55% 10.41% 15.41% 5.70%
1986 14.54% 33.13% 25.68% 15.99% 22.64% 12.97% 18.72% 10.48% 16.32% 5.63%
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 changed the definition of AGI, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
1987 13.12% 26.41% 22.10% 14.43% 19.77% 11.71% 16.61% 9.45% 14.60% 5.09%
1988 13.21% 24.04% 21.14% 14.07% 19.18% 11.82% 16.47% 9.60% 14.64% 5.06%
1989 13.12% 23.34% 20.71% 13.93% 18.77% 12.08% 16.27% 9.77% 14.53% 5.11%
1990 12.95% 23.25% 20.46% 13.63% 18.50% 12.01% 16.06% 9.73% 14.36% 5.01%
1991 12.75% 24.37% 20.62% 13.96% 18.63% 11.57% 15.93% 9.55% 14.20% 4.62%
1992 12.94% 25.05% 21.19% 13.99% 19.13% 11.39% 16.25% 9.42% 14.44% 4.39%
1993 13.32% 28.01% 22.71% 14.01% 20.20% 11.40% 16.90% 9.37% 14.90% 4.29%
1994 13.50% 28.23% 23.04% 14.20% 20.48% 11.57% 17.15% 9.42% 15.11% 4.32%
1995 13.86% 28.73% 23.53% 14.46% 20.97% 11.71% 17.58% 9.43% 15.47% 4.39%
1996 14.34% 28.87% 24.07% 14.74% 21.55% 11.86% 18.12% 9.53% 15.96% 4.40%
1997 14.48% 27.64% 23.62% 14.87% 21.36% 12.04% 18.18% 9.63% 16.09% 4.48%
1998 14.42% 27.12% 23.63% 14.79% 21.42% 11.63% 18.16% 9.12% 16.00% 4.44%
1999 14.85% 27.53% 24.18% 15.06% 21.98% 11.76% 18.66% 9.12% 16.43% 4.48%
2000 15.26% 27.45% 24.42% 15.48% 22.34% 12.04% 19.09% 9.28% 16.86% 4.60%
The IRS changed methodology, so data above and below this line are not strictly comparable.
2001 14.47% 28.17% 27.60% 23.91% 15.20% 21.68% 11.87% 18.35% 9.20% 16.08% 4.92%
2002 13.28% 28.48% 27.37% 23.17% 14.15% 20.76% 10.70% 17.23% 8.00% 14.87% 3.86%
2003 12.11% 24.60% 24.38% 20.92% 12.46% 18.70% 9.69% 15.57% 7.41% 13.53% 3.49%
2004 12.31% 23.06% 23.52% 20.83% 12.53% 18.80% 9.41% 15.71% 7.27% 13.68% 3.53%
2005 12.65% 22.48% 23.15% 20.93% 12.61% 19.03% 9.45% 16.04% 7.18% 14.01% 3.51%
2006 12.80% 21.94% 22.80% 20.80% 12.84% 19.02% 9.52% 16.12% 7.22% 14.12% 3.51%
2007 12.90% 21.42% 22.46% 20.66% 12.92% 18.96% 9.61% 16.16% 7.27% 14.19% 3.56%
2008 12.54% 22.67% 23.29% 20.83% 12.66% 18.87% 9.45% 15.85% 6.97% 13.79% 3.26%
2009 11.39% 24.28% 24.05% 20.59% 11.53% 18.19% 8.36% 14.81% 5.76% 12.61% 2.35%
2010 11.81% 22.84% 23.39% 20.64% 11.98% 18.46% 8.70% 15.22% 6.01% 13.06% 2.37%
2011 12.54% 22.82% 23.50% 20.89% 12.83% 18.85% 9.70% 15.82% 6.98% 13.76% 3.13%
2012 13.11% 21.67% 22.83% 20.97% 13.33% 19.21% 9.96% 16.35% 7.21% 14.33% 3.28%
2013 13.64% 27.91% 27.08% 23.20% 13.40% 20.75% 10.11% 17.28% 7.31% 14.98% 3.30%
Source: Internal Revenue Service.

 

To access this data on GitHub, click here.

 

(1) For data prior to 2001, all tax returns that have a positive AGI are included, even those that do not have a positive income tax liability. For data from 2001 forward, returns with negative AGI are also included, but dependent returns are excluded.

(2) Income tax after credits (the measure of “income taxes paid” above) does not account for the refundable portion of EITC. If it were included, the tax share of the top income groups would be higher. The refundable portion is classified as a spending program by the Office of Management and Budget and therefore is not included by the IRS in these figures.

(3) The only tax analyzed here is the federal individual income tax, which is responsible for about 25 percent of the nation’s taxes paid (at all levels of government). Federal income taxes are much more progressive than payroll taxes, which are responsible for about 20 percent of all taxes paid (at all levels of government), and are more progressive than most state and local taxes.

(4) AGI is a fairly narrow income concept and does not include income items like government transfers (except for the portion of Social Security benefits that is taxed), the value of employer-provided health insurance, underreported or unreported income (most notably that of sole proprietors), income derived from municipal bond interest, net imputed rental income, and others.

(5) The unit of analysis here is that of the tax return. In the figures prior to 2001, some dependent returns are included. Under other units of analysis (like the Treasury Department’s Family Economic Unit), these returns would likely be paired with parents’ returns.

(6) These figures represent the legal incidence of the income tax. Most distributional tables (such as those from CBO, Tax Policy Center, Citizens for Tax Justice, the Treasury Department, and JCT) assume that the entire economic incidence of personal income taxes falls on the income earner.

 


[1] Individual Income Tax Rates and Tax Shares, Internal Revenue Service Statistics of Income, http://www.irs.gov/uac/SOI-Tax-Stats-Individual-Income-Tax-Rates-and-Tax-Shares.

[2] See Richard Rubin, Capital Gains Rose 60% in Year Before U.S. Tax Increase, Bloomberg, Mar. 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-03-20/capital-gains-rose-60-in-year-before-u-s-tax-increase

[3] Scott Greenberg, Here’s How Much Taxes on the Rich Rose in 2013, Tax Foundation, Aug. 2015, http://taxfoundation.org/blog/here-s-how-much-taxes-rich-rose-2013

 

http://taxfoundation.org/article/summary-latest-federal-income-tax-data-2015-update

 

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 751-757

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 745-750

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 738-744

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 732-737

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 727-731

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 720-726

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 713-719

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-712

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

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

The Pronk Pops Show 750, September 7, 2016, Story 1: Trump Indictment of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s Failed Foreign Policy of Death — Videos –Story 2: Conservative Movement Leader and Author of Updated Classic “A Choice, not an Echo”, and Defender of The Family and Life, Phyllis Schlafly Passed Way At 92, Rest In Peace — Videos — Story 3: Donald Trump in Detroit Addresses and Listens To Black Church Members of Great Faith Ministries — Calls For Civil Rights Agenda For Our Times — Videos Story 4: Clinton in Cleveland Kicks Off Campaign with A Hacking Coughing Fit — Videos — Story 5: Hillary Clinton Destroying Emails That Were Subject To Congressional Subpoena and Preservation of Evidence Order Is Obstruction of Justice! — 13 Blackberries Gone Missing –House oversight chair Jason Chaffetz asks for new investigation of deleted Clinton emails! — Videos

Posted on September 6, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Banking System, Benghazi, Blogroll, Breaking News, Budgetary Policy, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Culture, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Elections, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Human, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Impeachment, Labor Economics, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Mexico, Monetary Policy, Movies, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Private Sector Unions, Pro Life, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Security, Senate, Social Science, Success, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, Unemployment, Unions, United States of America, Videos, Violence, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 750: September 7, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 749: September 2, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 748: September 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 747: August 31, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 746: August 30, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 745: August 29, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 744: August 26, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 743: August 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 742: August 24, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 741: August 23, 2016 

Pronk Pops Show 740: August 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 739: August 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 738: August 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 737: August 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 736: August 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 735: August 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 734: August 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 733: August 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 732: August 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 731: August 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 730: August 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 729: August 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 728: July 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 727: July 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 726: July 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 725: July 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 724: July 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 723: July 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 722: July 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 721: July 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 720: July 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 719: July 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 718: July 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 717: July 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 716: July 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 715: July 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 714: July 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 713: July 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 712: July 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 711: July 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 710: June 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 709: June 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 708: June 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 707: June 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Story 1: Trump Indictment of  Barack Obama’s and Hillary Clinton’s Failed Foreign Policy of Death and Destruction! — Videos

trump-speech-defense

Watch Donald Trump’s full speech on defense spending

 

Jeff Koterba cartoon for August 15, 2014 "Obama Hillary Clinton campaign foreign policy"

clinton-email-server

TEXT: Trump’s remarks on military readiness

 

Story 2: Conservative Movement Leader and Author of Updated Classic  “A Choice, not an Echo”, and Defender of The Family and Life, Phyllis Schlafly Passed Way At 92, Rest In Peace — Videosphyllis_schlaflywho-killed-the-american-familya-choice-not-an-echo

“The most frequent complaint I hear from college students is that professors inject their leftist political comments into their courses even when they have nothing to do with the subject.”

“Our public school system is our country’s biggest and most inefficient monopoly, yet it keeps demanding more and more money.”

~Phyllis Schlafly

Conservative Icon Phyllis Schlafly Dead at 92

Conservative Icon Phyllis Schlafly Dies at 92

Phyllis Schlafly: The Lost Interview

The Liberalization of America | Phyllis Schlafly and Stefan Molyneux

Rise of the Left, Death of the Family | Phyllis Schlafly and Stefan Molyneux

Phyllis Schlafly Remembered

In Honor of Phyllis Schlafly (Jesse Lee Peterson)

Phyllis Schlafly: The Passing of a Patriot

Phyllis Schlafly on The Sean Hannity Radio Show (4/22/2016)

Phyllis Schlafly Endorses Donald Trump at Rally in St. Louis, MO (3-11-16)

A Message from Phyllis Schlafly

CPAC 2013 – Phyllis Schlafly, Founder, Eagle Forum (Emcee: Steven Crowder)

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “The Equal Rights Amendment”

Phyllis Schlafly Speaks Out, 5-15-08

Phyllis Schlafly on Trump vs. Republican Kingmakers

Phyllis Schlafly Defends ‘Right To Life’ (1995) | NBC News

Schlafly: Trump Only Hope To Beat The Kingmakers

 

TRUMP IN MEXICO RECALLS REAGAN IN GENEVA

Phyllis Schlafly recalls Gipper’s no-surrender issue that led to end of Cold War

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-in-mexico-recalls-reagan-in-geneva/#YcetWG7BuTo6YFKo.99

 

Donald Trump’s surprise visit to Mexico, where he met the Mexican president and discussed the many contentious issues between our two countries, reminds me of President Reagan’s important trip to Geneva in 1985. Reagan was more than willing to sit down with the Communist leader of the USSR in an effort to build a personal connection between the two men without sacrificing America’s vital interests in the Cold War.

The 1985 Geneva summit was highly advertised as a potential showdown between Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev, the supposedly reasonable new Soviet leader. When it was over, Americans realized that behind Reagan’s genial affability was a steely determination to protect our country against the threat from Soviet nuclear missiles.

Just as today’s mainstream media are bent on undermining Trump’s call to put Americans first in our dealings with Mexico, the media of the 1980s (led by ABC’s Sam Donaldson and CBS’ Dan Rather) were overwhelmingly pro-Gorbachev and anti-Reagan in their daily coverage.

Left-wing celebrities from around the world converged on Geneva to support the media narrative that a stubborn President Reagan was refusing to consider Gorbachev’s reasonable proposals for world peace. Rep. Bella Abzug, actress Jane Alexander and the inevitable Jesse Jackson were giving daily interviews.

I led a delegation of 25 distinguished women leaders to Geneva to support Reagan and American nuclear superiority. The media didn’t give us much coverage, but President Reagan telephoned me afterward from the White House to thank me for our support.

Reagan had been elected on a promise to “win” the Cold War against the Communist forces arrayed against America. Before Reagan, our country’s foreign policy was controlled by men like Henry Kissinger, who thought victory was impossible and that his job, as he famously told Adm. Zumwalt, was “to negotiate the most acceptable second-best position” for the United States.

After three decades of steady deterioration of America’s place in the world, Trump is the first candidate since Reagan who is comfortable using Reagan’s vocabulary of winning. Trump has pledged to make America “win” again, instead of being cheated and outmaneuvered by our adversaries and even our so-called allies.

Trump’s visit to Mexico recalls Reagan’s trip to Geneva in other ways, too. At both meetings, there was one signature position on which the American refused to budge.

Reagan’s no-surrender pledge was his unwavering commitment to the Strategic Defense Initiative, that is, to build and deploy a system to shoot down Soviet nuclear missiles headed for our cities. With Trump, it’s his rock-solid promise to build “an impenetrable physical wall” on our southern border.

Both Reagan’s and Trump’s signature ideas were purely defensive weapons to which no country could have any legitimate complaint. Reagan’s SDI was a non-nuclear weapon whose only function was to destroy or deflect incoming nuclear missiles.

Reagan stuck to that non-negotiable position at the summit with Gorbachev the following year in Reykjavik, Iceland. As we now know, that’s when Gorby realized he could never win an open competition with the United States, so that his “acceptable second-best position” was the dissolution of the USSR over the next five years.

Likewise, Donald Trump’s wall is not a provocative, but a neighborly idea to stop the rampant illegality that harms both nations along the U.S.-Mexico border. With no legitimate objection to erecting a fence, wall or other physical barrier between our two countries, Mexico should be grateful for Trump’s leadership and even agree to help pay for it.

The value of a wall begins with stopping “murderers” and “rapists” from freely entering and re-entering our country with impunity, as Trump mentioned when he announced the start of his campaign last year, but it doesn’t stop there. Felony assault by motor vehicle is another deadly crime that seems to be rampant by illegal aliens driving recklessly without the licenses or insurance law-abiding Americans take for granted.

The wall would also stop the plague of heroin that has exploded during the last few years of the Obama administration. Deaths from heroin overdoses surpassed deaths from car crashes last year and will hit a new record this year. Most U.S. heroin is delivered by Mexicans working for the drug cartels.

Of course, most Mexican immigrants are not murderers, rapists, drunk drivers or drug dealers. But even the good, hardworking people who come here from south of the border, both legally and illegally, have such low education and skills that they can’t survive economically without massive public subsidies to provide for the care, food, shelter, health care, education and welfare of their children.

Voters finally have the opportunity to choose a president who will make America first by securing our border and ending one-sided trade deals that favor foreign workers rather than our own. Trump’s strong stance in his meeting with the Mexican president demonstrates that Donald Trump is the “choice, not an echo.”

Attacked, debased, maligned and vilified: This foundational institution is fighting for its life. Order Phyllis Schlafly’s latest book, “Who Killed the American Family?” along with her updated classic, “A Choice, not an Echo”

 http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/trump-in-mexico-recalls-reagan-in-geneva/#YcetWG7BuTo6YFKo.99

 

Phyllis Schlafly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Phyllis Schlafly
Phyllis Schlafly by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Schlafly in 2011
Born Phyllis McAlpin Stewart
August 15, 1924
St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.[1]
Died September 5, 2016 (aged 92)
Ladue, Missouri, U.S.
Other names Phyllis Stewart Schlafly
Alma mater Washington University
Harvard University
Political party Republican
Religion Roman Catholicism
Spouse(s) John Schlafly (deceased)
Children Six, including Andrew

Phyllis McAlpin Stewart Schlafly (/ˈfɪls ˈʃlæfli/; August 15, 1924 – September 5, 2016) was an American constitutional lawyer and conservative activist. She was known for her staunch social and political views, her opposition to modern feminism, and her successful campaign against the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Her 1964 book A Choice, Not an Echo, a push-back against liberal Republican leader Nelson Rockefeller and the powerful eastern Republican establishment, sold more than three million copies. She co-authored books on national defense and was highly critical of arms-control agreements with the former Soviet Union.[2] Schlafly founded the Eagle Forum in 1972 and the Eagle Forum Education & Legal Defense Fund. She was the Eagle Forum board chairman and CEO and maintained a presence on the lecture circuit until her death. Starting in 1967, she published a newsletter, The Phyllis Schlafly Report.

Family

Schlafly’s great-grandfather Stewart, a Presbyterian, emigrated from Scotland to New York in 1851 and moved westward through Canada before settling in Michigan.[3] Her grandfather, Andrew F. Stewart, was a master mechanic with the Chesapeake & Ohio Railway.[4] Schlafly’s father, John Bruce Stewart, was a machinist and salesman of industrial equipment, principally for Westinghouse. He became unemployed in 1932 during the Great Depression and could not find permanent work until World War II.[5] He was granted a patent in 1944 for a rotary engine.[6]

Schlafly’s mother, the former Odile Dodge,[7] was the daughter of attorney Ernest C. Dodge. She attended college and graduate school. Before her marriage, she worked as a teacher at a private girls’ school in St. Louis.[8]During the Depression, Schlafly’s mother went back to work as a librarian and a school teacher to support her family.[citation needed]

Personal life

Schlafly was christened Phyllis McAlpin Stewart, and born and raised in St. Louis. During the Depression, Schlafly’s father faced long-term unemployment, and her mother entered the labor market. Mrs. Stewart was able to keep the family afloat and maintained Phyllis in a Catholic girls’ school.[9]

Schlafly started college early and worked as a model for a time. In 1944, she earned her Bachelor of ArtsPhi Beta Kappa from Washington University in St. Louis. In 1945, she received a Master of Arts degree in government from Radcliffe College (then a female coordinate institution for the all-male Harvard). In her 1966 book Strike From Space (1965), Schlafly notes that during World War II, she worked as “a ballistics gunner and technician at the largest ammunition plant in the world”. She earned a J.D. from Washington University Law School in St. Louis in 1978.[5]

On October 20, 1949, when she was twenty-five years old, Phyllis married attorney John Fred Schlafly, Jr., a member of a wealthy St. Louis family; he died in 1993. His grandfather, August, immigrated in 1854 from Switzerland. In the late 1870s, the three brothers founded the firm of Schlafly Bros., which dealt in groceries, Queensware (dishes made by Wedgwood), hardware, and agricultural implements.[10] These Schlafly brothers later sold that business and concentrated on banking and other enterprises that made them wealthy.[11][citation needed] Fred and Phyllis Schlafly were both active Catholics. They linked Catholicism to Americanism and often exhorted Catholics to join the anti-communist crusade.[12]

Fred and Phyllis Schlafly moved across the Mississippi River to Alton, Illinois, and had six children: John, Bruce, Roger, Liza, Andrew, and Anne S. Cori.[13] In 1992, their eldest son, John, was outed as homosexual by Queer Week magazine.[14][15] Schlafly acknowledged that John is gay, but stated that he embraces his mother’s views.[14][16]

Schlafly was the aunt of conservative anti-feminist author Suzanne Venker; together they wrote The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know—and Men Can’t Say.[17] Schlafly was also the aunt of lawyer and businessman Thomas Schlafly, who owns the Saint Louis Brewery. Since 2014, Phyllis opposed Thomas’s company’s trademark application to use the Schlafly name on their commercial microbrews because of potential damage to her reputation; her representative stated that alcohol has “a connotation that is the opposite of conservative values”.[18][19] The legal basis for the challenge, however, was that the proposed trademark consisted primarily of a surname.[20] On August 14, 2016, the United States Patent and Trademark Office dismissed this argument.[21]

Schafly died on September 5, 2016, at her home in Ladue, Missouri, at the age of 92.[22][23]

Activism and political efforts

Among Schlafly’s early experiences in politics was working in the successful 1946 campaign of CongressmanClaude I. Bakewell.

In 1946, Schlafly became a researcher for the American Enterprise Institute and worked in the successful United States House of Representatives’ campaign of Republican Claude I. Bakewell.[24]

In 1952, Schlafly ran for Congress as a Republican in the majority Democratic24th congressional district of Illinois and lost to Charles Melvin Price.[25] Schlafly’s campaign was low-budget and promoted heavily through the local print media, and local entrepreneurs John M. and Spencer Olin as well as Texas oil billionaire H. L. Hunt.[26] She also attended her first Republican National Convention that year and continued to attend each following convention.[14] As part of the Illinois delegation of the 1952 Republican convention, Schlafly endorsed U.S. Senator Robert A. Taft ofOhio to be the party nominee for the presidential election.[27] At the 1960 Republican National Convention, Schlafly helped lead a revolt of “moral conservatives” who opposed Richard Nixon‘s stance (as The New York Times puts it) “against segregation and discrimination.”[28]

She came to national attention when millions of copies of her self-published book, A Choice Not an Echo, were distributed in support of Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign, especially inCalifornia‘s hotly fought winner-take-all-delegates GOP primary.[29] In it, Schlafly denounced the Rockefeller Republicans in the Northeast, accusing them of corruption and globalism. Critics called the book a conspiracy theory about “secret kingmakers” controlling the Republican Party.[30]

In 1967, Schlafly lost a bid for the presidency of the National Federation of Republican Women against the more moderate candidate Gladys O’Donnell of California. Outgoing NFRW president and future United States TreasurerDorothy Elston of Delaware worked against Schlafly in the campaign.[31][32]

Schlafly joined the John Birch Society, but quit because she thought that the main communist threats to the nation were external rather than internal. In 1970, she ran unsuccessfully for a House of Representatives seat in Illinois against Democratic incumbent George E. Shipley. This was midway in Nixon’s first term as president.[citation needed]

Opposition to Equal Rights Amendment

Symbol used on signs and buttons of ERA opponents

Schlafly became an outspoken opponent of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) during the 1970s as the organizer of the “STOP ERA” campaign. STOP was an acronym for “Stop Taking Our Privileges.” Schlafly argued that the ERA would take away gender-specific privileges currently enjoyed by women, including “dependent wife” benefits under Social Security, separate restrooms for males and females, and exemption from the Selective Service (the Army draft).[33][34] She was opposed by groups such as the National Organization for Women (NOW) and the ERAmerica coalition.[35] The Homemakers’ Equal Rights Association was also formed to counter Schlafly’s campaign.[36]

In 1972, when Schlafly began her campaign against the Equal Rights Amendment, it had already been ratified by 28 of the required 38 states. Five more states ratified the amendment after Schlafly began organizing opposition, but another five states rescinded their ratifications. The last state to ratify the ERA was Indiana, where State Senator Wayne Townsend cast the tie-breaking vote in January 1977.

The Equal Rights Amendment was narrowly defeated, having only achieved ratification in 35 states, five of which had subsequently rescinded their ratification.[5] Experts agree that Schlafly was a key player. Political scientist Jane J. Mansbridge concluded in her history of the ERA:

Many people who followed the struggle over the ERA believed—rightly in my view—that the Amendment would have been ratified by 1975 or 1976 had it not been for Phyllis Schlafly’s early and effective effort to organize potential opponents.[37]

Joan Williams argues, “ERA was defeated when Schlafly turned it into a war among women over gender roles.”[38] Historian Judith Glazer-Raymo argues:

As moderates, we thought we represented the forces of reason and goodwill but failed to take seriously the power of the family values argument and the single-mindedness of Schlafly and her followers. The ERA’s defeat seriously damaged the women’s movement, destroying its momentum and its potential to foment social change … Eventually, this resulted in feminist dissatisfaction with the Republican Party, giving the Democrats a new source of strength that when combined with overwhelming minority support, helped elect Bill Clinton to the presidency in 1992 and again in 1996.[39]

Critics of Schlafly saw her advocacy against equal rights and her role as a working professional as a contradiction. Gloria Steinem and author Pia de Solenni, among others, noted what they considered the irony in Schlafly’s role as an advocate for the full-time mother and wife, while being herself a lawyer, editor of a monthly newsletter, regular speaker at anti-liberal rallies, and political activist.[31][40][41]

Broadcast media

In broadcast media, Schlafly provided commentaries on Chicago news radio station WBBM from 1973 to 1975, the CBS Morning News from 1974 to 1975, and then on CNN from 1980 to 1983. In 1983, she began creating syndicated daily 3-minute commentaries for radio. In 1989, she began hosting a weekly radio talk show, Eagle Forum Live.[42]

Viewpoints

Equal Rights Amendment

Schlafly focused opposition to the ERA on traditional gender roles, such as that only men should do the fighting in wartime. She pointed out that the amendment would eliminate the men-only draft requirement and guarantee the possibility that women would be subject to conscription and be required to have military combat roles in future wars. Defense of traditional gender roles proved to be a useful tactic. In Illinois her activists used traditional symbols of the American housewife. They took homemade bread, jams, and apple pies to the state legislators, with the slogans, “Preserve us from a congressional jam; Vote against the ERA sham” and “I am for Mom and apple pie.”[43]

According to historian Lisa Levenstein, who works largely in fields pertaining to women’s history,[44] the feminist movement in the late 1970s briefly attempted a program to help older divorced and widowed women. Many widows were ineligible for Social Security benefits, few divorcees actually received any alimony, and after a career as a housewife, few had skills to enter the labor force. The program, however, encountered sharp criticism from young activists who gave priority to poor minority women rather than the middle class. By 1980, NOW downplayed the program as it focused almost exclusively on the ERA. Schlafly moved into the vacuum. She denounced the feminists for abandoning older middle-class widows and divorcees in need and warned that ERA would equalize the laws for the benefit of man, stripping protections that older women urgently needed.[45] She said the ERA was designed for the benefit of young career women and warned that if men and women had to be treated identically it would threaten the security of middle-aged housewives with no current job skills. The ERA would repeal protections such as alimony and eliminate the tendency for mothers to obtain custody over their children in divorce cases.[46] Her argument that protective laws would be lost resonated with working-class women.[47]

Women’s issues

Schlafly with Ronald Reagan in 1987

Schlafly told Time magazine in 1978, “I have cancelled speeches whenever my husband thought that I had been away from home too much.”[48]

In March 2007, Schlafly said in a speech at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine, “By getting married, the woman has consented to sex, and I don’t think you can call it rape.”[49]

In a March 30, 2006, interview, Schlafly attributed improvement in women’s lives during the last decades of the 20th century to labor-saving devices such as the indoor clothes dryer and disposable diapers.[50]

She called Roe v. Wade “the worst decision in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court” and said that it “is responsible for the killing of millions of unborn babies”.[51]

In 2007, while working to defeat a new version of the Equal Rights Amendment, she warned it would force courts to approve same-sex marriages and deny Social Security benefits for housewives and widows.[34]

United Nations and international relations

In college in 1945, Schlafly applauded[how?] the establishment of the United Nations. Over the years, however, she disdained the UN. On the 50th anniversary of the United Nations in 1995, Schlafly referred to it as “a cause for mourning, not celebration. It is a monument to foolish hopes, embarrassing compromises, betrayal of our servicemen, and a steady stream of insults to our nation. It is a Trojan Horse that carries the enemy into our midst and lures Americans to ride under alien insignia to fight and die in faraway lands.” She opposed President Bill Clinton‘s decision in 1996 to send 20,000 American troops to Bosnia. Schlafly noted that Balkan nations have fought one another for 500 years and that the U.S. military should not be “policemen” of world trouble spots.[52]

Prior to the 1994 Congressional elections, Schlafly condemned globalization through the World Trade Organization as a “direct attack on American sovereignty, independence, jobs, and economy … any country that must change its laws to obey rulings of a world organization has sacrificed its sovereignty.”[53]

In late 2006, Schlafly collaborated with Jerome Corsi and Howard Phillips to create a website in opposition to the idea of a “North American Union“, under which the United States, Mexico, and Canada would share a currency and be integrated in a structure similar to the European Union.[54]

During the Cold War, Schlafly opposed arms control agreements with the Soviet Union. In 1961, she wrote that “[arms control] will not stop Red aggression any more than disarming our local police will stop murder, theft, and rape.”[55]

Judicial system

Schlafly was an outspoken critic of what she terms “activist judges“, particularly on the Supreme Court. In 2005, Schlafly made headlines at a conference for the Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration by suggesting that “Congress ought to talk about impeachment” of Justice Anthony Kennedy, citing as specific grounds Justice Kennedy’s deciding vote to abolish the death penalty for minors.[56] In April 2010, shortly after John Paul Stevens announced his retirement as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Schlafly called for the appointment of a military veteran to the Court, since Stevens had been a veteran and, with his retirement, the court was “at risk of being left without a single military veteran.”[57]

Presidential elections

Schlafly did not endorse a candidate for the 2008Republican presidential nomination, but she spoke out against Mike Huckabee, who, she says, as governor left the Republican Party in Arkansas “in shambles”. At the Eagle Forum, she has hosted U.S. RepresentativeTom Tancredo of Colorado, known for his opposition to illegal immigration. Before his election, she criticized Barack Obama as “an elitist who worked with words”.[58] During the election, she endorsed John McCain in an interview by saying: “Well, I’m a Republican, I’m supporting McCain”. When asked about criticism of John McCain from Rush Limbaugh, she said: “Well, there are problems, we are trying to teach him”.[59]

Schlafly endorsed Michele Bachmann in December 2011 for the Iowa caucus of the 2012 Republican presidential primaries, citing Bachmann’s work against “ObamaCare” and deficit spending and her (Bachmann’s) support of “traditional values.”[60]

On February 3 Schlafly announced that she would be voting for Rick Santorum in the 2012 Missouri Republican primary.[61]

In 2016, Schlafly endorsed Donald Trump‘s candidacy for president.[62] The endorsement soon led to a breach in the Eagle Forum board. Schlafly broke with six dissident members, including her own daughter, Anne Corie,[63]and Cathie Adams, the former short-term state chairman of the Texas Republican Party. Adams instead supported U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Trump’s principal challenger whom Adams considered a more conservative choice. Schlafly claimed that Adams attended a rogue board meeting with the intention of taking control of Eagle Forum. Schlafly hence called upon Corie, Adams, and the four other dissidents, all but one of whom support Cruz, to resign from the board. Schlafly further withdrew her support for Adams’ current bid for vice chairman of the Republican Party of Texas at the pending state convention. Schlafly called Adams “disloyal” and claimed that Adams declined to return Schlafly’s telephone call regarding the dispute.[64]

Same-sex marriage

Schlafly opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions: “[a]ttacks on the definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman come from the gay lobby seeking social recognition of their lifestyle.”[65] Linking the Equal Rights Amendment to LGBT rights and same-sex marriage played a role in Schlafly’s opposition to the ERA.[66][67]

Immigration proposals

Schlafly believed the Republican Party should reject immigration reform proposals; she told Focus Today that it is a “great myth” that the GOP needs to reach out to Latinos in the United States. “The people the Republicans should reach out to are the white votes, the white voters who didn’t vote in the last election. The propagandists are leading us down the wrong path,” she said. “There’s not any evidence at all that these Hispanics coming in from Mexico will vote Republican.”[68][69]

Honorary degree and protests

On May 1, 2008, the trustees of Washington University in St. Louis announced that Schlafly would receive an honorary degree at the school’s 2008 commencement ceremony. This was immediately met with objection by some students and faculty at the university who accused her of being anti-feminist and criticized her work on defeating the equal rights amendment.[70] Fourteen university law professors wrote in a complaint letter that Schlafly’s career demonstrated “anti-intellectualism in pursuit of a political agenda.”[71] While the trustees’ honorary degree committee approved the honorees unanimously, five student members of the committee wrote to complain that they had to vote on the five honorees as a slate, in the final stage of the voting and felt the selection of Schlafly was a mistake though she may have well been the famous WU graduate.[72][73] In the days leading up to the commencement ceremony, Washington University Chancellor Mark S. Wrighton explained the trustees’ decision to award Schlafly’s degree with the following statement:

In bestowing this degree, the University is not endorsing Mrs. Schlafly’s views or opinions; rather, it is recognizing an alumna of the University whose life and work have had a broad impact on American life and have sparked widespread debate and controversies that in many cases have helped people better formulate and articulate their own views about the values they hold.[74]

At the May 16, 2008, commencement ceremony, Schlafly was awarded a Doctor of Humane Letters degree. A protest to rescind Schlafly’s honorary degree received support from faculty and students. During the ceremony, hundreds of the 14,000 attendees, including one third of the graduating students and some faculty, silently stood and turned their backs to Schlafly in protest.[75] In the days leading up to the commencement there were several protests regarding her degree award; Schlafly described these protesters as “a bunch of losers.”[70] In addition, she stated after the ceremony that the protesters were “juvenile” and that, “I’m not sure they’re mature enough to graduate.”[75] As planned, Schlafly did not give any speech during the commencement ceremony, nor did any of the other honorees except for commencement speaker, liberal commentator Chris Matthews of MSNBC.[76]

Death

Schlafly died of cancer in her St. Louis home on Sept. 5, 2016. She was 92.[77]

Published works

Schlafly was the author of twenty-four books on subjects ranging from child care to phonics education. She wrote a syndicated weekly newspaper column for Creators Syndicate.[78][79]

Schlafly’s published works include:

  • The Conservative Case for Trump – posthumously, with Ed Martin and Brett M. Decker (Regnery Publishing, 2016) ISBN 978-1-62157-628-0
  • How the Republican Party Became Pro-Life (Dunrobin Publishing, 2016) ISBN 978-0-9884613-9-0
  • A Choice Not an Echo: Updated and Expanded 50th Anniversary Edition (Regnery Publishing, 2014) ISBN 978-1621573159
  • Who Killed the American Family? (WND Books, 2014) ISBN 978-1938067525
  • No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom (Regnery Publishing, 2012) ISBN 978-1621570127
  • The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know—and Men Can’t Say (WorldNetDaily, 2011) ISBN 978-1935071273
  • Judicial Tyranny: The New Kings of America? – contributing author (Amerisearch, 2005) ISBN 0-9753455-6-7
  • The Supremacists: The Tyranny of Judges And How to Stop It (Spence Publishing Company, 2004) ISBN 1-890626-55-4
  • Feminist Fantasies, foreword by Ann Coulter (Spence Publishing Company, 2003) ISBN 1-890626-46-5
  • Turbo Reader (Pere Marquette Press, 2001) ISBN 0-934640-16-5
  • First Reader (Pere Marquette Press, 1994) ISBN 0-934640-24-6
  • Who Will Rock the Cradle?: The Battle for Control of Child Care in America (World Publications, 1989) ISBN 978-0849931987
  • Pornography’s Victims (Crossway Books, 1987) ISBN 0-89107-423-6
  • Child Abuse in the Classroom (Crossway Books, 1984) ISBN 0-89107-365-5
  • Equal Pay for UNequal Work (Eagle Forum, 1984) ISBN 99950-3-143-4
  • The End of an Era (Regnery Publishing, 1982) ISBN 0-89526-659-8
  • The Power of the Christian Woman (Standard Pub, 1981) ISBN B0006E4X12
  • The Power of the Positive Woman (Crown Pub, 1977) ISBN 0-87000-373-9
  • Ambush at Vladivostok, with Chester Ward (Pere Marquette Press, 1976) ISBN 0-934640-00-9
  • Kissinger on the Couch (Arlington House Publishers, 1974) ISBN 0-87000-216-3
  • Mindszenty the Man (with Josef Vecsey) (Cardinal Mindszenty Foundation, 1972) ISBN B00005WGD6
  • The Betrayers (Pere Marquette Press, 1968) ISBN B0006CY0CQ
  • Safe Not Sorry (Pere Marquette Press, 1967) ISBN 0-934640-06-8
  • Strike from Space: A Megadeath Mystery (Pere Marquette Press, 1965) ISBN 80-7507-634-6
  • Grave Diggers (with Chester Ward) (Pere Marquette Press, 1964) ISBN 0-934640-03-3
  • A Choice Not an Echo (Pere Marquette Press, 1964) ISBN 0-686-11486-8

See also

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

Story 3: Donald Trump in Detroit Addresses and Listens To Black Church Members of Great Faith Ministries — Calls For Civil Rights Agenda For Our Times — Videos

General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein

Polling Data

Poll Date Sample MoE
Clinton (D)
Trump (R)
Johnson (L)
Stein (G)
Spread
RCP Average 8/25 – 9/4 41.4 39.0 8.1 3.0 Clinton +2.4
CNN/ORC 9/1 – 9/4 786 LV 3.5 43 45 7 2 Trump +2
NBC News/SM 8/29 – 9/4 32226 RV 1.0 41 37 12 4 Clinton +4
IBD/TIPP 8/26 – 9/1 861 LV 3.4 39 39 12 3 Tie
Rasmussen Reports 8/29 – 8/30 1000 LV 3.0 39 40 7 3 Trump +1
FOX News 8/28 – 8/30 1011 RV 3.0 41 39 9 4 Clinton +2
Economist/YouGov 8/27 – 8/29 1119 RV 4.0 42 37 7 3 Clinton +5
Reuters/Ipsos 8/25 – 8/29 1404 LV 3.0 40 38 6 2 Clinton +2
PPP (D) 8/26 – 8/28 881 LV 3.3 42 37 6 4 Clinton +5
Monmouth 8/25 – 8/28 689 LV 3.7 46 39 7 2 Clinton +7

All General Election: Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein Polling Data

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Addresses Black Church Great Faith Ministries Event, Detroit MI 09/03/2016

FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Addresses Black Church Great Faith Ministries Event, Detroit MI 09/03/2016

Streamed live on Sep 3, 2016

Donald Trump Is Addressing African American Church in Detroit, Michigan Saturday. In the weeks since Donald Trump began making an overt appeal to African-Americans, one of the greatest criticisms he has received is that his appeals are made before largely white audiences. This weekend, Trump is addressing those concerns head-on, traveling to Detroit, Michigan, to attend a black church service and interview with the presiding bishop.

He will attend the Saturday service at Great Faith International Ministries and will also participate in an interview with Bishop Wayne Jackson that will air on Jackson’s Impact Network. This is the first time that Trump has attended a black church during this cycle. Conversely, his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and her running mate, Tim Kaine, have visited several Sunday services at various black churches.

Pastor Mark Burns, a frequent introducer at Trump rallies, will be meeting Trump in Detroit. A vociferous supporter of Trump who has long proclaimed that Trump would be better for African-Americans than any Democrat, Burns says that Trump will deliver brief remarks that echo his economic message.

Trump ‘Deserves Credit’ for African-American Outreach, Campaign Manager Says
Trump Says GOP ‘Must Do Better’ for African-Americans
Donald Trump Aims to Build On What Little Black Support He Has
“Well I think you’ll be able to see how Mr. Trump really does care and can relate to the African-American community more so than has Trump at a majority African-American congregation,” Burns said. “This is just the beginning.”

Trump first began making his heavy-handed appeals to black voters earlier in August, asking black voters, “What the hell do you have to lose?” and at times citing misleading statistics about how many African-Americans live in abject poverty and are unemployed.

Today, Trump began the first of his weekend’s outreach, traveling to Philadelphia to meet with 14 business and religious leaders in the black community. He also met with a diverse group of members of the Republican Leadership Initiative, a program sponsored by the Republican National Committee.

But with this address, Trump places himself in unfamiliar territory with a potentially wary crowd. To account for such uncharted circumstances, the Trump campaign, in concert with African-American advisers and black Republicans, developed a script for Trump, with Jackson providing a list of questions for which the candidate could prepare, as first reported by The New York Times.

Jackson said, during an interview on CNN, that he also submitted a prayer beforehand when Vice President Joe Biden was in town and pushed back against reports that the campaign had edit rights.

“That’s not true. That’s not true. That is not true. That — then it would be tainted. It would be tainted and it would not be good. No. This has never been discussed with me,” Jackson said.

Plans have also been discussed to have Trump tour an impoverished neighborhood with supporter and former candidate Dr. Ben Carson.

“The reason that Donald Trump is willing to go into this territory is because he’s not necessarily trying to cultivate votes like your typical politician does,” Carson told ABC News in a recent interview. “He recognizes that there is no way we can have a strong country if we have big pockets of weakness. And he also realizes that in this election cycle he probably won’t get the majority of their votes.”

Special Report 9/5/16 – Hillary Clinton Coughing Fit, Donald Trump vs Hillary Debate Prep, G20

Donald Trump Called Anointed By Black Pastor In Detroit and Crowd Cheers

HILARIOUS – Donald Trump DANCING at Detroit Church Event (9-3-16)

Dilbert Creator Talks Hillary Threats/ Trump Landslide

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation Bias and Politics

What is PRE-SUASION?

Robert Cialdini- The 6 Principles of Influence

BX2015: Words that matter

Dilbert’s Scott Adams: Robert Cialdini Likely Advising Hillary Clinton

Cartoonist-turned-pundit Scott Adams, of Dilbert fame, told Breitbart News in an interview on Sunday that the mysterious “Godzilla” of persuasion, to whom he ascribes Hillary Clinton’s polling success, is behavioral psychologist Robert Cialdini.

by JOEL B. POLLAK 16 Aug 2016

Cialdini, who refers to himself as the “Godfather of Influence,” is a professor andbestselling author who specializes in the art — or, perhaps, the science — of persuasion. In 2012, he was part of a “dream team” of behavioral psychologists that advised President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, and helped propel that effort to victory despite slow economic growth, high unemployment, turmoil in world affairs, new terror attacks, and a motivated (though IRS-crippled) Tea Party opposition.

The New York Times reported in November 2012, after Obama’s victory — which stunned his rivals, who expected to win:

This election season the Obama campaign won a reputation for drawing on the tools of social science …

Less well known is that the Obama campaign also had a panel of unpaid academic advisers. The group — which calls itself the “consortium of behavioral scientists,” or COBS — provided ideas on how to counter false rumors, like one that President Obama is a Muslim. It suggested how to characterize the Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, in advertisements. It also delivered research-based advice on how to mobilize voters.

In addition to Dr. [Craig] Fox, the consortium included Susan T. Fiske of Princeton University; Samuel L. Popkin of the University of California, San Diego; Robert Cialdini, a professor emeritus at Arizona State University; Richard H. Thaler, a professor of behavioral science and economics at the University of Chicago’s business school; and Michael Morris, a psychologist at Columbia.

“A kind of dream team, in my opinion,” Dr. Fox said.

In recent blog posts on the election — followed increasingly closely by news junkies, and Trump supporters seeking consolation — Adams has referred to a “Godzilla” of persuasion who may have started working for the Clinton campaign.

That Godzilla, Adams says, is Cialdini.

Adams told Breitbart News that he believes that Cialdini may have sat out the Democratic Party primary — or perhaps worked for Sen. Bernie Sanders — then joined the Clinton effort once it became clear she would be the party’s nominee.

While Trump had been more effective at using persuasion techniques, he said, “the Clinton persuasion game went from non-existent, which I reported on for months, to solid-gold, weapons-grade, almost instantly, as soon as Bernie Sanders dropped out.”

Sanders had been outperforming expectations, and Clinton had been underperforming expectations. “Wherever you see somebody exceed expectations by that much, either they are a persuader, like Trump is, or they have somebody helping them,” Adams concluded.

That stopped, as soon as Sanders yielded to Clinton.

Adams explained: “Clinton stopped talking about her boring policies, and details, and her experience, and she went to pure persuasion. She went to the bigger scare,” which was the image of Donald Trump with his finger on the nuclear button.

The result, he said, was a lift in her poll numbers, and the ongoing slump in Donald Trump’s performance.

It would be “surprising,” he said, if Cialdini, or one of his students, weren’t helping Clinton, given his past involvement in the Obama campaign.

“His fingerprints are all over this.”

 

Breitbart News reached out to Cialdini’s office Sunday and Monday but requests for comment were unreturned.

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. His new book, See No Evil: 19 Hard Truths the Left Can’t Handle, is available from Regnery through Amazon.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/16/dilbert-scott-adams-robert-cialdini-advising-hillary-clinton/

Confirmation bias

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Types

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

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

Biased search for information[edit]

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

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

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

The preference for positive tests in itself is not a bias, since positive tests can be highly informative.[13] However, in combination with other effects, this strategy can confirm existing beliefs or assumptions, independently of whether they are true.[14] In real-world situations, evidence is often complex and mixed. For example, various contradictory ideas about someone could each be supported by concentrating on one aspect of his or her behavior.[8] Thus any search for evidence in favor of a hypothesis is likely to succeed.[14] One illustration of this is the way the phrasing of a question can significantly change the answer.[8] For example, people who are asked, “Are you happy with your social life?” report greater satisfaction than those asked, “Are you unhappy with your social life?”[15]

Even a small change in a question’s wording can affect how people search through available information, and hence the conclusions they reach. This was shown using a fictional child custody case.[16] Participants read that Parent A was moderately suitable to be the guardian in multiple ways. Parent B had a mix of salient positive and negative qualities: a close relationship with the child but a job that would take him or her away for long periods of time. When asked, “Which parent should have custody of the child?” the majority of participants chose Parent B, looking mainly for positive attributes. However, when asked, “Which parent should be denied custody of the child?” they looked for negative attributes and the majority answered that Parent B should be denied custody, implying that Parent A should have custody.[16]

Similar studies have demonstrated how people engage in a biased search for information, but also that this phenomenon may be limited by a preference for genuine diagnostic tests. In an initial experiment, participants rated another person on the introversion–extroversion personality dimension on the basis of an interview. They chose the interview questions from a given list. When the interviewee was introduced as an introvert, the participants chose questions that presumed introversion, such as, “What do you find unpleasant about noisy parties?” When the interviewee was described as extroverted, almost all the questions presumed extroversion, such as, “What would you do to liven up a dull party?” These loaded questions gave the interviewees little or no opportunity to falsify the hypothesis about them.[17] A later version of the experiment gave the participants less presumptive questions to choose from, such as, “Do you shy away from social interactions?”[18] Participants preferred to ask these more diagnostic questions, showing only a weak bias towards positive tests. This pattern, of a main preference for diagnostic tests and a weaker preference for positive tests, has been replicated in other studies.[18]

Personality traits influence and interact with biased search processes.[19] Individuals vary in their abilities to defend their attitudes from external attacks in relation to selective exposure. Selective exposure occurs when individuals search for information that is consistent, rather than inconsistent, with their personal beliefs.[20] An experiment examined the extent to which individuals could refute arguments that contradicted their personal beliefs.[19] People with high confidence levels more readily seek out contradictory information to their personal position to form an argument. Individuals with low confidence levels do not seek out contradictory information and prefer information that supports their personal position. People generate and evaluate evidence in arguments that are biased towards their own beliefs and opinions.[21] Heightened confidence levels decrease preference for information that supports individuals’ personal beliefs.

Another experiment gave participants a complex rule-discovery task that involved moving objects simulated by a computer.[22] Objects on the computer screen followed specific laws, which the participants had to figure out. So, participants could “fire” objects across the screen to test their hypotheses. Despite making many attempts over a ten-hour session, none of the participants figured out the rules of the system. They typically attempted to confirm rather than falsify their hypotheses, and were reluctant to consider alternatives. Even after seeing objective evidence that refuted their working hypotheses, they frequently continued doing the same tests. Some of the participants were taught proper hypothesis-testing, but these instructions had almost no effect.[22]

Biased interpretation

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

Michael Shermer[23]

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

A team at Stanford University conducted an experiment involving participants who felt strongly about capital punishment, with half in favor and half against it.[24][25]Each participant read descriptions of two studies: a comparison of U.S. states with and without the death penalty, and a comparison of murder rates in a state before and after the introduction of the death penalty. After reading a quick description of each study, the participants were asked whether their opinions had changed. Then, they read a more detailed account of each study’s procedure and had to rate whether the research was well-conducted and convincing.[24] In fact, the studies were fictional. Half the participants were told that one kind of study supported the deterrent effect and the other undermined it, while for other participants the conclusions were swapped.[24][25]

The participants, whether supporters or opponents, reported shifting their attitudes slightly in the direction of the first study they read. Once they read the more detailed descriptions of the two studies, they almost all returned to their original belief regardless of the evidence provided, pointing to details that supported their viewpoint and disregarding anything contrary. Participants described studies supporting their pre-existing view as superior to those that contradicted it, in detailed and specific ways.[24][26] Writing about a study that seemed to undermine the deterrence effect, a death penalty proponent wrote, “The research didn’t cover a long enough period of time”, while an opponent’s comment on the same study said, “No strong evidence to contradict the researchers has been presented”.[24] The results illustrated that people set higher standards of evidence for hypotheses that go against their current expectations. This effect, known as “disconfirmation bias”, has been supported by other experiments.[27]

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

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

Another study of biased interpretation occurred during the 2004 U.S. presidential election and involved participants who reported having strong feelings about the candidates. They were shown apparently contradictory pairs of statements, either from Republican candidate George W. Bush, Democratic candidate John Kerry or a politically neutral public figure. They were also given further statements that made the apparent contradiction seem reasonable. From these three pieces of information, they had to decide whether or not each individual’s statements were inconsistent.[28]:1948 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[28]:1951

In this experiment, the participants made their judgments while in a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner which monitored their brain activity. As participants evaluated contradictory statements by their favored candidate, emotional centers of their brains were aroused. This did not happen with the statements by the other figures. The experimenters inferred that the different responses to the statements were not due to passive reasoning errors. Instead, the participants were actively reducing the cognitive dissonance induced by reading about their favored candidate’s irrational or hypocritical behavior.[28]:1956 There were strong differences in these evaluations, with participants much more likely to interpret statements from the candidate they opposed as contradictory.[28]:1951

Biases in belief interpretation are persistent, regardless of intelligence level. Participants in an experiment took the SAT test (a college admissions test used in the United States) to assess their intelligence levels. They then read information regarding safety concerns for vehicles, and the experimenters manipulated the national origin of the car. American participants provided their opinion if the car should be banned on a six-point scale, where one indicated “definitely yes” and six indicated “definitely no.” Participants firstly evaluated if they would allow a dangerous German car on American streets and a dangerous American car on German streets. Participants believed that the dangerous German car on American streets should be banned more quickly than the dangerous American car on German streets. There was no difference among intelligence levels at the rate participants would ban a car.[21]

Biased interpretation is not restricted to emotionally significant topics. In another experiment, participants were told a story about a theft. They had to rate the evidential importance of statements arguing either for or against a particular character being responsible. When they hypothesized that character’s guilt, they rated statements supporting that hypothesis as more important than conflicting statements.[29]

Biased memory

Even if people gather and interpret evidence in a neutral manner, they may still remember it selectively to reinforce their expectations. This effect is called “selective recall”, “confirmatory memory” or “access-biased memory”.[30]Psychological theories differ in their predictions about selective recall. Schema theory predicts that information matching prior expectations will be more easily stored and recalled than information that does not match.[31] Some alternative approaches say that surprising information stands out and so is memorable.[31] Predictions from both these theories have been confirmed in different experimental contexts, with no theory winning outright.[32]

In one study, participants read a profile of a woman which described a mix of introverted and extroverted behaviors.[33] They later had to recall examples of her introversion and extroversion. One group was told this was to assess the woman for a job as a librarian, while a second group were told it was for a job in real estate sales. There was a significant difference between what these two groups recalled, with the “librarian” group recalling more examples of introversion and the “sales” groups recalling more extroverted behavior.[33] A selective memory effect has also been shown in experiments that manipulate the desirability of personality types.[31][34] In one of these, a group of participants were shown evidence that extroverted people are more successful than introverts. Another group were told the opposite. In a subsequent, apparently unrelated, study, they were asked to recall events from their lives in which they had been either introverted or extroverted. Each group of participants provided more memories connecting themselves with the more desirable personality type, and recalled those memories more quickly.[35]

Changes in emotional states can also influence memory recall.[36][37] Participants rated how they felt when they had first learned that O.J. Simpson had been acquitted of murder charges.[36] They described their emotional reactions and confidence regarding the verdict one week, two months, and one year after the trial. Results indicated that participants’ assessments for Simpson’s guilt changed over time. The more that participants’ opinion of the verdict had changed, the less stable were the participant’s memories regarding their initial emotional reactions. When participants recalled their initial emotional reactions two months and a year later, past appraisals closely resembled current appraisals of emotion. People demonstrate sizable myside bias when discussing their opinions on controversial topics.[21] Memory recall and construction of experiences undergo revision in relation to corresponding emotional states.

Myside bias has been shown to influence the accuracy of memory recall.[37] In an experiment, widows and widowers rated the intensity of their experienced grief six months and five years after the deaths of their spouses. Participants noted a higher experience of grief at six months rather than at five years. Yet, when the participants were asked after five years how they had felt six months after the death of their significant other, the intensity of grief participants recalled was highly correlated with their current level of grief. Individuals appear to utilize their current emotional states to analyze how they must have felt when experiencing past events.[36] Emotional memories are reconstructed by current emotional states.

One study showed how selective memory can maintain belief in extrasensory perception (ESP).[38] Believers and disbelievers were each shown descriptions of ESP experiments. Half of each group were told that the experimental results supported the existence of ESP, while the others were told they did not. In a subsequent test, participants recalled the material accurately, apart from believers who had read the non-supportive evidence. This group remembered significantly less information and some of them incorrectly remembered the results as supporting ESP.[38]

Related effects

Polarization of opinion

Main article: Attitude polarization

When people with opposing views interpret new information in a biased way, their views can move even further apart. This is called “attitude polarization”.[39] The effect was demonstrated by an experiment that involved drawing a series of red and black balls from one of two concealed “bingo baskets”. Participants knew that one basket contained 60% black and 40% red balls; the other, 40% black and 60% red. The experimenters looked at what happened when balls of alternating color were drawn in turn, a sequence that does not favor either basket. After each ball was drawn, participants in one group were asked to state out loud their judgments of the probability that the balls were being drawn from one or the other basket. These participants tended to grow more confident with each successive draw—whether they initially thought the basket with 60% black balls or the one with 60% red balls was the more likely source, their estimate of the probability increased. Another group of participants were asked to state probability estimates only at the end of a sequence of drawn balls, rather than after each ball. They did not show the polarization effect, suggesting that it does not necessarily occur when people simply hold opposing positions, but rather when they openly commit to them.[40]

A less abstract study was the Stanford biased interpretation experiment in which participants with strong opinions about the death penalty read about mixed experimental evidence. Twenty-three percent of the participants reported that their views had become more extreme, and this self-reported shift correlated strongly with their initial attitudes.[24] In later experiments, participants also reported their opinions becoming more extreme in response to ambiguous information. However, comparisons of their attitudes before and after the new evidence showed no significant change, suggesting that the self-reported changes might not be real.[27][39][41] Based on these experiments, Deanna Kuhn and Joseph Lao concluded that polarization is a real phenomenon but far from inevitable, only happening in a small minority of cases. They found that it was prompted not only by considering mixed evidence, but by merely thinking about the topic.[39]

Charles Taber and Milton Lodge argued that the Stanford team’s result had been hard to replicate because the arguments used in later experiments were too abstract or confusing to evoke an emotional response. The Taber and Lodge study used the emotionally charged topics of gun control and affirmative action.[27] They measured the attitudes of their participants towards these issues before and after reading arguments on each side of the debate. Two groups of participants showed attitude polarization: those with strong prior opinions and those who were politically knowledgeable. In part of this study, participants chose which information sources to read, from a list prepared by the experimenters. For example, they could read the National Rifle Association‘s and the Brady Anti-Handgun Coalition‘s arguments on gun control. Even when instructed to be even-handed, participants were more likely to read arguments that supported their existing attitudes than arguments that did not. This biased search for information correlated well with the polarization effect.[27]

The backfire effect is a name for the finding that, given evidence against their beliefs, people can reject the evidence and believe even more strongly.[42][43] The phrase was first coined by Brendan Nyhan and Jason Reifler.[44]

Persistence of discredited beliefs

Main article: Belief perseverance

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

—Lee Ross and Craig Anderson[45]

Confirmation biases can be used to explain why some beliefs persist when the initial evidence for them is removed.[46] This belief perseverance effect has been shown by a series of experiments using what is called the “debriefing paradigm”: participants read fake evidence for a hypothesis, their attitude change is measured, then the fakery is exposed in detail. Their attitudes are then measured once more to see if their belief returns to its previous level.[45]

A common finding is that at least some of the initial belief remains even after a full debriefing.[47] In one experiment, participants had to distinguish between real and fake suicide notes. The feedback was random: some were told they had done well while others were told they had performed badly. Even after being fully debriefed, participants were still influenced by the feedback. They still thought they were better or worse than average at that kind of task, depending on what they had initially been told.[48]

In another study, participants read job performance ratings of two firefighters, along with their responses to a risk aversion test.[45] This fictional data was arranged to show either a negative or positive association: some participants were told that a risk-taking firefighter did better, while others were told they did less well than a risk-averse colleague.[49] Even if these two case studies were true, they would have been scientifically poor evidence for a conclusion about firefighters in general. However, the participants found them subjectively persuasive.[49] When the case studies were shown to be fictional, participants’ belief in a link diminished, but around half of the original effect remained.[45] Follow-up interviews established that the participants had understood the debriefing and taken it seriously. Participants seemed to trust the debriefing, but regarded the discredited information as irrelevant to their personal belief.[49]

The continued influence effect is the tendency to believe previously learned misinformation even after it has been corrected. Misinformation can still influence inferences one generates after a correction has occurred.[50]

Preference for early information

Experiments have shown that information is weighted more strongly when it appears early in a series, even when the order is unimportant. For example, people form a more positive impression of someone described as “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, envious” than when they are given the same words in reverse order.[51] This irrational primacy effect is independent of the primacy effect in memory in which the earlier items in a series leave a stronger memory trace.[51] Biased interpretation offers an explanation for this effect: seeing the initial evidence, people form a working hypothesis that affects how they interpret the rest of the information.[46]

One demonstration of irrational primacy used colored chips supposedly drawn from two urns. Participants were told the color distributions of the urns, and had to estimate the probability of a chip being drawn from one of them.[51] In fact, the colors appeared in a pre-arranged order. The first thirty draws favored one urn and the next thirty favored the other.[46] The series as a whole was neutral, so rationally, the two urns were equally likely. However, after sixty draws, participants favored the urn suggested by the initial thirty.[51]

Another experiment involved a slide show of a single object, seen as just a blur at first and in slightly better focus with each succeeding slide.[51] After each slide, participants had to state their best guess of what the object was. Participants whose early guesses were wrong persisted with those guesses, even when the picture was sufficiently in focus that the object was readily recognizable to other people.[46]

Illusory association between events

Main article: Illusory correlation

Illusory correlation is the tendency to see non-existent correlations in a set of data.[52] This tendency was first demonstrated in a series of experiments in the late 1960s.[53] In one experiment, participants read a set of psychiatric case studies, including responses to the Rorschach inkblot test. The participants reported that the homosexual men in the set were more likely to report seeing buttocks, anuses or sexually ambiguous figures in the inkblots. In fact the fictional case studies had been constructed so that the homosexual men were no more likely to report this imagery or, in one version of the experiment, were less likely to report it than heterosexual men.[52] In a survey, a group of experienced psychoanalysts reported the same set of illusory associations with homosexuality.[52][53]

Another study recorded the symptoms experienced by arthritic patients, along with weather conditions over a 15-month period. Nearly all the patients reported that their pains were correlated with weather conditions, although the real correlation was zero.[54]

This effect is a kind of biased interpretation, in that objectively neutral or unfavorable evidence is interpreted to support existing beliefs. It is also related to biases in hypothesis-testing behavior.[55] In judging whether two events, such as illness and bad weather, are correlated, people rely heavily on the number of positive-positive cases: in this example, instances of both pain and bad weather. They pay relatively little attention to the other kinds of observation (of no pain and/or good weather).[56] This parallels the reliance on positive tests in hypothesis testing.[55] It may also reflect selective recall, in that people may have a sense that two events are correlated because it is easier to recall times when they happened together.[55]

Individual differences

Myside bias was once believed to be associated with greater intelligence; however, studies have shown that myside bias can be more influenced by ability to rationally think as opposed to amount of intelligence.[57] Myside bias can cause an inability to effectively and logically evaluate the opposite side of an argument. Studies have stated that myside bias is an absence of “active open-mindedness,” meaning the active search for why an initial idea may be wrong.[58] Typically, myside bias is operationalized in empirical studies as the quantity of evidence used in support of their side in comparison to the opposite side.[59]

A study has found individual differences in myside bias. This study investigates individual differences that are acquired through learning in a cultural context and are mutable. The researcher found important individual difference in argumentation. Studies have suggested that individual differences such as deductive reasoning ability, ability to overcome belief bias, epistemological understanding, and thinking disposition are significant predictors of the reasoning and generating arguments, counterarguments, and rebuttals.[60][61][62]

A study by Christopher Wolfe and Anne Britt also investigated how participants’ views of “what makes a good argument?” can be a source of myside bias that influence the way a person formulates his own arguments.[59] The study investigated individual differences of argumentation schema and asked participants to write essays. The participants were randomly assigned to write essays either for or against their preferred side of an argument and were given research instructions that took either a balanced or an unrestricted approach. The balanced-research instructions directed participants to create a “balanced” argument, i.e., that included both pros and cons; the unrestricted-research instructions included nothing on how to create the argument.[59]

Overall, the results revealed that the balanced-research instructions significantly increased the incidence of opposing information in arguments. These data also reveal that personal belief is not a source of myside bias; however, that those participants, who believe that a good argument is one that is based on facts, are more likely to exhibit myside bias than other participants. This evidence is consistent with the claims proposed in Baron’s article—that people’s opinions about what makes good thinking can influence how arguments are generated.[59]

History

Informal observation

Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the phenomenon had been observed anecdotally throughout history. Beginning with the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC), who wrote of misguided treason in The Peloponnesian War; “… for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.”[63] Italian poet Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), noted it in his famous work, the Divine Comedy, in which St. Thomas Aquinas cautions Dante upon meeting in Paradise, “opinion—hasty—often can incline to the wrong side, and then affection for one’s own opinion binds, confines the mind.”[64] English philosopher and scientist Francis Bacon (1561–1626),[65] in the Novum Organumnoted that biased assessment of evidence drove “all superstitions, whether in astrology, dreams, omens, divine judgments or the like”.[66] He wrote:

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion … draws all things else to support and agree with it. And though there be a greater number and weight of instances to be found on the other side, yet these it either neglects or despises, or else by some distinction sets aside or rejects[.][66]

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

I know that most men—not only those considered clever, but even those who are very clever, and capable of understanding most difficult scientific, mathematical, or philosophic problems—can very seldom discern even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as to oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions they have formed, perhaps with much difficulty—conclusions of which they are proud, which they have taught to others, and on which they have built their lives.[67]

Wason’s research on hypothesis-testing

The term “confirmation bias” was coined by English psychologist Peter Wason.[68] For an experiment published in 1960, he challenged participants to identify a rule applying to triples of numbers. At the outset, they were told that (2,4,6) fits the rule. Participants could generate their own triples and the experimenter told them whether or not each triple conformed to the rule.[69][70]

While the actual rule was simply “any ascending sequence”, the participants had a great deal of difficulty in finding it, often announcing rules that were far more specific, such as “the middle number is the average of the first and last”.[69] The participants seemed to test only positive examples—triples that obeyed their hypothesized rule. For example, if they thought the rule was, “Each number is two greater than its predecessor”, they would offer a triple that fit this rule, such as (11,13,15) rather than a triple that violates it, such as (11,12,19).[71]

Wason accepted falsificationism, according to which a scientific test of a hypothesis is a serious attempt to falsify it. He interpreted his results as showing a preference for confirmation over falsification, hence the term “confirmation bias”.[Note 4][72] Wason also used confirmation bias to explain the results of his selection task experiment.[73] In this task, participants are given partial information about a set of objects, and have to specify what further information they would need to tell whether or not a conditional rule (“If A, then B”) applies. It has been found repeatedly that people perform badly on various forms of this test, in most cases ignoring information that could potentially refute the rule.[74][75]

Klayman and Ha’s critique

A 1987 paper by Joshua Klayman and Young-Won Ha argued that the Wason experiments had not actually demonstrated a bias towards confirmation. Instead, Klayman and Ha interpreted the results in terms of a tendency to make tests that are consistent with the working hypothesis.[76] They called this the “positive test strategy”.[8] This strategy is an example of a heuristic: a reasoning shortcut that is imperfect but easy to compute.[77] Klayman and Ha used Bayesian probability and information theory as their standard of hypothesis-testing, rather than the falsificationism used by Wason. According to these ideas, each answer to a question yields a different amount of information, which depends on the person’s prior beliefs. Thus a scientific test of a hypothesis is one that is expected to produce the most information. Since the information content depends on initial probabilities, a positive test can either be highly informative or uninformative. Klayman and Ha argued that when people think about realistic problems, they are looking for a specific answer with a small initial probability. In this case, positive tests are usually more informative than negative tests.[13] However, in Wason’s rule discovery task the answer—three numbers in ascending order—is very broad, so positive tests are unlikely to yield informative answers. Klayman and Ha supported their analysis by citing an experiment that used the labels “DAX” and “MED” in place of “fits the rule” and “doesn’t fit the rule”. This avoided implying that the aim was to find a low-probability rule. Participants had much more success with this version of the experiment.[78][79]

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

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

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

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

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

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

In light of this and other critiques, the focus of research moved away from confirmation versus falsification to examine whether people test hypotheses in an informative way, or an uninformative but positive way. The search for “true” confirmation bias led psychologists to look at a wider range of effects in how people process information.[80]

Explanations

Confirmation bias is often described as a result of automatic, unintentional strategies rather than deliberate deception.[14][81] According to Robert Maccoun, most biased evidence processing occurs through a combination of both “cold” (cognitive) and “hot” (motivated) mechanisms.[82]

Cognitive explanations for confirmation bias are based on limitations in people’s ability to handle complex tasks, and the shortcuts, called heuristics, that they use.[83] For example, people may judge the reliability of evidence by using the availability heuristic—i.e., how readily a particular idea comes to mind.[84] It is also possible that people can only focus on one thought at a time, so find it difficult to test alternative hypotheses in parallel.[85] Another heuristic is the positive test strategy identified by Klayman and Ha, in which people test a hypothesis by examining cases where they expect a property or event to occur. This heuristic avoids the difficult or impossible task of working out how diagnostic each possible question will be. However, it is not universally reliable, so people can overlook challenges to their existing beliefs.[13][86]

Motivational explanations involve an effect of desire on belief, sometimes called “wishful thinking“.[87][88] It is known that people prefer pleasant thoughts over unpleasant ones in a number of ways: this is called the “Pollyanna principle“.[89] Applied to arguments or sources of evidence, this could explain why desired conclusions are more likely to be believed true.[87] According to experiments that manipulate the desirability of the conclusion, people demand a high standard of evidence for unpalatable ideas and a low standard for preferred ideas. In other words, they ask, “Can I believe this?” for some suggestions and, “Must I believe this?” for others.[90][91] Althoughconsistency is a desirable feature of attitudes, an excessive drive for consistency is another potential source of bias because it may prevent people from neutrally evaluating new, surprising information.[87] Social psychologist Ziva Kunda combines the cognitive and motivational theories, arguing that motivation creates the bias, but cognitive factors determine the size of the effect.[92]

Explanations in terms of cost-benefit analysis assume that people do not just test hypotheses in a disinterested way, but assess the costs of different errors.[93] Using ideas from evolutionary psychology, James Friedrich suggests that people do not primarily aim at truth in testing hypotheses, but try to avoid the most costly errors. For example, employers might ask one-sided questions in job interviews because they are focused on weeding out unsuitable candidates.[94] Yaacov Trope and Akiva Liberman’s refinement of this theory assumes that people compare the two different kinds of error: accepting a false hypothesis or rejecting a true hypothesis. For instance, someone who underestimates a friend’s honesty might treat him or her suspiciously and so undermine the friendship. Overestimating the friend’s honesty may also be costly, but less so. In this case, it would be rational to seek, evaluate or remember evidence of their honesty in a biased way.[95] When someone gives an initial impression of being introverted or extroverted, questions that match that impression come across as more empathic.[96] This suggests that when talking to someone who seems to be an introvert, it is a sign of better social skills to ask, “Do you feel awkward in social situations?” rather than, “Do you like noisy parties?” The connection between confirmation bias and social skills was corroborated by a study of how college students get to know other people. Highly self-monitoring students, who are more sensitive to their environment and to social norms, asked more matching questions when interviewing a high-status staff member than when getting to know fellow students.[96]

Psychologists Jennifer Lerner and Philip Tetlock distinguish two different kinds of thinking process. Exploratory thought neutrally considers multiple points of view and tries to anticipate all possible objections to a particular position, while confirmatory thought seeks to justify a specific point of view. Lerner and Tetlock say that when people expect to justify their position to others whose views they already know, they will tend to adopt a similar position to those people, and then use confirmatory thought to bolster their own credibility. However, if the external parties are overly aggressive or critical, people will disengage from thought altogether, and simply assert their personal opinions without justification.[97] Lerner and Tetlock say that people only push themselves to think critically and logically when they know in advance they will need to explain themselves to others who are well-informed, genuinely interested in the truth, and whose views they don’t already know.[98] Because those conditions rarely exist, they argue, most people are using confirmatory thought most of the time.[99]

Consequences

In finance

Confirmation bias can lead investors to be overconfident, ignoring evidence that their strategies will lose money.[6][100] In studies of political stock markets, investors made more profit when they resisted bias. For example, participants who interpreted a candidate’s debate performance in a neutral rather than partisan way were more likely to profit.[101] To combat the effect of confirmation bias, investors can try to adopt a contrary viewpoint “for the sake of argument”.[102] In one technique, they imagine that their investments have collapsed and ask themselves why this might happen.[6]

In physical and mental health

Raymond Nickerson, a psychologist, blames confirmation bias for the ineffective medical procedures that were used for centuries before the arrival of scientific medicine.[103] If a patient recovered, medical authorities counted the treatment as successful, rather than looking for alternative explanations such as that the disease had run its natural course.[103] Biased assimilation is a factor in the modern appeal of alternative medicine, whose proponents are swayed by positive anecdotal evidence but treat scientific evidence hyper-critically.[104][105][106]

Cognitive therapy was developed by Aaron T. Beck in the early 1960s and has become a popular approach.[107] According to Beck, biased information processing is a factor in depression.[108] His approach teaches people to treat evidence impartially, rather than selectively reinforcing negative outlooks.[65] Phobias and hypochondria have also been shown to involve confirmation bias for threatening information.[109]

In politics and law

A woman and a man reading a document in a courtroom

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

Nickerson argues that reasoning in judicial and political contexts is sometimes subconsciously biased, favoring conclusions that judges, juries or governments have already committed to.[110] Since the evidence in a jury trial can be complex, and jurors often reach decisions about the verdict early on, it is reasonable to expect an attitude polarization effect. The prediction that jurors will become more extreme in their views as they see more evidence has been borne out in experiments with mock trials.[111][112] Both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal justice systems are affected by confirmation bias.[113]

Confirmation bias can be a factor in creating or extending conflicts, from emotionally charged debates to wars: by interpreting the evidence in their favor, each opposing party can become ove