The Pronk Pops Show 706, June 23, 2016, Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Posted on June 24, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, Bribery, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Donald Trump, Drugs, Economics, Education, Elections, European History, Fast and Furious, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Free Trade, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Illegal Drugs, Illegal Immigration, Impeachment, Independence, Insurance, Investments, Law, Legal Drugs, Legal Immigration, Middle East, National Security Agency, News, Obama, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Scandals, Senate, Transportation Security Administration (TSA), Unemployment, United States of America, Videos, Violence, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 706: June 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 705: June 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 704: June 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

 

Story 1: American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Bill of Rights vs. Tyrant Obama Breaking Immigration Laws and Betraying His Oath of Office — Democrats Gun Grabbers Want To Repeal The Second and Fifth Amendments — Tiny Tyrants Temper Tantrum — Publicity Stunt To Raise Money — Criminals and Terrorists Target Gun Free Zones With Unarmed Americans — Fire All Democrat Tyrants in November — The Best Protection Against Criminals, Terrorists, and Tyrants Is Well Armed American Citizens — Videos

Presidential Oath of Office

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:—

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,and

will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion;

and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

Article II, Section 3 of U. S. Constitution

 “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”

 

gun_control_works

 gunsitin lewis sitin tiny tryants sit in

Gun-control-dictators

2ndAmendment

if-more-people-were-armed

1st-american-rev-gun-rights

guncontroljapaneseamericans

crusades

2million2

to-conquer-a-nation-first-disarm-its-citizens

Real_Man's_Workstation

an_armed_man_is_a_citizen_an_unarmed_man_is_a_bumper_sticke

usa israel

gun free zones 2

gun-free-zone-clrgn free zones 4bomb free zones

no call 911

weapons

Medias-Guide

gun free zones

gun-free-zone

gun_free_zones_kill_people_tshirtsself-preservation

Paul Ryan: Gun sit-in a publicity stunt

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

GOP Representatives Attemptig To Thwart Democratic Gun Control Sit-In

Penn & Teller Explain The Second Amendment

Reality Check: The True Intent Of The Second Amendment

YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

The Judge on no-fly list gun ban push

Is a no-fly list gun ban legal?

Tom McClintock Trashes Leftist No Fly List Gun Control

Trey Gowdy questions DHS official, No Fly List

No Fly List, No Guns?

Federal Judge Rules No-Fly List is Unconstitutional

No Fly But You Can Buy Called ‘Insane’ By Obama

U.S. to Tell Americans Why They’re on No-Fly List

An “Assault” Weapons Ban Will Do Nothing to Prevent Murders & Simply Allows the Terrorists a Victory

Analyzing Obama’s response to the Supreme Court immigration ruling

Trump Endorses No Fly List Gun Ban

John Lott, Sheriff David Clarke, Bo Dittle on Hannity to discuss new push for gun control

John Lott on One America News Network to discuss Senate votes on gun control after Orlando

CPRC on the Glenn Beck TV Show to discuss debate over banning AR-15s

How’s It Goin’, Eh? With guests comedian Ian Bagg and gun expert John Lott

John Lott: Why More Guns Equal Less Crime

John Lott: More Guns, Less Crime

John Lott: At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over the Edge?

John Lott: “When Countries Impose Gun Bans Murder Rates Go Up”

John Lott: Myths of gun crime

Napolitano on constitutionality of Obama immigration actions

President Obama slams GOP for blocking Supreme Court nominee

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama’s Immigration Plan

Supreme Court Tie Blocks Obama Immigration Plan

Obama Expresses Disapointment In Supreme Court’s Immigration Ruling

Supreme Court Upholds Lower Court Ruling on Affirmative Action – LoneWolf Sager(◑_◑)

President Obama on Supreme Court Immigration Executive Actions Ruling (C-SPAN)

President Obama Delivers a Statement on the Supreme Court’s Ruling on Immigration

WATCH: Paul Ryan Says Democrats #NoBillNoBreak Sit-In Was Publicity Stunt to Raise Money

Rep. John Lewis Leads Sit-In on House Floor

House Democrats shout Paul Ryan down as he tries to stop #NoBreakNoBill sit-in

U. S. Supreme Court immigration decision: what you need to know

Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

The Supreme Court split 4-4 over whether the Obama administration could implement two immigration programs offering deportation halts to up to 4 million unauthorized immigrants.

The main initiative would have protected the foreign-born parents of U.S. citizens and legal residents. The Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, known as DAPA, included renewable work permits.

The Obama administration also extended a 2012 executive action to cover more unauthorized immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children. The initiatives were the most sweeping immigration actions taken by President Obama in his two terms — and executed without a vote from Congress.

This is what you need to know after Thursday’s Supreme Court decision in United States v. Texas.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20160623-u.-s.-supreme-court-immigration-decision-what-you-need-to-know.ece

 

Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) againstdomestic Violence.”

Unfortunately, efforts of states to recoup costs resulting from the current invasion of illegal aliens have so far failed. An Arizona case on this matter was rejected in 1997. The Arizona Republic article Justices reject state bid to recoup costs of illegals, Oct. 7, 1997 states:

Arizona officials filed the lawsuit in 1994 to recover more than $121 million that they said the state was owed for illegal immigrants serving time in prison…

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to consider arguments that the U.S. government must pay up because it has failed to meet its constitutional obligation to protect states from an “invasion” of illegal border crossers…

“Although the federal government may have the luxury of abdicating its constitutional duty to protect Arizona’s borders, Arizona cannot solve the problems that this abdication causes by following the federal government’s example and abdicating its duty to prosecute and incarcerate illegal aliens who commit felonies within Arizona’s unprotected borders,” Arizona argued in its high court appeal.

An October 7, 1997 LA Times article Court Rejects Claim That U.S. Is Liable for Immigrant Costs states:

The lawsuit cited Article 4 of the Constitution, which says that the United States “shall protect each of [the states] against invasion.” But U.S. District Judge Judith Keep in San Diego and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out the lawsuit on grounds that California and Arizona are not being “invaded” by a hostile, foreign power.

The issue of who pays… is a political issue, not a legal one, they said.

 

It is abundantly clear that our politicans lack the will to honor our Constitution. We encourage you to ask your public officials, who are sworn to uphold the Constitution:

  • if they support this provision;
  • what they plan to do to ensure implementation of this provision;
  • and then hold them to their commitment.

http://www.immivasion.us/art4sect4/art4sect4.html

 

7 Ways That You (Yes, You) Could End Up On A Terrorist Watch List

  • Nick Wing Senior Viral Editor, The Huffington Post
  • Earlier this week, The Intercept published a 166-page document outlining the government’s guidelines for placing people on an expansive network of terror watch lists, including the no-fly list. In their report, Jeremy Scahill and Ryan Devereaux highlighted the extremely vague and loosely defined criteria developed by 19 federal agencies, supposedly to fight terrorism.

    Using these criteria, government officials have secretly characterized an unknown number of individuals as threats or potential threats to national security. In 2013 alone, 468,749 watch-list nominations were submitted to the National Counterterrorism Center. It rejected only 1 percent of the recommendations.

    Critics say the system is bloated and imprecise, needlessly sweeping up thousands of people while simultaneously failing to catch legitimate threats, like Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev.

    While some individuals are surely placed on these watch lists for valid reasons, the murky language of the guidelines suggests that innocent people can get caught up in this web, too, and be subjected to the same possible restrictions on travel and other forms of monitoring. Here are several ways you could find yourself on a terror watch list, even if you aren’t a terrorist:

    1. You could raise “reasonable suspicion” that you’re involved in terrorism. “Irrefutable evidence or concrete facts” are not required.

    This guidance addresses how to place people in the broader Terrorist Screening Database (TSDB), of which the no-fly list and the selectee lists — which cover those selected for enhanced screenings before boarding flights — are both subsections.

    In determining whether a suspicion about you is “reasonable,” a “nominator” must “rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts,” can link you to possible terrorism. As Scahill and Devereaux noted, words like “reasonable,” “articulable” and “rational” are not expressly defined. While the document outlines the need for an “objective factual basis,” the next section clarifies that “irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary” to make a final determination as to whether a suspicion is “reasonable.” So how could intelligence officials be led to put you on the watch list?

    2. You could post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises “reasonable suspicion.”

    According to the document, “postings on social media sites … should not be discounted merely because of the manner in which it was received.” Instead, those investigating the individual should “evaluate the credibility of the source” and, if they judge the content to pose a “reasonable suspicion” of a link to terrorism, nominate the person to the watch list, even if that source is “uncorroborated.” If this sounds disturbing, don’t worry: There’s a sentence that explicitly prohibits listing an individual “for engaging solely in constitutionally protected activities.” So as long as your free speech isn’t accompanied by any other “suspicious” behavior, you should be fine, maybe.

    3. Or somebody else could just think you’re a potential terror threat.

    The guidelines also consider the use of “walk-in” or “write-in” information about potential candidates for the watch list. Nominators are encouraged not to dismiss such tips and, after evaluating “the credibility of the source,” could opt to nominate you to the watch list.

    4. You could be a little terrorist-ish, at least according to someone.

    The document explains that you could be put on a suspected-terrorist watch list if you are determined to be a “representative” of a terrorist group, even if you have “neither membership in nor association with the organization.” Individuals accused of being involved with a terrorist organization, but who later are acquitted in a court of law or saw their charges dropped, are still potential nominees for watch-listing, so long as “reasonable suspicion” is established.

    5. Or you could just know someone terrorist-y, maybe.

    Scahill and Devereaux reported that the immediate family of a suspected terrorist — including spouse, children, parents and siblings — may be added to the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), a broad terror database that feeds into the TSDB, “without any suspicion that they themselves are engaged in terrorist activity.” According to the document, “associates or affiliates” of known or suspected terrorists, or just those somehow “linked to” them, can also be nominated to the TSDB watchlist, so long as the relationship is defined and constitutes a “reasonable suspicion” of a connection to terrorist activity. The document states that “individuals who merely ‘may be’ members, associates or affiliates of a terrorist organization” may not be put into the latter database, unless that suspicion can be backed by “derogatory information.”

    But there’s also a more nebulous connection that could prompt your placement in the TIDE database. The document specifically provides for nominating “individuals with a possible nexus to terrorism … but for whom additional derogatory information is needed to meet the reasonable suspicion standard.”

    6. And if you’re in a “category” of people determined to be a threat, your threat status could be “upgraded” at the snap of a finger.

    The watch-list guidelines explain a process by which the assistant to the president for homeland security and counterterrorism can move an entire “category of individuals” to an elevated threat status. It’s unclear exactly how these categories are defined, but according to the document, there must be “current and credible intelligence information” suggesting that the group is a particular threat to conduct a terrorist act. Such determinations can be implemented and remain in place for up to 72 hours before a committee convenes to decide whether the watch-list upgrade should be extended.

    7. Finally, you could just be unlucky.

    The process of adding people to the terror watch lists is as imperfect as the intelligence officials tasked with doing so. There have been reports of “false positives,” or instances in which an innocent passenger has been subject to treatment under a no-fly or selectee list because his or her name was similar to that of another individual. In one highly publicized incident in 2005, a 4-year-old boy was nearly barred from boarding a plane to visit his grandmother.

    The watch-list guidance was supposedly revised in part to prevent incidents like these, but with more than 1.5 million people added to the lists in the last five years, mistakes are always inevitable. Just ask Rahinah Ibrahim, a Stanford University student who ended up on a no-fly list in 2004 after an FBI agent accidentally checked the wrong box on a form.

    But then if you were to be mistakenly added to a list, you probably wouldn’t know — unless it stopped you from flying. The government has been extremely secretive about the names on the various watch lists. If you were to learn that you were wrongly placed on a watch list, good luck getting off it. As Scahill and Devereaux reported, you can file a complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which begins a review “that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community.”

    And if you were to get your name removed from the watch list, the intelligence agencies aren’t even obligated to inform you of your updated status. Helpful.

    The secretive nature of the terror watch lists has come under court scrutiny recently. A federal judge ruled in June that the government must develop a new process under which individuals can challenge their inclusion on the no-fly list. The judge found the current process “wholly ineffective.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/25/terrorist-watch-list_n_5617599.html

     

    No Fly List

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The No Fly List is a list, created and maintained by the United States government‘s Terrorist Screening Center (TSC), of people who are prohibited from boarding a commercial aircraft for travel in or out of theUnited States. The list has also been used to divert aircraft away from U.S. airspace that is not flying to or from the U.S. The number of people on the list rises and falls according to threat and intelligence reporting.[citation needed] There were 10,000 names on the list in 2011, 21,000 in 2012, and 47,000 in 2013.

    The list—along with the Secondary Security Screening Selection, which tags would-be passengers for extra inspection—was created after the September 11 attacks in 2001. The No Fly List, the Selectee List and the Terrorist Watchlist were created by the administration of George W. Bush and retained by the administration of Barack Obama. U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) said in May 2010: “The no-fly list itself is one of our best lines of defense.”[1] However, the list has been criticized on civil liberties and due process grounds, due in part to the potential for ethnic, religious, economic, political, orracial profiling and discrimination. It has also raised concerns about privacy and government secrecy. It has also been criticized as costly, prone to false positives, and easily defeated.

    The No Fly List is different from the Terrorist Watch List, a much longer list of people said to be suspected of some involvement with terrorism. As of June 2016 the Terrorist Watch List is estimated to contain over 2,484,442 records, consisting of 1,877,133 individual identities.[2][3]

    History

    Before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. federal government had a list of 16 people deemed “no transport” because they “presented a specific known or suspected threat to aviation.”[4][5] The list grew in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, reaching more than 400 names by November 2001, when responsibility for keeping it was transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).[5] In mid-December 2001, two lists were created: the “No Fly List” of 594 people to be denied air transport, and the “Selectee” list of 365 people who were to be more carefully searched at airports.[4][5] By 2002, the two lists combined contained over a thousand names, and by April 2005 contained about 70,000 names.[4] For the first two and a half years of the program, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Transportation Security Administration (TSA) denied that the program existed.[4]

    The No Fly List program came to public light “when prominent antiwar activists, such as Jan Adams and Rebecca Gordan, and political opponents of the Bush administration, such as Senator Edward Kennedy and the civil rights attorney David Cole, found themselves included.”[4] In October 2006, CBS News‘s 60 Minutes reported on the program after it obtained a March 2006 copy of the list containing 44,000 names.[6]

    Many individuals were “caught in the system” as a result of sharing the exact or similar name of another person on the list;[7] TSA officials said that, as of November 2005, 30,000 people in 2005 had complained that their names were matched to a name on the list via the name matching software used by airlines.[8] In January 2006, the FBI and ACLU settled a federal lawsuit, Gordon v. FBI, brought by Gordon and Adams under the Freedom of Information Act in order to obtain information about how names were added to the list.[8] Under the settlement, the government paid $200,000 in the plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees.[9] A separate suit was brought as a class action “filed by people caught in the name game.”[7] In response, “TSA created an ombudsperson process, whereby individuals now can download and print out a Passenger Identity Verification Form and mail it, along with certain notarized documents, to the TSA “so the agency can differentiate the individual from others who may be on the list.”[7]

    In April 2007, the United States government “terrorist watch list” administered by the Terrorist Screening Center, which is managed principally by the FBI,[10] contained 700,000 records.[11] A year later, the ACLUestimated the list to have grown to over 1,000,000 names and to be continually expanding.[12][13][14] However, according to Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff, in October 2008 the No Fly list contained only 2,500 names, with an additional 16,000 “selectees” who “represent a less specific security threat and receive extra scrutiny, but are allowed to fly.”[15]

    As of 2011, the list contained about 10,000 names.[16][17] In 2012, the list more than doubled in size, to about 21,000 names.[18] In August 2013, a leak revealed that more than 47,000 people were on the list.[19][20]

    Weapons purchases by listed persons

    In a 2010 report, the Government Accountability Office noted that “Membership in a terrorist organization does not prohibit a person from possessing firearms or explosives under current federal law,” and individuals on the No Fly List are not barred from purchasing guns.[21] According to GAO data, between 2004 and 2010, people on terrorism watch lists—including the No Fly List as well as other separate lists—attempted to buy guns and explosives more than 1,400 times, and succeeded in 1,321 times (more than 90 percent of cases).[22]

    Senator Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey, a Democrat, repeatedly introduced legislation to bar individuals on the terror watch lists (such as the No Fly List) from buying firearms or explosives, but these efforts did not succeed.[21][22][23] Dianne Feinstein of California, also a Democrat, revived the legislation after the November 2015 Paris attacks, and President Barack Obama has called for such legislation to be approved.[21]

    Republicans in Congress, such as Senate Homeland Security Committee chairman Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, and Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, oppose this measure, citing due process concerns and efficacy, respectively.[21] Republicans have blocked attempts by Democrats to attach these provisions to Republican-backed measures.[24]

    The American Civil Liberties Union has voiced opposition to barring weapons sales to individuals listed on the current form of the No-Fly List, stating that: “There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform.”[25] Specifically, the ACLU’s position is that the government’s current redress process—the procedure by which listed individuals can petition for removal from the list—does not meet the requirements of the Constitution’s Due Process Clause because the process does not “provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker.”[25]

    In December 2015, Feinstein’s amendment to bar individuals on the terror watch list from purchasing firearms failed in the Senate on a 45-54 vote.[26] Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, put forth a competing proposal to “give the attorney general the power to impose a 72-hour delay for individuals on the terror watch list seeking to purchase a gun and it could become a permanent ban if a judge determines there is probable cause during that time window.”[26] The measure, too, failed, on a 55-45 vote (60 votes were required to proceed).[26] The votes on both the Feinstein measure and the Coryn measure were largely along party lines.[26]

    Vulnerabilitie

    False positives

    A “false positive” occurs when a passenger who is not on the No Fly List has a name that matches or is similar to a name on the list. False positive passengers will not be allowed to board a flight unless they can differentiate themselves from the actual person on the list, usually by presenting ID showing their middle name or date of birth. In some cases, false positive passengers have been denied boarding or have missed flights because they could not easily prove that they were not the person on the No Fly List.[citation needed]

    When an airline ticket is purchased, the reservation system uses software to compare the passenger’s name against the No Fly List. If the name matches, or is similar to a name on the No Fly List, a restriction is placed in the reservation that prevents the passenger from being issued a boarding pass until the airline has determined whether or not he or she is the actual person whose name is on the No Fly List. Passengers are not told when a restriction has been placed on their reservation, and they normally do not find out that anything is unusual until they attempt to check in. “False positive” passengers cannot use Internet check-in or the automatic check-in kiosks in airports. Any attempt to use either check-in method will normally result in a message that the check-in cannot be completed and that the passenger needs to see a live check-in agent.[citation needed]

    In order to be issued a boarding pass, “false positive” passengers must present identification that sufficiently differentiates them from the person on the No Fly List. This can include, but is not limited to, date and place of birth, middle name, citizenship, passport number, etc. Depending on the airline, this clearance can be done either electronically, with the check-in agent keying the information into the system, or a manual procedure where the agent telephones a centralized security office to obtain clearance. Once a “false positive” passenger has been cleared for a flight, the clearance will usually, but not always, apply to the remaining flights on that reservation, including the return. However, the next time this passenger purchases an airline ticket, he or she will have to be cleared all over again. If a passenger’s identification is insufficient to differentiate that passenger from a name on the No-Fly List, the airline will refuse to issue a boarding pass and tell the passenger to contact the TSA.[citation needed]

    Policies vary from airline to airline as to whether a check-in agent will tell passengers why they must always have additional steps performed when they check in, or why they are unable to check in via Internet, kiosk, or at curbside. In some cases, check-in agents will incorrectly tell passengers that they must be cleared because they are “on the No Fly List”, when in fact they are simply a “false positive” (having the same name as someone on the No Fly List). False positive passengers who are ultimately issued boarding passes are not on the No Fly List. In the majority of instances, passengers are not told anything, and it is only through the repeated experience of needing to be cleared or being unable to use curbside, Internet or automatic check-in that they come to suspect that they are “false positives”.[citation needed]

    In an effort to reduce the number of false positives, DHS announced on April 28, 2008 that each airline will be permitted to create a system to verify and store a passenger’s date of birth, to clear up watch list misidentifications. Passengers can voluntarily provide this information to the airline, which would have to be verified by presenting acceptable ID at the ticket counter. Once this data has been stored, travelers that were previously inconvenienced on every trip would be able to check in online or at remote kiosks.[27] It will be up to each individual airline to choose whether they wish to implement such a system.[citation needed]

    Notable cases

    False positives and abuses that have been in the news include:

    • Numerous children (including many under the age of five, and some under the age of one) have generated false positives.[28][29][30]
    • Daniel Brown, a United States Marine returning from Iraq, was prevented from boarding a flight home in April 2006 because his name matched one on the No Fly List.[31]
    • David Fathi, an attorney for the ACLU of Iranian descent and a plaintiff in an ACLU lawsuit, has been arrested and detained because his name was on the No Fly List.[32]
    • Asif Iqbal, a management consultant and legal resident of the United States born in Pakistan, plans to sue the U.S. government because he is regularly detained when he tries to fly. He has the same name as a former Guantanamo detainee.[33][34] Iqbal’s work requires a lot of travel, and, even though the Guantanamo detainee has been released, his name remains on the No Fly List, and Iqbal the software consultant experiences frequent, unpredictable delays and missed flights.[35] He is pushing for a photo ID and birthdate matching system, in addition to the current system of checking names.[36]
    • Robert J. Johnson, a surgeon and a former lieutenant colonel in the U.S. Army, was told in 2006 that he was on the list, although he had had no problem in flying the month before. Johnson was running as aDemocrat against U.S. Representative John McHugh, a Republican. Johnson wondered whether he was on the list because of his opposition to the Iraq War. He stated, “This could just be a government screw-up, but I don’t know, and they won’t tell me.”[37] Later, a 60 Minutes report brought together 12 men named Robert Johnson, all of whom had experienced problems in airports with being pulled aside and interrogated. The report suggested that the individual whose name was intended to be on the list was most likely the Robert Johnson who had been convicted of plotting to bomb a movie theater and a Hindu temple in Toronto.[6]
    • In August 2004, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) told a Senate Judiciary Committee discussing the No Fly List that he had appeared on the list and had been repeatedly delayed at airports. He said it had taken him three weeks of appeals directly to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to have him removed from the list. Kennedy said he was eventually told that the name “T Kennedy” was added to the list because it was once used as an alias of a suspected terrorist. There are an estimated 7,000 American men whose legal names correspond to “T Kennedy”. (Senator Kennedy, whose first name was Edward and for whom “Ted” was only a nickname, would not have been one of them.) Recognizing that as a U.S. Senator he was in a privileged position of being able to contact Ridge, Kennedy said of “ordinary citizens”: “How are they going to be able to get to be treated fairly and not have their rights abused?”[38] Former mayor of New York City Rudy Giuliani pointed to this incident as an example for the necessity to “rethink aviation security” in an essay on homeland security published while he was seeking the Republican nomination for the 2008 presidential election.[39]
    • U.S. Representative, former Freedom Rider, and Chairman of SNCC John Lewis (politician) (D-GA) has been stopped many times.[40]
    • Canadian journalist Patrick Martin has been frequently interrogated while traveling, because of a suspicious individual, believed to be a former Provisional Irish Republican Army bomb-maker, with the same name.[41][42]
    • Walter F. Murphy, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, reported that the following exchange took place at Newark on 1 March 2007, where he was denied a boarding pass “because I [Murphy] was on the Terrorist Watch list.” The airline employee asked, “Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that.” Replied Murphy, “I explained that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.” To which the airline employee responded, “That’ll do it.”[43]
    • David Nelson, the actor best known for his role on The Adventures of Ozzie and Harriet, is among various persons named David Nelson who have been stopped at airports because their name apparently appears on the list.[44][45]
    • Jesselyn Radack, a former United States Department of Justice ethics adviser who argued that John Walker Lindh was entitled to an attorney, was placed on the No Fly List as part of what she [46] believes to be a reprisal for her whistle-blowing.
    • In September 2004, former pop singer Cat Stevens (who converted to Islam and changed his name to “Yusuf Islam” in 1978) was denied entry into the U.S. after his name was found on the list.[47]
    • In February 2006, U.S. Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK) stated in a committee hearing that his wife Catherine had been subjected to questioning at an airport as to whether she was Cat Stevens due to the similarity of their names.[44][48]
    • U.S. Representative Don Young (R-AK), the third-most senior Republican in the House, was flagged in 2004 after he was mistaken for a “Donald Lee Young”.[49]
    • Some members of the Federal Air Marshal Service have been denied boarding on flights that they were assigned to protect because their names matched those of persons on the no-fly list.[50]
    • In August 2008, CNN reported that an airline captain and retired brigadier general for the United States Air Force has had numerous encounters with security officials when attempting to pilot his own plane.[51]
    • After frequent harassment at airport terminals, a Canadian businessman changed his name to avoid being delayed every time he took a flight.[52]
    • In October 2008, the Washington Post reported that Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent political activists as terrorists, and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases, with labels indicating that they were terror suspects. The protest groups were also entered as terrorist organizations. During a hearing, it was revealed that these individuals and organizations had been placed in the databases because of a surveillance operation that targeted opponents of the death penalty and the Iraq war.[53]
    • In April 2009, TSA refused to allow an Air France flight from Paris to Mexico to cross U.S. airspace because it was carrying Colombian journalist Hernando Calvo Ospina. Air France did not send the passenger manifest to the US authorities; they did however send it to Mexico who forwarded it to the US.[54]
    • On 19 August 2009, Air France flight AF-438 was not allowed to cross into US airspace because of the presence on board of one Paul-Emile Dupret, a civil servant at the European Parliament for 18 years, who had written some articles criticizing the EU’s policies toward Latin America because they are aligned too closely with those of the United States.[55] Even though AF-438 did not cross into US airspace, Paul-Emile Dupret was not allowed to fly to Montreal, where he was to take part in an official delegation of the European Parliament in Ottawa and Montreal. On 20 March 2016 at Charles DeGaulle Airport, Air France prevented Mssr. Dupret from boarding and suggested that he speak with a US security agent in the airport.
    • Bollywood actor Shah Rukh Khan was held for extensive questioning by US Immigration and Customs officials in August 2009 because, as he reported, “his name came up on a computer alert list.” Customs officials claimed that he “was questioned as part of a routine process that took 66 minutes.” Khan was visiting the United States to promote his film My Name Is Khan, which concerns racial profiling of Muslims in the United States.[56]
    • In June 2010, The New York Times reported that Yahya Wehelie, a 26-year-old Muslim-American man, was being prevented from returning to the United States, and was stranded in Cairo. Despite Wehelie’s offer to FBI agents to allow them to accompany him on the plane, while shackled, he was not permitted to fly. The ACLU has argued that this constitutes banishment.[57] In July 2010, Wehelie was permitted to fly to New York under a federal waiver.[58]
    • A U.S. citizen, stranded in Colombia after being placed on the no-fly list as a result of having studied in Yemen, sought to re-enter the U.S. through Mexico but was returned to Colombia by Mexican authorities.[57]
    • Michael Migliore, a 23-year-old Muslim convert and dual citizen of the United States and Italy, was detained in the United Kingdom after traveling there from the U.S. by train and then cruise ship because he was not permitted to fly. He said that he believes he was placed on the no-fly list because he refused to answer questions about a 2010 Portland car bomb plot without his lawyer present.[59] He was released eight or ten hours later, but authorities confiscated his electronic media items, including a cell phone and media player.[60]
    • Abe Mashal, a 31-year-old Muslim and United States Marine Veteran, found himself on the No Fly List in April 2010 while attempting to board a plane out of Midway Airport. He was questioned by the TSA, FBI and Chicago Police at the airport and was told they had no clue why he was on the No Fly List. Once he arrived at home that day two other FBI agents came to his home and used a Do Not Fly question-and-answer sheet to question him. They informed him they had no idea why he was on the No Fly List. In June 2010 those same two FBI agents summoned Mashal to a local hotel and invited him to a private room. They told him that he was in no trouble and the reason he ended up on the No Fly List was because of possibly sending emails to an American imam they may have been monitoring. They then informed him that if he would go undercover at various local mosques, they could get him off the No Fly List immediately and he would be compensated for such actions. Mashal refused to answer any additional questions without a lawyer present and was told to leave the hotel. Mashal then contacted the ACLU and is now being represented in a class-action lawsuit filed against the TSA, FBI and DHS concerning the legality of the No Fly List and how people end up on it. Mashal feels as if he was blackmailed into becoming an informant by being placed on the No Fly List. Mashal has since appeared on ABC, NBC, PBS and Al Jazeera concerning his inclusion on the No Fly List. He has also written a book about his experience titled “No Spy No Fly.” [61]
    • In November 2002 Salon reported that the No-Fly program seemed “to be netting mostly priests, elderly nuns, Green Party campaign operatives, left-wing journalists, right-wing activists and people affiliated with Arab or Arab-American groups.” Art dealer Doug Stuber, who ran Ralph Nader’s Green Party presidential campaign in North Carolina in 2000, was prevented from flying to Europe on business in October 2002. He was repeatedly pulled out of line, held for questioning until his flight left, then told falsely he could take a later flight or depart from a different airport. Barbara Olshansky, then Assistant Legal Director for theCenter for Constitutional Rights, noted that she and several of her colleagues received special attention on numerous occasions. On at least one occasion, she was ordered to pull her trousers down in view of other passengers.[62]

    DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program

    The DHS Traveler Redress Inquiry Program (TRIP) is a procedure for travelers who are delayed or denied boarding of an aircraft, consistently receive excess scrutiny at security checkpoints, or are denied entry to the U.S. because they are believed to be or are told that they are on a government watch list. The traveler must complete an online application at the Department of Homeland Security website, print and sign the application, and then submit it with copies of several identifying documents. After reviewing their records, DHS notifies the traveler that if any corrections of data about them were warranted, they will be made.

    Travelers who apply for redress through TRIP are assigned a record identifier called a “Redress Control Number”. Airline reservations systems allow passengers who have a Redress Control Number to enter it when making their reservation.

    DHS TRIP may make it easier for an airline to confirm a traveler’s identity. False-positive travelers, whose names match or are similar to the names of persons on the No Fly List, will continue to match that name even after using DHS TRIP, so it will not restore a traveler’s ability to use Internet or curbside check-in or to use an automated kiosk.[citation needed] It does usually help the airline identify the traveler as not being the actual person on the No Fly List, after an airline agent has reviewed their identity documents at check-in.

    However, DHS TRIP has not been very helpful to travelers who accidentally end up on the No Fly List, as their efforts to clear their names are often futile to the extent that they are not told why they are on the list.[63]

    Lawsuits

    On April 6, 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union “filed a nationwide class-action challenge to the government’s No Fly List”, in which they charge that “many innocent travelers who pose no security risk whatsoever are discovering that their government considers them terrorists – and find that they have no way to find out why they are on the list, and no way to clear their names.”[64] The case was settled in 2006, when “the federal government agreed to pay $200,000 in attorneys’ fees to the ACLU of Northern California” and to “[make] public, for the first time, hundreds of records about the government’s secret ‘no fly’ list used to screen airline passengers after September 11, 2001.”[8] On August 5, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of 14 plaintiffs challenging their placement on the No Fly List.[65] and on June 24, 2014, U.S. District Judge Anna J. Brown ruled in favor of the plaintiffs saying that air travel is a “sacred” liberty protected by the U.S. Constitution[66] and ordered the government to change its system for challenging inclusion.[65]

    A Malaysian academic has been the first to successfully bring a suit involving the No Fly List to trial. On August 18, 2008, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco issued a ruling on behalf of Rahinah Ibrahim, overturning a lower court decision and allowing her case against inclusion in the No Fly List to proceed through the court system.[67] A public trial began on December 2, 2013 in San Francisco in the courtroom of U.S. District Judge William Alsup.[68] The judge frequently cleared the courtroom following the requests of government lawyers (even though the judge himself once declared that the reasons “don’t make much sense sometimes.”)[69][not in citation given] After the government revealed that Ibrahim had ended up on the list because of human error by the FBI,[70] Alsup ruled on January 14, 2014 “that Ibrahim did have the right to sue and ordered the government to tell Ibrahim whether she is still on the list.”[71]

    Gulet Mohamed, a U.S. citizen from Virginia, was placed on the no-fly list as a teenager in 2011 while he was visiting family in Kuwait. Because he was on the no-fly list, he was unable to return to the U.S. before his visa expired.[72] He was taken into custody in Kuwait for overstaying his visa, where he alleges that he “was repeatedly beaten and tortured by his interrogators,” one of whom spoke “perfect American English.”[73]Kuwaiti authorities tried to deport him to the U.S., but the airline denied him boarding, presumably because he was on the U.S. no-fly list, and he was returned to prison. While he was imprisoned in Kuwait, a lawsuit was filed on his behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia by the Council on American Islamic Relations. After the lawsuit was filed, he was allowed to return to the U.S.; the U.S. government then moved to dismiss the lawsuit as moot.[74] On May 28, 2013, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s motion to dismiss Mohamed’s lawsuit.[75] On January 22, 2014, Judge Anthony J. Trenga denied most of another government motion to dismiss the lawsuit, allowing the case to proceed toward trial.[76]

    Controversy and criticism

    The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has long criticized the No Fly List and similar list because of the lack of notification to persons included on such lists. The ACLU’s stance is that the government has not provided a constitutionally adequate means of allowing individuals to challenge their inclusion on the list[77] and that “constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel.”[78]

    Among the complaints about the No Fly List is the use of credit reports in calculating the risk score. In response to the controversy, Transportation Security Administration (TSA) officials said in 2005 that they would not use credit scores to determine passengers’ risk score and that they would comply with all rights guaranteed by the First and Fourth Amendments.[79]

    The European Union and other non-U.S. government entities have expressed concern about allowing the CAPPS II proposal to be implemented within their borders. During the early testing of the No Fly List and CAPPS II, the TSA privately asked airlines to disclose massive amounts of personal information about their passengers. This action has been said[by whom?] to be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, which forbids the government to compile secret databases on U.S. citizens.

    The No Fly List has been variously described as Orwellian and Kafkaesque. Individuals usually do not know they have been put on the list until they attempt to board a plane. Efforts to discover the reasons for being barred from flying meet with indeterminate responses from the authorities, which would neither confirm nor deny that a name is on the List.[69]

    In the midst of this controversy, the Government Accountability Office of the U.S. Congress produced a report critical of the CAPPS II system. It characterized the proposal as incomplete and seriously behind schedule, and noted that the TSA had failed to address “developmental, operational, and privacy issues identified by Congress”. On July 14, 2004, TSA officials announced that CAPPS II was being pulled from consideration without proceeding to full testing. Critics have alleged that the TSA has merely chosen to start with a less controversial entry point that they are calling the “Registered Traveler” program.[80] TSA has also begun testing of another program called “Secure Flight“, which is supposed to solve some of the problems of CAPPS I while avoiding the privacy issues of CAPPS II.

    In January 2009, Marcus Holmes[81] conservatively estimated the total cost of the program to be $536 million since 9/11, with a reasonable estimation range that approaches $1 billion, and he questioned whether the benefits of the list outweigh the costs.[82]

    No fly lists in other countries

    The government of Canada has created its own no fly list as part of a program called Passenger Protect.[83] The Canadian list incorporates data from domestic and foreign intelligence sources, including the U.S. No Fly List.[84] It contains between 500 and 2,000 names.[85]

    See also

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

    Is It an Invasion? — Constitution’s Invasion Clause Won’t Work

    By Barnaby Zall
    Volume 11, Number 1 (Fall 2000)

    In the recent movie Mars Attacks, President Jack Nicholson calls out the American military to battle aliens invading from Mars. The earthlings can’t do anything about the invasion for most of the movie. All their advanced technology is ineffective until a donut maker discovers that ancient recordings of yodeling literally explode the aliens. It may feel like the middle of that movie in some communities on our southern border.

    Residents of southern border areas certainly feel that they are being invaded. At a July 24, 2000, meeting of the Cochise County (Arizona) Board of Supervisors, Chairman Mike Palmer estimated that 60 percent of the sheriff’s patrol division resources are spent responding to problems related to illegal immigration. Murphy, “Supes award grant funds to ease local border woes,” Sierra Vista [Arizona] News, Aug. 10, 2000, p.1, col. 2-3. The direct costs to the sheriff’s department were $2,900,798. Id. There were other costs in health care, legal defense for indigents, and additional firearms needed to deal with high-powered arsenals used by smugglers. Id.,p.3. With unreim-bursed health care costs driving her hospital into bankruptcy, one administrator reported that the costs to Copper Queen Community Hospital have tripled in less than a year. The federal government generously reimbursed the County only one-fifth of its costs a measly $778,000. Id.,p.1.

    Perhaps Arizona ranchers beset by hordes of illegal immigrants crossing their lands could ask for federal assistance to set up huge speaker systems playing yodels or modern rock music? Music aside, it isn’t likely that the afflicted ranchers and counties can easily make a federal case of it. The courts have repeatedly held that immigration and border protection decisions are “political,” and they won’t interfere.

    At first blush, it seems clear that the U.S. Constitution should protect the ranchers, health care workers, and county governments against this heavily-armed invasion. After all, Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution known as the “Invasion Clause” says: “The United States … shall protect [the States] against Invasion.” So why doesn’t the Invasion Clause protect border areas from this invasion?

    There are three highly-technical legal reasons:

    1. It’s not the right kind of invasion;

    2. The federal government can choose not to act; and

    3. It’s a “political question” which the courts won’t touch.

    INVASION

    The Invasion Clause in the U.S. Constitution says “invasion,” but it doesn’t say what an invasion is. In a way this is odd, since, among the Founders, the topic of protection against invasion was one of the most important reasons to discard the old Articles of Confederation in favor of the new Constitution with a federal government. See, e.g., “Debate in North Carolina Ratifying Convention, 24 July 1788,” Elliot 4:15-26 (Statement of Mr. Davie: “The general objects of the union are, 1st, to protect us against foreign invasion; 2d, to defend us against internal commotions and insurrections; 3d, to promote the commerce, agriculture, and manufacturers, of America. These objects are requisite to make us a safe and happy people, and they cannot be attained without a firm and efficient system of union.”); Story, Commentaries on the Constitution, Boston, 1833, � 481.

    But the lack of a definition may have been because all the Founders knew, in the wake of the Revolutionary War and the predatory antics of States under the Articles of Confederation, what “invasion” meant. One of the few statements by the Founders about the Invasion Clause was by James Madison, in The Federalist No. 43, published January 23, 1788. Madison said:

    “A protection against invasion is due from every society to the parts composing it. The latitude of the expression here used seems to secure each State, not only against foreign hostility, but against ambitious or vindictive enterprises of its more powerful neighbors. The history, both of ancient and modern confederacies, proves that the weaker members of the union ought not to be insensible to the policy of this article.”

    Thus, Madison included both invasions from foreign powers and from other States. This view was reiterated by Founder William Rawle, who used the example of a State which refused to “refer its controversies with another state to the judicial power of the Union.” Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States, 2d Ed. Philadelphia, 1829.

    Later the new Congress enacted a law providing for a militia, to be called up in the event of an invasion. Act of February 28, 1795, c. 101. That Act provided

    “that whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the president of the United States to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger, or scene of action, as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion.” Id.

    This description of invasion was more narrow, dealing only with foreign nations and Indian tribes.

    The Supreme Court interpreted this Act, following the War of 1812, in Martin v. Mott, 12 Wheat. 19 (1827), a case brought by a man who refused to enter the militia as required, but the actual issues involved the declarations by the governors of Massachusetts and Connecticut that they had the power to judge for themselves whether the militia should be called out. The Supreme Court held unanimously that

    “the authority to decide whether the exigency has arisen, belongs exclusively to the president, and that his decision is conclusive upon all other persons. . . . The power itself is to be exercised upon sudden emergencies, upon great occasions of state, and under circumstances which may be vital to the existence of the Union.” Id.

    The Supreme Court noted that any abuse of the President’s power would be corrected by elections or Congress’s “watchfulness.” Id. Thus, the definition of invasion was left to the President alone, and the Supreme Court said that any errors in judgment would have to be corrected by the political process.

    Of course, not everyone is enamored of the views of the Founders. Some people believe that invasion includes pollution and “greed.” (See, e.g. http://www.article4.com, citing Diamond, “If You Can Keep It: A Constitutional Roadmap to Environmental Security,” Brass Ring Press, 1996.) Others believe that right now there is an “ongoing clandestine invasion” by space aliens who abduct and assault Arizonans. Citizens Against UFO Secrecy v. United States, U.S. District Court for Arizona, filed Sept. 1, 1999.

    Courts, on the other hand, take a much more narrow view of the term “invasion,” usually referring to Madison’s Federalist No. 43. See, e.g., Padavan v. United States, 82 F.3d 23 [2d Cir. 1996] (rejecting claim by New York for federal reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration: “In order for a state to be afforded the protections of the Invasion Clause, it must be exposed to armed hostility from another political entity, such as another state or foreign country that is intending to overthrow the state’s government.”); New Jersey v. United States, 91 F.3d 463, (3d Cir. 1996)(rejecting same claim by New Jersey: Invasion Clause “offers no support whatsoever for application of the Invasion Clause to this case or for its reading of the term �invasion’ to mean anything other than a military invasion.”); California v. United States, 104 F.3d 1086 (9th Cir. 1997)(rejecting same claim by California: “there are no manageable standards to ascertain whether or when an influx of illegal immigrants should be said to constitute an invasion.”).

    Thus, except as described below, it would be unlikely that the afflicted areas in Arizona could get courts to consider the tremendous influx of illegal immigrants as an “invasion.”

    FEDERAL DECISION

    As noted above, it is the President’s decision to call something an invasion. The Founders considered calling federal protection into a State to be such an important decision that it was to be left to the President alone. Martin v. Mott. Oversight was to be by Congress and the people (through an election) Id.

    The President does have the power to stop the influx of illegal immigration. Although Congress has “plenary” (complete) power over immigration, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787, 792 (1977), it has delegated the administration of immigration policy to the President and the Attorney General, in the form of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. �� 1101 et seq. The Attorney General is principally charged with enforcing the immigration laws, with some duties undertaken by the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, 8 U.S.C. � 1103. Under Section 212(f) of that Act, the President may “suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens” whenever he “finds that the entry of any aliens … would be detrimental to the interests of the United States,” 8 U.S.C. � 1182(f).

    In 1997, Attorney General Reno announced a new policy to block illegal immigration by shifting more resources to border enforcement in “traditional illegal crossing and drug smuggling traffic patterns along the southern border.” U.S. Dept. of Justice, “Strategic Plan, 1997-2002,” September 1997, 17. The new policy was successful in blocking many traditional illegal entry patterns, but the policy did not provide enough resources to block nontraditional entry points. The results were that illegal migration shifted heavily to the ranches and deserts of southern Arizona.

    But it’s not as if the federal government is doing nothing, or is doing the wrong thing in stopping illegal immigration. The budget for the Immigration and Naturalization Service is over three billion dollars a year, with much of that money going to the Border Patrol. And the new border control policy has reduced illegal immigration (though by how much is still a matter of some contention).

    So it’s not likely that the border communities will be able to claim that the federal government is not doing anything to help them.

    POLITICAL ISSUE

    But the most important roadblock to using the Invasion Clause to force more federal assistance to border communities is the “political question” doctrine. Courts will not get involved in matters that are too political. And every court which has reviewed Invasion Clause claims has refused to intervene because the questions are too political.

    At heart, the courts won’t consider political questions because of the constitutional structure separating the three branches of the federal government: executive, legislative and judicial. Where the Constitution commits a policy area to the political branches of government, the courts won’t step in, Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 217 (1962).

    As noted above, immigration is committed to the political branches, Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. at 792. Every court to have considered whether immigration comes within the Invasion Clause has declared the question to be political and refused to step in. See, e.g., Barber v. Hawaii, 42 F.3d 1185, 1199 (9th Cir. 1994)(rejecting claim that federal government permit-ted “economic invasion” of Hawaii by Japanese); Chiles v. U.S., 69 F.3d 1094, 1097 (11th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1674 (1996)(rejecting Florida’s attempt at same claim for reimbursement for costs of illegal immigration as other states mentioned above).

    IS THERE A WAY TO PROCEED?

    So are the border communities simply out of luck? Can they ever get any relief from the federal government for the massive influx of illegal immigrants suddenly streaming across their property?

    It would be a difficult road, but the way is not entirely blocked. There are two possible avenues available to them. The first, and most obvious, is political pressure. If, as the courts have decreed, this is a political question, then the solution is also political. There is no active constituency for illegal immigration in Washington (as opposed to those who either ignore or like illegal immigration or those who promote legal immigration), and a well-organized attempt to increase border resources might return some semblance of peace to the border communities.

    The second method is to find a sympathetic judge who will let the border communities tell their tale and allow them some relief. This was the method used by the Haitian community in past years; the immigration laws blocked attempts by Haitian refugees themselves to get judicial review of federal policies requiring their deportation. But federal Judge James Lawrence King ignored the ban on judicial review on the basis of a fiction that he was really hearing the claims of American citizens whose constitutional rights were violated by low-level officials. Jean v. Nelson, 472 U.S. 846 (1985), aff’g, 727 F.2d 957 (11th Cir.1984). Perhaps the border communities could convince another judge that their claims for violations are just as great as the Haitian communities’.

    There are also legal grounds for this review which do not rely on the Invasion Clause. For example, the border communities might challenge the new enforcement policy as an illegal taking of their property, or as having failed a required procedural or environmental review. These constitutional or statutory rights will be mixed up with the political and policy questions which courts refuse to consider, but they might also entice an appropriate federal judge to take a chance on reviewing them. And a little-known secret of American constitutional law is that the choice of the original judge is critically important to establishing or contesting constitutional doctrines; federal judges’ decisions are usually sustained on appeal. Thus, if the border communities can craft an appropriate and appealing legal case and find a sympathetic judge, they may well find some relief in the courts.

    But as for using the Invasion Clause itself, it’s not likely to be a fruitful exercise.

    Finally, our trade policies do not discourage American employers from following a low-skill, low-wage strategy. We should imbed labor standards in all our trade rules, requiring nations that export to us to respect the freedom to organize and bargain collectively, to maintain a safe and healthful work place, to prohibit forced labor and the exploitation of children. These labor standards would put a floor under international wage competition and help US managers to manage better rather than trying to compete by reducing labor standards. We have inserted these standards in every US trade bill passed in the 1980s, but to be effective, we need to make them a part of the GATT system. ?

    http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc1101/article_123.shtml

    KEY POINTS

    1. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.”
    2. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, which is essential to a functioning democracy.
    3. Presidents must not be allowed to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore
    4. When the President fails to faithfully execute the laws, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but both houses of Congress must act together.
    5. Congress may also hold the President accountable by asking the courts to call the fouls when the lines of constitutional authority have been breached.
    6. The House of Representatives will bring a lawsuit challenging the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of Obamacare.
    7. This lawsuit seeks to reaffirm constitutional principles, including the President’s duty to faithfully execute the laws.

    The President’s Duty to Faithfully Execute the Law

    A‌braham Lincoln is often paraphrased as saying, “The best way ‌to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly.” While that paraphrase summarizes the gist of what Lincoln was saying, the full text of his remark is worth repeating.

    In 1838, early in his career, Abraham Lincoln delivered an address to the Young Men’s Lyceum of Springfield, Illinois. It was entitled “The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.” In it, he said:

    Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity, swear by the blood of the Revolution, never to violate in the least particular, the laws of the country; and never to tolerate their violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to the support of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of the Constitution and Laws, let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor;—let every man remember that to violate the law, is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the character of his own, and his children’s liberty. Let reverence for the laws, be breathed by every American mother, to the lisping babe, that prattles on her lap—let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it be written in Primers, spelling books, and in Almanacs;—let it be preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courts of justice.

    He went on to say:

    When I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let me not be understood as saying there are no bad laws.… But I do mean to say, that, although bad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still while they continue in force, for the sake of example, they should be religiously observed.

    When Lincoln refers to religiously observing the law “for the sake of example,” he is referring also to the example of the American Republic itself as an example to the world. Without enforcement of the law, there cannot be accountability under law, and political accountability is essential to a functioning democracy.

    We in the House of Representatives, who face reelection every two years under the Constitution, are perhaps reminded of that more often than others. And while there is at least one political branch willing to enforce the law, we will not fail to act through whatever means we can successfully avail ourselves of.

    The President and the Take Care Clause

    Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution requires the President to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” This clause, known as the Take Care Clause, requires the President to enforce all constitutionally valid Acts of Congress, regardless of his own Administration’s view of their wisdom or policy. The clause imposes a duty on the President; it does not confer a discretionary power. The Take Care Clause is a limit on the Vesting Clause’s grant to the President of “the executive power.”

    The United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in an opinion handed down just last year striking down the President’s assertion of authority to disregard a federal statute, provided a succinct description of the President’s obligations under the Take Care Clause, as follows:

    Under Article II of the Constitution and relevant Supreme Court precedents, the President must follow statutory mandates so long as there is appropriated money available and the President has no constitutional objection to the statute. So, too, the President must abide by statutory prohibitions unless the President has a constitutional objection to the prohibition. If the President has a constitutional objection to a statutory mandate or prohibition, the President may decline to follow the law unless and until a final Court order dictates otherwise. But the President may not decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibition simply because of policy objections. Of course, if Congress appropriates no money for a statutorily mandated program, the Executive obviously cannot move forward. But absent a lack of funds or a claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates and prohibitions.[1]

    When the President fails to perform his constitutional duty that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed, the Congress has appropriations and other powers over the President, but none of those powers can be exercised unless both houses of Congress work together. Nor would the exercise of those powers solve the problem at hand, because they would not actually require the President to faithfully execute the laws.

    Of course, the most powerful and always available means of solving the problem at hand is the electoral process. In the meantime, however, the need to pursue the establishment of clear principles of political accountability is of the essence.

    As Lincoln said, “Let reverence for the laws be … enforced in courts of justice.” It is the courts’ duty, too, to uphold reverence for the law, and it is the specific duty of the courts to call fouls when the lines of constitutional authority under the separation of powers established by the Constitution have been breached.

    A lawsuit by the House of Representatives would grant no additional powers to the judicial branch over legislation. Indeed, what a statute says or doesn’t say would remain unaffected. But it would be the appropriate task of the federal courts to determine whether or not, whatever a statute says, a President can ignore it under the Constitution. Whatever the result of such a lawsuit, this President and, in all likelihood, future Presidents will continue to nullify Congress’s legislative power in the absence of our seeking now the establishment, in court, of a clear principle to the contrary.

    Challenging the President’s Failure to Faithfully Execute the Laws

    The stakes for inaction are high. The lawsuit will challenge the President’s failure to enforce key provisions of the law that has come to bear his name in the popular mind and was largely drafted in the White House.

    Unlike any other piece of major federal legislation enacted in at least 100 years—including the Federal Reserve Act, the National Labor Relations Act, the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, the Tax Reform Act, and all other major federal legislation over the last century—the Obamacare law did not garner significant bipartisan support. Indeed, and uniquely, it had none. There was no bipartisan political compromise.

    What provisions of Obamacare have been enforced have not proved popular, and what provisions the President has refused to enforce have been delayed until at least after the next federal elections: How convenient for the President, yet how devastating to accountability in our Republic.

    Imagine the future if this new, unconstitutional power of the President is left to stand. Presidents today and in the future would be able to treat the entire United States Code as mere guidelines and pick and choose among its provisions which to enforce and which to ignore. The current President has even created entirely new categories of businesses to which his unilaterally imposed exemptions would apply.

    In that future, if a bill the President signed into law was later considered to be bad policy and potentially harmful to the President’s political party if enforced, accountability for signing that policy into law could be avoided by simply delaying enforcement until a more politically opportune time, if at all. No longer would presidential candidates running for reelection have to stand on their records, because their records could be edited at will.

    Sign one bill into law; enforce another version of it in practice. Rinse and repeat—until the accumulation of power in the presidency is complete. Whatever the odds of preventing that nightmarish future through the reaffirming of constitutional principles in court, it would be our duty to pursue it.

    Earlier this year, I joined with Representative Trey Gowdy (R–SC) to introduce H.R. 4138, the ENFORCE the Law Act, to put a procedure in place, including expedited court procedures, for Congress to initiate litigation against the executive branch for its failure to faithfully execute the laws. But while that legislation passed the House with bipartisan support, the Senate has failed to consider it. The House then considered and passed a resolution to authorize litigation by the House to restore political accountability and enforce the rule of law.

    The Supreme Court and Presidential Power

    The Supreme Court has squarely rejected the authority of the President to refuse to enforce constitutional laws. As early as the Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison, the Court recognized Congress’s authority to impose specific duties upon executive branch officials by law, as well as the official’s corresponding obligation to execute the congressional directive.

    The Supreme Court articulated this principle again in an 1838 case, Kendall v. United States ex rel. Stokes, involving the President’s refusal to comply with an act of Congress, observing that “[t]o contend that the obligations imposed on the President to see the laws faithfully executed, implies a power to forbid their execution; is a novel construction of the constitution, and entirely inadmissible.”[2] The Court further noted that permitting executive branch noncompliance with the statute “would be vesting in the President a dispensing power, which has no countenance for its support in any part of the constitution; and is asserting a principle, which, if carried out in its results, to all cases falling within it, would be clothing the President with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice.”[3]

    A century later, in what has become the seminal case on executive power, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, the Court reasoned as follows:

    In the framework of our Constitution, the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker. The Constitution limits his functions in the lawmaking process to the recommending of laws he thinks wise and the vetoing of laws he thinks bad. And the Constitution is neither silent nor equivocal about who shall make laws which the President is to execute…. The Constitution did not subject this lawmaking power of Congress to presidential … supervision or control.… The Founders of this Nation entrusted the law making power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times.[4]

    And as the Court stated just this past term in the case of Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, “The power of executing the laws … does not include a power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.”[5]

    While the constitutional case law regarding standing to bring a case can be murky, one thing is absolutely clear: The Supreme Court has never closed the door to the standing of the House of Representatives as an institution. It has had the opportunity to do so many times in the past, and each time it has refused.

    Individual Members of Congress often have difficulty establishing standing to allege an injury, butRaines v. Byrd, the leading Supreme Court case on legislator standing, “does not stand for the proposition that Congress can never assert its institutional interests in court,” as it has been described by one federal district court judge.[6] Indeed, as another federal district court judge recently pointed out, “the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the legislators in that case did not initiate their lawsuit on behalf of their respective legislative bodies.”[7]

    In fact, the Supreme Court noted in Raines itself that it “attach[ed] some importance to the fact that [plaintiffs] have not been authorized to represent their respective Houses of Congress in this action, and indeed both Houses actively oppose their suits.”[8] In other words, the Supreme Court’s decision in Raines was premised in part on the fact that the Members in that case did not initiate the lawsuit on behalf of their respective house of Congress.

    Further, the courts routinely hear lawsuits involving the enforcement of subpoenas approved by federal legislative bodies. They do so because the subpoena power of each house of Congress derives from its legislative powers under Article I of the Constitution, and if Congress is to have the power to legislate, it must have the power to collect the information necessary to inform that legislative power. When the executive branch refuses to give a congressional body the information it requests, it impedes the legislative power, and the federal courts hear those cases.

    But today, the President is not only impeding the legislative power; he is negating it by failing to enforce clear, central provisions of major domestic legislation. And if the federal courts can hear cases in which Congress’s legislative power is hampered by the failure to comply with a subpoena, surely they should be able to hear cases in which its legislative power is completely nullified.

    Finally, there is nothing unusual or inappropriate about federal courts’ weighing in on separation of powers disputes. As the Supreme Court has stated:

    Our system of government requires that federal courts on occasion interpret the Constitution in a manner at variance with the construction given the document by another branch. The alleged conflict that such an adjudication may cause cannot justify the courts’ avoiding their constitutional responsibility.[9]

    The Court has also stated that:

    Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether the action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and is a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.[10]

    The federal courts have a long history of resolving cases involving the allocation of power between the political branches and addressing important separation of powers concerns. Those cases include Bowsher v. Synar, regarding the execution of the laws; INS v. Chadha, regarding the legislative veto; Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, Morrison v. Olson, and Myers v. United States, regarding the removal of appointed officials; and NLRB v. Noel Canning, in which the Supreme Court just last term unanimously rejected the President’s recess appointments that occurred when the Senate had announced it was in session.[11]

    Conclusion

    The House of Representatives—the branch of our federal government closest to the people—has voted many times to repeal Obamacare, which remains as unpopular as ever, but the Senate and the President have ignored Americans’ dislike for the law. They have gotten away with ignoring it so far because the obverse of the paraphrase of Lincoln that “the best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly” is true as well and aptly summarizes the current danger to democratic government posed by the current Administration: The best way to keep a bad law on the books is to allow its selective enforcement. The House of Representatives will do everything it can to get bad laws off the books.

    http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/2014/the-presidents-duty-to-faithfully-execute-the-law

    BREAKING: Supreme Court Splits On Immigration, Voiding Obama Protection For Millions [VIDEO]

    Significant blow to president’s immigration policies enacted after Congress did nothing.

    List of United States immigration laws

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    A number of major laws and court decisions relating to immigration procedures and enforcement have been enacted in the United States.

    Year Name of Legislation/Case Major Highlights
    1790 Naturalization Act of 1790 Established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but placed no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship was limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
    1795 Naturalization Act of 1795 Lengthened required residency to become citizen.
    1798 Naturalization Act (officially An Act to Establish a Uniform Rule of Naturalization; ch. 54, 1 Stat. 566)

    Alien Friends Act (officially An Act Concerning Aliens; ch. 58, 1 Stat. 570)

    Alien Enemies Act (officially An Act Respecting Alien Enemies; ch. 66, 1 Stat. 577)

    • Extended the duration of residence required for immigrants to become citizens to 14 years. Enacted June 18, 1798, with no expiration date, it was repealed in 1802.
    • Authorized the president to deport any resident immigrant considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” It was activated June 25, 1798, with a two-year expiration date.
    • Authorized the president to apprehend and deport resident aliens if their home countries were at war with the United States of America. Enacted July 6, 1798, and providing no sunset provision, the act remains intact today as 50 U.S.C. § 21
    1870 Naturalization Act of 1870
    • Extended the naturalization process to “aliens of African nativity and to persons of African descent.”
    • Other non-whites were not included in this act and remained excluded from naturalization, per theNaturalization Act of 1790
    1875 Page Act of 1875 (Sect. 141, 18 Stat. 477, 1873-March 1875)
    • The first federal immigration law and prohibited the entry of immigrants considered as “undesirable”
    • The law classified as “undesirable” any individual from Asia who was coming to America to be a contract laborer
    • strengthen the ban against “coolie” laborers, by imposing a fine of up to $2,000 and maximum jail sentence of one year upon anyone who tried to bring a person from China, Japan, or any oriental country to the United States “without their free and voluntary consent, for the purpose of holding them to a term of service”
    • Imposed a 50 cent head tax to fund immigration officials.
    1882 Chinese Exclusion Act
    • Restricted immigration of Chinese laborers for 10 years.
    • Prohibited Chinese naturalization.
    • Provided deportation procedures for illegal Chinese.
    • Marked the birth of illegal immigration (in America).[1]
    • The Act was “a response to racism [in America] and to anxiety about threats from cheap labor [from China].” [2]
    1885 Alien Contract Labor Law (Sess. II Chap. 164; 23 Stat. 332) Prohibited the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States
    1891 Immigration Act of 1891
    • First comprehensive immigration laws for the US.
    • Bureau of Immigration set up in the Treasury Dept.[3]
    • Immigration Bureau directed to deport unlawful aliens.
    • Empowered “the superintendent of immigration to enforce immigration laws”.[4]
    1892 Geary Act Extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act.
    1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark[5] The Supreme Court ruled that a child of Chinese descent born in the United States – whose parents at the time of his birth are subjects of the Emperor of China but who are domiciled in the United States as permanent residents; are carrying on business there; and are not employed in any diplomatic or other official capacity under the Emperor of China – is a citizen of the United States by virtue of having been born “in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” per the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.Several years later, in the wake of the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and Fire, a number of Chinese immigrants who were otherwise subject to the Chinese Exclusion Act were nonetheless able to claim American citizenship by alleging they were born in San Francisco, and that their birth certificates had been destroyed along with those of everyone else who had been born in San Francisco. “Papers for fictitious children were sold in China, allowing Chinese to immigrate despite the laws.” [1]
    1903 Immigration Act of 1903 (Anarchist Exclusion Act) Added four inadmissible classes: anarchists, people with epilepsy, beggars, and importers of prostitutes
    1906 Naturalization Act of 1906
    • Standardized naturalization procedures
    • made some knowledge of English a requirement for citizenship
    • established the Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization
    1907 Immigration Act of 1907 Restricted immigration for certain classes of disabled and diseased people
    1917 Immigration Act of 1917 (Barred Zone Act) Restricted immigration from Asia by creating an “Asiatic Barred Zone” and introduced a reading test for all immigrants over fourteen years of age, with certain exceptions for children, wives, and elderly family members.
    1918 Immigration Act of 1918 Expanded on the provisions of the Anarchist Exclusion Act.
    1921 Emergency Quota Act
    • Limited the number of immigrants from any country to 3% of those already in the US from that country as per the 1910 census.

    “An unintended consequence of the 1920s legislation was an increase in illegal immigration. Many Europeans who did not fall under the quotas migrated to Canada or Mexico, which [as Western Hemisphere nations] were not subject to national-origin quotas; [and] subsequently they slipped into the United States illegally.” [6]

    1922 The Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, “Married Women’s Independent Nationality Act”) Reversed former immigration laws regarding marriage, also known as the Married Women’s Citizenship Act or the Women’s Citizenship Act. Previously, a woman lost her US citizenship if she married a foreign man, since she assumed the citizenship of her husband, a law that did not apply to men who married foreign women. The law repealed sections 3 and 4 of the Expatriation Act of 1907.
    1924 Immigration Act(Johnson Act)
    • Imposed first permanent numerical limit on immigration.
    • Began a national-origin quota system.
    1924 National Origins Formula
    • Established with the Immigration Act of 1924.
    • Total annual immigration was capped at 150,000. Immigrants fit into two categories: those from quota-nations and those from non-quota nations.
    • Immigrant visas from quota-nations were restricted to the same ratio of residents from the country of origin out of 150,000 as the ratio of foreign-born nationals in the United States. The percentage out of 150,000 was the relative number of visas a particular nation received.
    • Non-quota nations, notably those contiguous to the United States only had to prove an immigrant’s residence in that country of origin for at least two years prior to emigration to the United States.
    • Laborers from Asiatic nations were excluded but exceptions existed for professionals, clergy, and students to obtain visas.
    1934 Equal Nationality Act of 1934
    • Allowed foreign-born children of American mothers and alien fathers who had entered America before age 18 and lived in America for five years to apply for American citizenship for the first time.
    • Made the naturalization process quicker for American women’s alien husbands.
    1930s Federal officials deported “Tens of thousands, and possibly more than 400,000, Mexicans and Mexican-Americans… Many, mostly children, were U.S. citizens.” [7] “Applications for legal admission into the United States increased following World War II — and so did illegal immigration.” [8] Some used fraudulent marriages as their method of illegal entry in the U.S. “Japanese immigration became disproportionately female, as more women left Japan as “picture brides”, betrothed to emigrant men into the U.S. whom they had never met.” [9]
    1940 Nationality Act of 1940 Pertains chiefly to “Nationality at Birth,” Nationality through Naturalization,” and “Loss of Nationality”
    1943 Chinese Exclusion Repeal Act of 1943 (Magnuson Act) Repealed the Chinese Exclusion Act and permitted Chinese nationals already in the country to become naturalized citizens.
    1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (McCarran-Walter Act)
    • Set a quota for aliens with skills needed in the US.
    • Increased the power of the government to deport illegal immigrants suspected ofCommunist sympathies.
    1953 Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding Template:344 U.S. 590, 596 The Supreme Court found, “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.
    1954 A wave of illegal immigration came from Mexico in the early 1950s, but it was dampened by President Eisenhower.[10]
    1965 INA Amendments (Hart-Celler Act)
    • Repealed the national-origin quotas.
    • Initiated a visa system for family reunification and skills.
    • Set a quota for Western Hemisphere immigration.
    • Set a 20k country limit for Eastern Hemisphere aliens.
    1966 Cuban Refugee Adjustment Act Cuban nationals who enter, or were already present in the United States, legal status.
    1970s The United States saw a total number of illegal immigrants estimated at 1.1 million, or half of one percent of the United States population.[11]
    1980s
    • About 1.3 million illegal immigrants entered the US.[12]
    1982 Plyler v. Doe,[13] 457 U.S. 202 (1982)The court also stated that illegal immigrants are “within the jurisdiction” of the states in which they reside and, therefore, receive 14th amendment protections and stated, “We have never suggested that the class of persons who might avail themselves of the equal protection guarantee is less than coextensive with that entitled to due process. To the contrary, we have recognized [457 U.S. 202, 212] that both provisions were fashioned to protect an identical class of persons, and to reach every exercise of state authority.”
    1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act
    • Started sanctions for knowingly hiring illegal aliens.
    • Provided amnesty to illegal aliens already in the US.[14]
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant
    1990s Over 5.8 million illegal immigrants entered the US in the 1990s.[15] Mexico rose to the head of the list of sending countries, followed by the Philippines, Vietnam, the Dominican Republic, and China.[16]
    1990 Immigration Act
    • Increased legal immigration ceilings.
    • Created a diversity admissions category.
    • Tripled the number of visas for priority workers and professionals with U.S. job offers[citation needed] [17]
    1990 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez[18] the court reiterated the finding of Kwong Hai Chew v. Colding, 344 U.S. 590, 596 (1953), “The Bill of Rights is a futile authority for the alien seeking admission for the first time to these shores. But once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders”.Stated, “those cases in which aliens have been determined to enjoy certain constitutional rights establish only that aliens receive such protections when they have come within the territory of, and have developed substantial connections with, this country. See, e. g., Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 .”
    1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRaIRA)
    • Phone verification for worker authentication by employers.
    • Access to welfare benefits more difficult for legal aliens.
    • Increased border enforcement.
    • Reed Amendment attempted to deny visas to former U.S. citizens, but was never enforced[19]
    1999 Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, (11th Cir. 1999) Held that statutes which discriminate within the class of aliens comport with the Due Process Clause of theFifth Amendment (and the equal protection principles it incorporates) so long as they satisfy rational basis scrutiny.
    Post 9/11/2001
    • An estimated 3.1 million immigrants entered the United States illegally between 2000 and 2005.[17]
    • From 1998 to 2001, Mexicans accounted for 68% of immigrants who entered the United States illegally. That percentage jumped to 78% for the years between 2001 and 2005, mostly due to stricter security measures that followed the September 11, 2001 Attacks upon the United States (which more efficiently prevented illegal entry from nations that did not share a land or maritime boundary with the United States).[20]
    2002 Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act
    • Provided for more Border Patrol agents.
    • Requires that schools report foreign students attending classes.
    • Stipulates that foreign nationals in the US will be required to carry IDs with biometric technology.[21]
    2005 REAL ID Act
    • Required use of IDs meeting certain security standards to enter government buildings, board planes, open bank accounts.
    • Created more restrictions on political asylum
    • Severely curtailed habeas corpus relief for immigrants
    • Increased immigration enforcement mechanisms
    • Altered judicial review
    • Established national standards for state driver licenses.
    • Cleared the way for the building of border barriers.

     

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 705-706

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-704

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 675-684

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 124-130

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 91

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 1-9

     

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

    The Pronk Pop Show 703, June 21, 2016, June 21, 2016, Story 1: Timeline of Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Shootings at Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida –The Missing 911 Transcripts Pages, Audio and Videos Not Released — For Three Hours Victims Were Bleeding Out From Wounds — Do Not Depend On Government To Protect You; Story 2: It is Jobs, The Economy and National Security — Stopping and Reversing The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Hillary Reads Prepared Speech On Economy and Attacks Trump To Small Ohio Audience — Indict Hillary and Vote Trump — Videos

    Posted on June 21, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Campaign, 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Language, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Monetary Policy, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Scandals, Second Amendment, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Trade Policy, United States Constitution, United States of America, Videos, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 703: June 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 702: June 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

    Story 1: Timeline of  Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Shootings at Pulse Night Club in Orlando, Florida –The Missing 911 Transcript Pages, Audio and Videos Not Released — For Three Hours Victims Were Bleeding Out From Wounds — Do Not Depend On Government To Protect You!

    “I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may Allah (God) protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.”

    ~Omar Marteen, Islamic Soldier

    Judge Nap Blasts DOJ for ‘Trying to Rewrite History’ With Orlando Transcripts

    Orlando nightclub shooting: Shooter used SIG Sauer MCX to kill 49 people and not a AR-15 – TomoNews

    New Sig Sauer MCX 5.56 Rifle

    ORLANDO SHOOTING – WEAPON USED – SIG SAUER MCX – BLACK MAMBA

    What’s an ASSAULT RIFLE for DUMMIES

    EDUCATE YOURSELF ~ Semi-Auto Firearms vs Fully-Automatic Firearms

    AR-15 – The Beginner’s Guide – What to Know About the AR-15

    ULTIMATE AR-15 MELTDOWN!

    In this video we attempt to burn out an AR-15 upper on an M16 lower. We are testing the durability of not only the upper receiver assemby but few specific products as well including the SRC Relia-Bolt BCG, Geissele Super Gas Block, and one of the most affordable AR barrels on the market from Faxon Firearms.

    The results may surprise you.

    Tavor TAR-21 Assault Rifle

    What rifle should I buy?

    AR-15 Reliability Demonstration

    AR vs AK: Practical Accuracy

    The Truth About Wolf Ammo

    Transcript of Orlando Police Department 911 Calls, June 12, 2016

    Transcript of Orlando Police Department 911 Calls, June 12, 2016

    2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:

    (OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher

    (OM) Omar Mateen

    OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.

    OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]

    OD: What?

    OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.

    OD: What’s your name?

    OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.

    OD: Ok, What’s your name?

    OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.

    OD: Alright, where are you at?

    OM: In Orlando.

    OD: Where in Orlando?

    [End of call.]

    Patrial 911 transcript released by the FBI (including redacted material):

    The following is based on Orlando Police Department (OPD) radio communication (times are approximate): 2:02 a.m.: OPD call transmitted multiple shots fired at Pulse nightclub. 2:04 a.m.: Additional OPD officers arrived on scene. 2:08 a.m.: Officers from various law enforcement agencies made entrance to Pulse and engaged the shooter. 2:18 a.m.: OPD S.W.A.T. (Special Weapons & Tactics) initiated a full call-out. 2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:

    Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD)
    Shooter (OM)

    OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
    OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
    OD: What?
    OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
    OD: What’s your name?
    OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to [omitted].
    OD: Ok, What’s your name?
    OM: I pledge allegiance to [omitted] may God protect him [in Arabic], on behalf of [omitted].
    OD: Alright, where are you at?
    OM: In Orlando.
    OD: Where in Orlando?
    [End of call.]

    (Shortly thereafter, the shooter engaged in three conversations with OPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team.) 2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes. 3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes. 3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.

    In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.” When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, “No, you already know what I did.” The shooter continued, stating, “There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they “used in France.” The shooter later stated, “In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.” The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful. 4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate.

    (While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.) 4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes.

    (An immediate search of the shooter’s vehicle on scene and inside Pulse ultimately revealed no vest or improvised explosive device.) 5:02 a.m.: OPD SWAT and OCSO Hazardous Device Team began to breach wall with explosive charge and armored vehicle to make entry. 5:14 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that shots were fired. 5:15 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that OPD engaged the suspect and the suspect was reported down.

    American ISIS Video Praises Orlando & Threatens Euro 2016

    Published on Jun 20, 2016

    ISIS has released a new video in the wake of the mass shooting at the Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, which left 49 people dead. The video shows a man named Abu Isma’il Al-Amriki, who claims to be an American ISIS fighter, along with other alleged fighters identified as American, French, Russian and Uzbek. In the video, the fighters praise Orlando shooter Omar Mateen and urge other Muslims to follow his example by carrying out more “lone wolf” attacks on the US. One fighter also mentions a “surprise” operation at the Euro 2016 soccer tournament in France. We take a look at the video on the Lip News with Jo Ankier, Mark Sovel and Elliot Hill.

    Orlando Shooting Video Inside Nightclub Bathroom

    Orlando Shooting 911 Transcripts Reveal Timeline

    Government Censors, Then Restores Terror Details of Orlando Shooting

    How the Pulse nightclub shooting unfolded

    Orlando nightclub survivor: He wanted to kill us all

    From nightclub to room full of bodies: The Orlando shooting timeline

    Orlando: New footage and survivor accounts

    ‘He was right next to me’: Orlando shooting survivor – BBC Newsnight

    Extended cut: Orlando shooting survivor describes horror of attack

    RAW VIDEO: Patience Carter recalls Orlando shooting massacre

    Orlando Nightclub Massacre: A Timeline of What Happened

    Orlando Shooting Latest: Unredacted Transcript of Gunman’s 911 Call Released [UPDATE]

    The FBI has released transcripts of Omar Mateen’s conversation with a 911 operator the night of the Pulse Orlando massacre.

    By June 21, 2016

    Just more than a week after Omar Mateen walked into a crowded Orlando nightclub and opened fire on those gathered there, the FBI has shed more light on just what happened during the early morning hours of June 12.

    Ron Hooper, the FBI’s special agent in charge, on Monday spoke of Mateen’s 911 calls to Orlando dispatchers the night of the worst mass shooting in American history. Mateen, Hooper said, was “chilling, calm and deliberate” during those calls.

    The FBI released transcripts of Mateen’s calls on Monday. The agency also provided a timeline of events that unfolded at the Pulse Orlando Night Club & Ultra Bar, a popular gay club. Audio of Mateen’s 911 calls and those placed by victims are not being released.

    Initially, authorities released only a partial transcript of calls, redacting Mateen’s pledges of allegiance to the Islamic State. U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in interviews on various news channels on Sunday that the purpose of redacting the transcripts was to not re-victimize those that lived through the attack.

    Shortly after the transcripts were released, the government came under criticism for redacting the transcripts, prompting the FBI and the Department of Justice to release a joint statement with the full transcript from the 911 call.

    The president should reverse his administration’s decision to censor the shooter’s 911 transcript ⇩

    “The purpose of releasing the partial transcript of the shooter’s interaction with 911 operators was to provide transparency, while remaining sensitive to the interests of the surviving victims, their families, and the integrity of the ongoing investigation. We also did not want to provide the killer or terrorist organizations with a publicity platform for hateful propaganda,” the joint FBI and DOJ statement said. “Unfortunately, the unreleased portions of the transcript that named the terrorist organizations and leaders have caused an unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the FBI and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime. As much of this information had been previously reported, we have re-issued the complete transcript to include these references in order to provide the highest level of transparency possible under the circumstances.”

    The FBI’s investigation into Mateen’s past remains very much active, Hooper said. So does its probe into what motivated Mateen to kill 49 people and wound 53 others before he was shot and killed by authorities.

    Hooper on Monday said the FBI has found no evidence that Mateen was connected to an Islamic terrorist group. Instead, he said, the 29-year-old was “radicalized domestically.”

    Lynch is expected to visit Orlando on Tuesday. Lynch will be updated on the investigation and is expected to speak to survivors of the attack, authorities said Monday.

    The timeline and transcripts of the calls are as follows, quoted directly from the FBI’s release of information. The transcript of the 911 call is not redacted, however the transcripts of the calls with hostage negotiators remain redacted:

    2:35 a.m.: Shooter contacted a 911 operator from inside Pulse. The call lasted approximately 50 seconds, the details of which are set out below:
    (OD) Orlando Police Dispatcher
    (OM) Omar Mateen
    OD: Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
    OM: In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficent [Arabic]
    OD: What?
    OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [Arabic]. I wanna let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
    OD: What’s your name?
    OM: My name is I pledge of allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
    OD: Ok, What’s your name?
    OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
    OD: Alright, where are you at?
    OM: In Orlando.
    OD: Where in Orlando?
    [End of call.]

    (Shortly thereafter, the shooter engaged in three conversations with OPD’s Crisis Negotiation Team.)

    2:48 a.m.: First crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately nine minutes.

    3:03 a.m.: Second crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately 16 minutes.

    3:24 a.m.: Third crisis negotiation call occurred lasting approximately three minutes.

    In these calls, the shooter, who identified himself as an Islamic soldier, told the crisis negotiator that he was the person who pledged his allegiance to [omitted], and told the negotiator to tell America to stop bombing Syria and Iraq and that is why he was “out here right now.” When the crisis negotiator asked the shooter what he had done, the shooter stated, “No, you already know what I did.” The shooter continued, stating, “There is some vehicle outside that has some bombs, just to let you know. You people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” Later in the call with the crisis negotiator, the shooter stated that he had a vest, and further described it as the kind they “used in France.” The shooter later stated, “In the next few days, you’re going to see more of this type of action going on.” The shooter hung up and multiple attempts to get in touch with him were unsuccessful.

    4:21 a.m.: OPD pulled an air conditioning unit out of a Pulse dressing room window for victims to evacuate.

    (While the FBI will not be releasing transcripts of OPD communication with victims, significant information obtained from those victims allowed OPD to gain knowledge of the situation inside Pulse.)

    4:29 a.m.: As victims were being rescued, they told OPD the shooter said he was going to put four vests with bombs on victims within 15 minutes.

    (An immediate search of the shooter’s vehicle on scene and inside Pulse ultimately revealed no vest or improvised explosive device.)

    5:02 a.m.: OPD SWAT and OCSO Hazardous Device Team began to breach wall with explosive charge and armored vehicle to make entry.

    5:14 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that shots were fired.

    5:15 a.m.: OPD radio communication stated that OPD engaged the suspect and the suspect was reported down.

    In a media release, the FBI noted that there were no reports of shots fired inside the Pulse nightclub between the initial exchange of gunfire with Mateen and the time of the final breach.

    The FBI is still asking for anyone with information about Mateen to contact it by calling 1-800-CALL-FBI or by going to tips.fbi.gov.

    http://patch.com/florida/southtampa/orlando-shooting-latest-timeline-transcripts-released

     

    SIG MCX

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Sig Sauer MCX
    Type Semi-automatic rifle
    Place of origin U.S. design
    Production history
    Manufacturer SIG Sauer
    Produced 2015
    Variants MCX SBR
    MCX Pistol
    MCX Carbine
    Specifications
    Weight 2.61 kg (5.75 lbs)
    Length 730 mm (28.75 in) SBG
    610 mm (24.0 in) stock extended
     length 165 mm (6.5 in)

    The SIG Sauer MCX is a gas-operated NATO STANAG compatible semi-automatic rifle that is convertible to fire several ammunition sizes. Manufactured by SIG Sauer, it was designed for U.S. Special Forces and released to the general public in 2015. It features a SIG Sauer short stroke push-rod gas system to reduce recoil and improve the reliability of the weapon. The weapon features a system that allows for conversion between 300 AAC Blackout (7.62×35mm), 7.62×39mm or 5.56×45mm NATO ammunition, all using AR-15 compatible magazines with 30-round capacity.

    References

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

    AR-15

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    AR-15
    Stag2wi .jpg

    The AR-15 comes in many sizes and has many options, depending on the manufacturer. The part shown bottom center is the lower receiver with pistol grip and trigger assembly.
    Type Semi-automatic rifle
    Place of origin United States
    Service history
    In service 1958–present
    Production history
    Designer Eugene Stoner, Jim Sullivan, Bob Fremont
    Designed 1957
    Manufacturer ArmaLite, Colt, Bushmaster,Rock River Arms, Stag Arms,DPMS Panther Arms, Smith & Wesson, Ruger, Anderson,Daniel Defense, CMMG,Olympic Arms and others.
    Specifications
    Weight 2.27 kg–3.9 kg (5.5–8.5 lb)
    Barrel length
    • 24 inches (610 mm)
    • 20 inches (510 mm) (standard)
    • 18 inches (460 mm)
    • 16 inches (410 mm) (civilian standard)[1]
    • 14.5 inches (370 mm) M4 Military Standard
    • 11.5 inches (290 mm)
    • 10 inches (250 mm)
    • 7 inches (180 mm)
    • 6.5 inches (170 mm)

    Cartridge 5.56×45mm NATO and others; see list of AR platform calibers
    Action Direct impingement or Gas Piston[2] / Via a Rotating bolt
    Muzzle velocity 975 m/s (3,200 ft/s)[3]
    Effective firing range 400–600 m (avg 547 yd)[4][5]
    Feed system Various STANAG magazines. 5–100-round capacity[6][7]
    Sights Adjustable front and rear iron sights

    Modified AR-15

    The prototype AR-15 rifle was designed by ArmaLite as a selective fire weapon for military purposes. Armalite sold the design to Colt due to financial difficulties. After some modifications, the rifle eventually became the US Army’s M16 rifle.

    The term “AR-15” signifies “Armalite rifle, design 15”.[8] Today, Colt uses “AR-15” for its semi-automatic civilian rifles, and thus many use the term only for Colt AR-15s and clones made by other manufacturers. This article discusses the original design intended for military users and its major variants.

    AR-15 rifles are lightweight, gas-operated, magazine-fed, and air-cooled. They fire an intermediate cartridge, and are manufactured with extensive use of aluminum alloys and synthetic materials. The design splits the rifle into two major components: the lower half, containing the trigger and buttstock, and the upper half, which contains the bolt and barrel. This approach allows modular replacement of components.

    The name AR-15 remains a Colt registered trademark, but variants of the firearm are made, modified, and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

    History

    The AR-15 is based on the 7.62 mm AR-10 designed by Eugene Stoner, Robert Fremont, and L. James Sullivan of the Fairchild Armalite corporation.[9] The AR-15 was developed as a lighter, 5.56 mm version of the AR-10. The “AR” in all ArmaLite pattern firearms simply stands for “ArmaLite Rifle”,[10] and can be found on most of the company’s firearms: AR-5, a .22 caliber rifle; the AR-7, another .22 caliber; the AR-17shotgun; the AR-10 rifle; and the AR-24 pistol.[11][12]

    1973 Colt AR-15 SP1 rifle with ‘slab side’ lower receiver (lacking raised boss around magazine release button) and original Colt 20-round box magazine

    In 1959, ArmaLite sold its rights to the AR-10 and AR-15 to Colt. After a tour by Colt of the Far East, the first sale of AR-15s was made to Malaya on September 30, 1959, and Colt manufactured their first 300 AR-15s in December 1959.[13] Colt marketed the AR-15 rifle to various military services around the world. After modifications (most notably the relocation of the charging handle from under the carrying handle to the rear of the receiver), the redesigned rifle was adopted by the United States military as the M16 rifle.[14]

    In 1963, Colt started selling the semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle as the Colt AR-15 for civilian use and the term has been used to refer to semiautomatic-only versions of the rifle since then.[15] Colt continued to use the AR-15 trademark for its semi-automatic variants (AR-15, AR-15A2) which were marketed to civilian and law-enforcement customers. The original AR-15 was a very lightweight weapon, weighing less than 6 pounds with empty magazine. Later heavy-barrel versions of the civilian AR-15 can weigh upwards of 8.5 lb.[16]

    Today, the AR-15 and its variations are manufactured by many companies and are popular among civilian shooters and law enforcement forces around the world due to their accuracy and modularity.[citation needed] (For more history on the development and evolution of the AR-15 and derivatives, see M16 rifle.)

    The trademark “AR15” or “AR-15” is registered to Colt Industries, which maintains that the term should only be used to refer to their products. Other AR-15 manufacturers make AR-15 clones marketed under separate designations, although colloquially these are sometimes referred to by the term AR-15.

    Some notable features of the AR-15 include:

    • Aircraft-grade forged 7075-T6 aluminum receiver that is lightweight, highly corrosion-resistant, and machinable.
    • Modular design that allows the use of numerous accessories such as after market sights, vertical forward grips, lighting systems, night vision devices, laser targeting devices, muzzle brakes/flash hiders, sound suppressors,bipods, etc., and makes repair easier.
    • Straight-line stock design that eliminates the fulcrum created by traditional bent stocks, reducing muzzle climb.
    • Small caliber, accurate, lightweight, high-velocity round (.223/5.56×45mm)
    • Support for numerous other rounds with easy conversions
    • Front sight adjustable for elevation
    • Rear sight that is adjustable for windage (most models) and elevation (some models)
    • Wide array of optical aiming devices available in addition to or as replacements of iron sights
    • Stoner gas system (as designed), with short or long stroke gas piston, or direct blowback operating systems available
    • Synthetic pistol grip and butt stock that do not swell or splinter (regulated in some states)
    • Various magazine capacities, ranging from 10 to 30-round or more
    • Ergonomic design that makes the charging handle, selector switch (which also engages the safety), magazine release, and bolt catch assembly easy to access.
    • 4 MOA accuracy

    AR-15 sight picture

    Semi-automatic AR-15s for sale to civilians are internally different from the full automatic M16, although nearly identical in external appearance. The hammer and trigger mechanisms are of a different design. The bolt carrier and internal lower receiver of semi-automatic versions are milled differently, so that the firing mechanisms are not interchangeable. The design changes were done to satisfy United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requirements that civilian weapons may not be easily convertible to full-automatic. Even so, the full automatic M16 bolt carrier is now the most popular type, and is approved by ATF.

    In the late 1970s and early 1980s, items such as the “Drop In Auto Sear” or “lightning link,” made conversion to full automatic straightforward. In some cases such conversion did require machining the lower receiver with use of a mill, as well as the substitution of a M16 bolt carrier group.[17][18] Such modifications, unless made using registered and transferable parts prior to May 19, 1986, are illegal. The Firearm Owners Protection Act in 1986 has redefined a machine gun to include individual components with which a semi-automatic firearm can be converted to full-automatic, based on a 1981 ATF ruling on machine gun parts. Since 1993, the bolt carrier groups used in AR-15 type rifles for civilians have employed additional measures to prevent modification to full auto. Colt AR-15’s use a metal alloy wall separating the fire control group from the sear, preventing use of full automatic parts.

    Automatic variants have a three-position rotating selective fire switch, allowing the operator to select between three modes: safe, semi-automatic, and either automatic or three-round burst, depending on model. Civilian Colt AR-15 models do not have three-round burst or automatic settings; they can only be fired as a semi-automatic, and are therefore not selective fire weapons. In semi-automatic-only variants, the switch only selects between safe and fire modes. Some other manufacturers may mark their rifles with three-positions for collectors and re-enactors, though the guns will not fire in those modes. Weapons modified to full automatic using a lightning-link are capable only of full automatic fire unless a special full automatic fire select mechanism and a modified selector-switch are substituted.[17] Many AR-15’s made before 1986 were converted to be M16’s by gunsmiths who legally turned them into Form One rifles in the U.S.[19] A converted AR will have an auto sear in a lower receiver marked as an AR-15.[19]

    Today, while the civilian manufacture, sale, and possession of post-1986 select-fire AR-15 variants is prohibited, it is still legal to sell templates, tooling, and manuals to complete such conversion. These items are typically marketed as being “post-sample” materials for Federal Firearm Licensees, and are used in the manufacturing of select-fire variants of the AR-15 for law enforcement, military and overseas customers.[20]

    Operating mechanism

    Diagram of an M16 rifle, firing

    U.S. Patent 2,951,424 describes the cycling mechanism used in the AR-15. The bolt carrier acts as a movable cylinder, and the bolt itself acts as a stationary piston. This mechanism is often called “direct gas impingement“, but it differs from prior gas systems.

    direct impingement

    Gas is tapped from the barrel as the bullet moves past a gas port located above the rifle’s front sight base. The gas rushes into the port and down a gas tube, located above the barrel, which runs from the front sight base into the AR-15’s upper receiver. Here, the gas tube protrudes into a “gas key” (bolt carrier key), which accepts the gas and funnels it into the bolt carrier.

    At this point, the bolt is locked into the barrel extension by locking lugs, so the expanding gas forces the bolt carrier straight backward a short distance. As the bolt carrier moves toward the butt of the gun, the bolt cam pin, riding in a slot on the bolt carrier, forces the bolt to rotate and thus unlocks it from the barrel extension. Once the bolt is fully unlocked it begins its rearward movement along with the bolt carrier. The bolt’s rearward motion extracts the empty cartridge case from the chamber. As soon as the neck of the case clears the barrel extension, the bolt’s spring-loaded ejector forces it out the ejection port in the side of the upper receiver.

    Behind the bolt carrier is a plastic or metal buffer, which rests in line with a return spring. The buffer spring begins to push the bolt carrier and bolt back toward the chamber once it is compressed sufficiently. A groove machined into the upper receiver guides the bolt cam pin and prevents it and the bolt from rotating into a closed position. The bolt’s locking lugs push a fresh round from the magazine as the bolt moves forward. The round is guided by feed ramps into the chamber. As the bolt’s locking lugs move past the barrel extension, the cam pin twists into a pocket milled into the upper receiver. This twisting action follows the groove cut into the carrier and forces the bolt to twist and “lock” into the barrel extension.

    Variants

    See also: AR-15 variants

    Colt AR-15 Carbine

    The AR-15 rifle is available in a wide range of configurations from a large number of manufacturers. These configurations range from short carbine-length models with features such as adjustable length stocks and optical sights, to heavy barrel models.

    Due to the rifle’s modular design, one upper receiver can quickly and easily be substituted for another. There are many aftermarket upper receivers that incorporate barrels of different weights, lengths and calibers.[21] Some available calibers for the AR-15 are the .223 Remington/5.56×45mm, .300 Blackout, 7.62×39mm, 5.45×39mm, .45 ACP, 5.7×28mm, 6.5mm Grendel, 6.8mm Remington SPC,[22] .50 Beowulf, and .458 SOCOM.[23]

    Colt AR-15 A3 Tactical Carbine. Rifle is shown with a CQB Tactical Sling and a Colt 4×20 scope.

    When installing a new complete upper receiver, particularly one designed to handle a different caliber of ammunition (i.e., other than .223 Remington or 5.56×45mm NATO), some modification to the lower receiver may be required, depending on the particular conversion. For example, a conversion to 9 mm typically would involve the installation of a magazine well block (to accommodate a typical 9 mm magazine, such as Uzi or Colt SMG), replacing the .223 hammer with one designed for 9 mm ammunition, and depending on the original stock, replacing the buffer, action spring and stock spacer with those designed for the new 9 mm AR-15 configuration. The 9mm cartridge fires from an unlocked breech, or straight blow-back—rather than a locked breech, because the spring and bolt provide enough weight to allow this type of functioning. These guns do not utilize the direct gas impingement method of operation like the original.

    5.56×45mm NATO compared to .50 Beowulf cartridges.

    Some AR-15s like the POF, LWRCI, H&K, Sturm Ruger, SIG Sauer, United Defense Manufacturing Corporation, CMMG, and Adams Arms offerings replace the DGI (direct gas impingement) operating system with a short stroke/long stroke gas piston system. These guns usually have modified bolt carriers, gas keys, and gas blocks. When fired, DGI systems dump high pressure hot gas through the gas tube to the bolt carrier key and into the bolt carrier group. This can rapidly heat up the bolt carrier group and cause excessive fouling, one of the main complaints about the design. Gas piston operating systems alleviate these problems, but can cause other issues, such as carrier tilt, which can lead to increased bolt fractures.

    Some manufacturers offer upper and lower receivers machined from a solid billet (block) of aluminum as opposed to an aluminum forging. Forgings typically have a comparatively higher strength to weight ratio than billet-based receivers.

    Upper receivers that combine a railed hand guard and upper receiver into one unit are made by companies like Colt’s Manufacturing Company, Lewis Machine and Tool (LMT MRP), POF-USA, and VLTOR. This is done to provide a continuous rail section that runs along the top of the gun from the weapon’s charging handle to the front sight/gas block. This rail section is used for the mounting of sights, laser aiming devices, night vision devices, and lighting systems.

    A side charging upper receiver has been developed by LAR Grizzly. Blackwood Arms has also developed a side charging upper receiver.[24] The charging handle can be had in a left side, right side, or ambidextrous configuration. The side charging handle is attached to the bolt carrier, making it a reciprocating design. The handle thus can be used as a forward assist device.

    Early models had a 1:14 rate of twist for the original 55 grain (3.6 g) bullets. This was changed to 1:12 when it was found that 1:14 was insufficient to stabilize a bullet when fired in cold weather. Most recent rifles have a 1:9 or 1:7 twist rate. There is much controversy and speculation as to how differing twist rates affect ballistics and terminal performance with varying loads, but heavier, longer projectiles tend to perform better with faster rifling rates.[25] Additionally, the various non .223 / 5.56 calibers have their own particular twist rate, such as 1:10, 1:11 and 1:12 for 6.8×43mm SPC, 1:10 for 7.62×39mm, 1:9 for the 6.5 Grendel, and 1:8 for .300 Blackout.

    A Colt AR-15 on display at the National Firearms Museum. This example is fitted with an early waffle-patterned 20-round magazine.

    Standard issue magazines are 20- or 30-round staggered-column magazines and traditional box magazines exist in 40- and 45-round capacities. Drum magazines with 90- and 100-round capacities, such as Beta C-Mags are available, as well. Low-capacity magazines, usually of a 5- or 10-round capacity, are available to comply with some areas’ legal restrictions, for hunting, and for benchrest shooting, where a larger magazine can be inconvenient. Surefire is now offering extended capacity magazines in 60- and 100-round capacity configurations. These are of a staggered column design, dubbed casket magazines due to their shape. Usable magazines have been constructed from a variety of materials including steel, aluminum, and high-impact plastics.

    Muzzle devices

    Most AR-15 rifles have a barrel threaded in 1⁄2″-28 threads to incorporate the use of a muzzle device such as a flash suppressor, sound suppressor or muzzle brake.[26] The initial design had three tines or prongs and was prone to breakage and getting entangled in vegetation. The design was later changed to close the end to avoid this problem. Eventually, on the A2 version of the rifle, the bottom port was closed to reduce muzzle climb and prevent dust from rising when the rifle was fired in the prone position.[27] For these reasons, the US military declared this muzzle device a compensator, but it is more commonly known as the “GI” or “A2” flash suppressor.[28]

    Flash suppressors are designed to reduce the muzzle flash from the weapon to preserve the shooter’s night vision. A flash suppressor does not improve the ballistic performance of a rifle or make it more lethal, but some jurisdictions have banned or severely restrict usage of flash suppressors. In most of these areas, AR-15 shooters have installed muzzle brakes or compensators on their rifles.

    The threaded barrel allows sound suppressors with the same thread pattern to be installed directly to the barrel, however this can result in complications such as being unable to remove the suppressor from the barrel.[29] A number of suppressor manufacturers have turned to designing “direct-connect” sound suppressors which can be installed over an existing flash suppressor as opposed to using the barrel’s threads.[29]

    Legal status of civilian ownership

    Australia

    AR-15 rifles, like all semi-automatic rifles, are subject to strong restrictions on ownership in all states and territories in Australia. The only means of legally owning a functional AR-15-type rifle in Australia today (other than law enforcement uses) is to have a Category D Firearms License (e.g. a professional animal culler). Individuals with a Firearms Collector’s License may own a deactivated firearm (with the barrel plugged up and the action welded shut), and members of a military re-enactment organization may own rifles converted to firing only blanks.[citation needed]

    Restrictions on semi-automatic rifles were introduced in 1996 in response to the Port Arthur massacre – one of the firearms used was an AR-15. Previously, AR-15 rifles were legal to own in Queensland and Tasmania.[citation needed]

    Imported AR-15 rifles are too expensive for television and film production because the company must destroy or export semi-automatic rifles after use. Warwick Firearms & Militaria, a Melbourne prop maker, manufactures AR-15-type “WFM4” rifles locally,[30][31] with approximately three dozen having been sold.[32] They are fully functional, but may be purchased only with government permission.[citation needed]

    Austria

    In Austria, semi-automatic centerfire rifles have to be classified as sporting or hunting firearms in order to obtain civilian-legal status. After this classification, they are considered “category B” firearms, which means that holders of gun licenses may own them. These licenses are may-issue items if the applicant specifies a valid reason (self-defense at home for example is considered valid by law in any case), passes a psychological test and attends a gun-basics course.[citation needed]

    Three AR-15 manufacturers (“Hera Arms”, “Schmeisser” and “Oberlandarms”), all producing in Germany have had versions of their AR-15 models successfully classified as class B weapons. These Austrian versions differ slightly from the original design in order to ensure that no military full-auto trigger, bolt and barrel may be installed. Additionally, bayonet lugs, flash hiders and weapon lights are prohibited on semi-automatic rifles while muzzle brakes and compensators are legal. There is no minimum length for barrels, therefore even barrel lengths as short as 7.5″ are possible, and there are no magazine capacity limits.[citation needed]

    Belgium

    Semi-automatic firearms and thus AR-15 type rifles are legal to own, if in possession of the correct license.[citation needed]

    Canada

    The Government of Canada classifies the AR-15 (and its variants) as a restricted firearm. For anyone wanting to lawfully own an AR-15, they must obtain a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) valid for restricted firearms (RPAL) and then each acquisition of a restricted class firearm is subject to approval by the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) of the would-be buyer’s province of residence.[33][34] With the introduction of strict gun control measures by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien (Bill C-68), the AR-15 had been intended to be classified as a prohibited firearm, making it impossible to privately own one. However, due to the presence of nationwide Service Rifle target shooting competitions, the AR-15 was granted a sporting exception.[citation needed]

    As with all Restricted firearms (including most pistols, some shotguns, and some rifles) AR-15s are allowed to be fired only at certified firing ranges since the CFOs of all provinces and territories have agreed to issue ATTs (Authority To Transport) for these guns only to certified ranges. Since owners cannot legally take these guns anywhere else that shooting is allowed, they can in effect only shoot them on certain ranges. In order to legally own and transport a Restricted firearm, the firearm must be registered with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Canadian Firearms Program and must apply for an Authorization to Transport (or ATT) from the Chief Firearms Officer (CFO) for their province or territory. Additionally, the firearm must be unloaded, deactivated by a trigger or action lock, and be in a locked, opaque “hard to break into” container during transport.[35] (“Hard to break into” is not legally defined within the Canadian firearms act or the CCC.)

    The issuance of ATTs varies considerably from province to province, and is generally reflective of a particular province’s political and social levels of acceptance of gun ownership. In Ontario the “policy” of the CFO (currently Chris Wyatt) for obtaining an ATT for restricted firearms is to become a member of a range. However policy is not law and when challenged they have no choice but to either issue the ATT requested or do a formal refusal which can be challenged (for free) in court since they must abide by the law. It is not legal for them to refuse on the phone since the only acceptable method for that is in writing as per FA s.72(1).[36]

    Czech Republic

    The Czech Firearms Act categorizes semi-automatic rifles as “Class B” firearm. Class B firearms are available to anyone with a firearm license, which is shall issue (i.e. cannot be denied) subject to fulfillment of the act’s conditions (e.g. clean criminal record, no history of mental illness, no DUI in past three years, passing gun license exam). Prior to purchase, a licensed civilian needs to fill a permit to “buy, possess and carry”, which is also shall issue and takes about 15 minutes to process, with the local police station. The purchase permit is valid for one year. Any firearm must be registered with the police within ten days of purchase.[citation needed]

    There is no magazine capacity limitation for sport or self-defense use. On the other hand, only magazines with maximum capacity of two rounds may be used for hunting. AR-15 as well as any other semi-automatic rifle may be carried loaded for self-defense only inconcealed manner. Hunters may carry the firearm openly to and from the area of a hunt in way preventing its immediate use (i.e. unloaded, with empty magazines). There are no limitations on flash suppressors and bayonets, while lasers and silencers fall into “Class A” category requiring a may-issue permit (usually difficult to obtain). Night vision falls also into “Class A” category; however, the permit process for it has been simplified since 2014 for hunters. Moreover, in 2015 the Ministry of Agriculture started subsidizing up to 80% of purchase price of night vision equipment to hunters who shoot more than 20 wild boar a year in order to cull boar infestation.[citation needed]

    AR-15s are quite popular in the Czech Republic. As of 2015, there are three manufacturers of AR-15 in the Czech Republic: V-AR, Proarms Armory and LUVO.[citation needed]

    Finland

    In Finland, possession of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15, is legal, provided that the rifle’s owner acquires a permit for owning one. A license is required for each individual firearm and there needs to be a specific reason for ownership such as participation in the shooting sports and hunting. In Finland maximum magazine capacity in hunting is 3 rounds. But in addition a hunter can have 1 round chambered which brings their direct ammo capacity up to 4 rounds. There is no magazine capacity limit on guns for target or other sporting shooting.[citation needed]

    Germany

    The AR-15, like other semi-automatic rifles, is categorized as a “Class B” firearm. Possession of semi-automatic rifles, including the AR-15, is legal with a gun license (Waffenbesitzkarte). These licenses are shall-issue, if all criteria defined by the law are met. The applicant must specify a valid reason (collecting, hunting or sports shooting), have no criminal background and attend a gun-basics course.[citation needed]

    While hunting in Germany, if a semi-automatic firearm is used, the magazine must be blocked to accept no more than two rounds of ammunition, meaning that when hunting game animals only three shots in total can be fired (as one additional round is loaded in the chamber) without reloading. This rule is stated in German hunting law and not in German gun law, and does not apply to handguns. Also, it is not allowed to use a magazine that is capable of accepting more than 10 rounds of ammunition while sports shooting in Germany; however, ownership of a magazine that can accept more than two rounds (for hunters) or ten rounds (for sports shooters) is legal in Germany without a license.[citation needed]

    The acquisition and possession of ammunition requires a license in Germany, which is usually given with the gun license itself. When purchasing ammunition at a shooting range for immediate use, no license is required.[citation needed]

    France

    In France, any semi-automatic firearms using military calibers (9mm, 5.56 NATO, 7.62×39, 7.62 NATO, .45 ACP, .50 BMG, .50 AE.) are authorized as ‘B category’ weapons. While fully automatic ‘A category’ weapons are highly restricted, semi-automatic ones are legal for civilian possession. A hunting or sports shooting license is required to possess and purchase any firearm, as well as ammunition, in France.[citation needed]

    Ireland

    In Ireland, legal possession of a semi-automatic AR-15 requires a restricted firearms licence from the applicant’s local Garda chief superintendent, who has wide discretion to approve or deny the license. Semi-automatic centrefire rifles are generally may-issue items and the requirements to own one can vary greatly from province to province. Upgraded security measures may be a pre-condition of granting this licence.[37]

    Italy

    In Italy, the AR-15 rifle belongs to B7 class and can be owned by civilians, provided it is incapable of fully automatic fire. Like every other gun, it must be registered and to purchase it citizens must have a valid license, which is granted to every person who qualifies.[citation needed]

    The rifles are chambered in .223 or 5.56×45 (M193 ball). NATO ammo in 5.56 mm is illegal for civilian use. Due to the Italian legal catalog of rifles, an AR-15 can be considered for hunting use or sports use. If the rifle is classified for hunting use, it is legal to own any number of AR-15s. If the rifle is classified for sporting use, it is possible to own only 6 guns with the same “sporting” classification.[citation needed]

    New Zealand

    The AR-15 rifle is treated like any other semi-automatic rifle. They are legal to own by individuals holding a firearms license; however, specific features (folding stock, pistol grip, magazines holding more than 7 rounds, etc.) will require it to be registered as a Military-Style Semi-Automatic (MSSA) requiring an ‘E Category’ endorsement on their license.[citation needed]

    Poland

    According to Polish laws on firearms, AR-15s and clones do not have any special status. Any civilian holder of firearm licence can purchase and use one without any restrictions, excluding full auto versions. Stock types, magazine capacity, and barrel length are not regulated, although hunting is allowed only with magazines holding six or fewer rounds.[citation needed]

    Russia

    Russian laws on weapons treat AR-15 rifles as any other rifle. In general, semi-auto only versions with magazine capacity not exceeding 10 rounds are legal for civilians to own, provided that a special “rifled firearm license” is acquired by that individual.[citation needed]

    Sweden

    The AR-15, like all other semi-automatic rifles, is legal for individuals who need one for competitive use (IPSC rifle or 3-gun matches). A valid competition license is required, and all weapons are registered with the police. The AR-15 is not allowed for hunting use.[citation needed]

    South Africa

    The AR-15 like any other semi-automatic long arm in South Africa, is legal for anyone who holds any of the following licenses:

    • Licence to possess firearm for dedicated hunting and dedicated sports-shooting
    • Licence to possess firearm for business purposes
    • Licence to possess restricted firearm for self-defence

    While not prohibited, common citizens can only own semi-automatic AR-15s if they are members of a hunting or target club, and possess dedicated sport person or dedicated hunter status granted by organisations accredited by the South African Police Service(SAPS).[38][39] Other licenses allowing the possession of semi-automatic rifles are only available to people who require their use in the conduct of their business (e.g. security personnel), and citizens who can convincingly prove to the Registrar that non-restricted firearms are not sufficient to provide protection. The latter requires a specific motivation for the need of a restricted firearm for self-defence[38] and have been granted to rhino farmers.[40][41][42]

    United Kingdom

    As with all semi-automatic, centerfire rifles, AR-15s are classed as a Section 5 weapon (Prohibited), i.e., a person must provide an exceptional reason and gain permission from the Home Secretary, making ownership all but impossible for a private citizen. However, centerfire AR-15s in a manually operated straight pull configuration or semi-automatic AR-15s that are chambered to fire a .22 rimfire cartridge are legal and can be held on a standard Section 1 Firearms Certificate. There are no restrictions on assault weaponfeatures in the UK, and no restrictions on magazine capacity. There are a number of UK manufacturers of “straight-pull” AR-15 variants. Southern Gun Company has tried to introduce a 9mm “self-ejecting” variant for gallery rifle shooting nicknamed the “Unicorn” but, despite numerous units being sold on the understanding that the rifle was a compliant Section 1 firearm, the rifles were seized and subjected to stringent testing by the UK Forensic Science Service (FSS). A small number of pre-production models were found to be non-compliant with section 1 status. However, later models were deemed Section 1 compliant and were returned to their owners.[citation needed]

    United States

    At the federal level, AR-15s are legal and considered the same as any other rifle.

    During the period 1994–2004, variants with certain features such as collapsible stocks, flash suppressors, and bayonet lugs were prohibited for sales to civilians by the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, with the included Federal Assault Weapons Ban. Included in this was a restriction on the pistol grip that protrudes beneath the stock, which was considered an accessory feature under the ban and was also subject to restrictions. Some rifles were manufactured with a grip not described under the Ban installed in its place. Those AR-15s that were manufactured with the restricted features, as well as the accompanying full capacity magazines, were stamped “Restricted Military/Government/Law Enforcement/Export Only”. The restrictions only applied to guns manufactured after the ban took effect. It was legal to own, sell, or buy any gun built before 1994. Hundreds of thousands of pre-ban ARs were sold during the ban as well as new guns redesigned to be legal.

    Since the expiration of the Federal AWB in September 2004,[43] these features became legal in most states.[44] Also, the manufacture and sale of formerly-restricted rifles has resumed.

    Six states, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, California, Maryland, and Connecticut, heavily regulate possession of AR-15 type rifles either by the restriction of certain features or outright bans of certain manufacturers’ models. California residents may own certain AR-15 type rifles, but they are required to have a fixed magazine not exceeding 10 rounds. Massachusetts and New Jersey have essentially continued following the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban criteria on numerous semiautomatic rifles. New York, Maryland, and Connecticut enacted a ban on sales of AR-15 (and other types of firearms) in response to the December 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting Massacre. These various state laws have been heavily criticized by many pro-gun organizations.

    Under U.S. firearms laws, the lower receiver of the AR-15 is considered a firearm and is subject to purchasing restrictions. The AR-15 upper receiver assembly is considered a part, and may be purchased and mail-ordered in most locations. This is a desirable feature for enthusiasts, who can purchase a number of upper receivers (often in different calibers and barrel lengths) and interchange them with the same lower receiver.

    Adding a shoulder stock to an AR-15 with a barrel shorter than 16″ would constitute constructing a Short-Barreled Rifle (SBR) under NFA rules, and thus is subject to a $200 tax stamp. The receiver, or serial-numbered part, is still considered a firearm, but a receiver has unique status assigned by the Gun Control Act of 1968 as amended, and by ATF regulations or rulings. ATF ruling July 7, 2009 illustrates a receiver’s unique legal status even if the receiver can only be made into a rifle.[45] Under the United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company Supreme Court ruling, an individual can possess parts for both the rifle and pistol so long as they are not assembled improperly.[46] This ruling has been further clarified by the ATF Director in a ruling (ATF Ruling 2011-4[47]) dated July 25, 2011 which restates most of the findings in the Thompson case.

    Following the 1992 ruling, the ATF claimed that the finding in United States v. Thompson-Center Arms Company only applies to products of Thompson Contender, and not to any other companies’ products.[48] This has changed under ATF ruling 2011–4, which states

    A firearm, as defined by the National Firearms Act (NFA), 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3), is made when unassembled parts are placed in close proximity in such a way that they: (a) serve no useful purpose other than to make a rifle having a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length; or (b) convert a complete weapon into such an NFA firearm.[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when parts within a kit that were originally designed to be configured as both a pistol and a rifle are assembled or re-assembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol, or a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length).[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(3) and (a)(4), is not made when a pistol is attached to a part or parts designed to convert the pistol into a rifle with a barrel or barrels of 16 inches or more in length, and the parts are later unassembled in a configuration not regulated under the NFA (e.g., as a pistol).[49] A firearm, as defined by 26 U.S.C. 5845(a)(4), is made when a handgun or other weapon with an overall length of less than 26 inches, or a barrel or barrels of less than 16 inches in length, is assembled or produced from a weapon originally assembled or produced only as a rifle.[49] Such a weapon would not be a “pistol” because the weapon was not originally designed, made, and intended to fire a projectile by one hand.

    Furthermore, adding a forward pistol grip to an AR-15 designated as a pistol constitutes manufacture of an AOW (any other weapon).[50] Both of these actions require an approved “Form 1” and payment of a $200 tax prior to the actual construction of the item. Current wait times for approval average 5–8 months, during which time no modifications or construction may be done.

    As of 2012, there are an estimated 2.5-3.7 million rifles from the AR-15 family in civilian use in the United States.[51][unreliable source?] They are favored for target shooting, hunting, and personal protection, and have become the most popular rifle in the U.S.[52]

    Individual states

    California
    Main article: AR-15s in California

    The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989 banned Colt AR-15 rifles by name in the State of California. California’s assault weapons ban following the Supreme Court of California‘s 2000 decision in Kasler v. Lockyer went further and banned AR-15s made by other manufacturers by name.[53] AR-15-style rifles that are not named specifically by the Roberti-Roos or other restricted lists can be purchased in the state with some major modifications. Since these are not on the various lists of prohibited firearms, their lower receivers (the part that is legally the firearm) are referred to as “Off List Lowers” (OLL). These OLLs are very common in California, and at least several hundred thousand of them have been sold in the state since the ban went into effect.[citation needed]

    Reliability

    Early versions of the AR-15 were often considered unreliable due to problems encountered by American soldiers in Vietnam. At least part of the problems were due to the ammunition.[54] The choice of propellant (powder) went through a number of alternatives, starting with IMR 4475 for the Army, and WC 846 for the Air Force. Continued testing of WC 846 (a ball powder) showed problems with fouling and issues with the cyclic rate being too high.[55] Other powders showed problems, as well. The rifles were also issued without any cleaning kits, and many soldiers were not trained to use the M16s when they were first issued.[56]

    Malfunctions

    With the plethora of manufacturers of complete weapons and aftermarket barrels, there is a potential hazard associated with chamber specifications. Both civilian (SAAMI) specification .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO are available. Though the external dimensions of the two cases are the same and both chambers typically accept both types of ammunition, the firing of military specification ammunition in civilian specification chambers can produce chamber pressures greater than the barrel is designed to handle. Internally the 5.56×45mm case wall is identical to the .223, though the NATO round is typically loaded to produce higher pressure than the .223. The most common malfunction resulting from firing military 5.56×45mm ammunition in a .223 Remington chamber is that the primer can be forced out of the case by chamber pressure, often resulting in the primer becoming lodged somewhere in the action of the rifle. Disassembly of the rifle is often necessary to remove the jammed primer.[57]

    A few AR-15 manufacturers incorporate the use of a hybrid chamber specification known as the Wylde chamber. Designed by and named after Bill Wylde of Greenup, Illinois, this chambering was designed to accurately shoot the military ball ammo of the day while still feeding reliably. Coincidentally, it shoots the longer 80 gr bullets commonly used in the sport of Highpower Rifle Competition very well and is one of the preferred chambers for that use. While the Wylde chamber allows for optimal seating depth of 80 grain bullets over .223 Remington and 5.56 NATO, it is capable of accepting both ammunition types. The Wylde chamber is used by many manufacturers who sell “National Match” configuration AR-15 rifle, barrels, and upper receivers. The type of chamber, manufacturer, and rifling twist in inches is typically found stamped into the barrel in front of the front sight assembly.

    An additional point of concern in the design is the inertial firing pin. A lightweight firing pin rides in a channel inside the bolt unrestrained. When the bolt locks forward during loading, the firing pin typically rides forward and impacts the primer of the chambered round. In military specification ammunition and quality civilian ammunition, this is not normally enough to fire the round and only leaves a small “ding” on the primer. With more sensitive primers or improperly seated primers, this can cause a slamfire during loading.[58]Another type of malfunction, hammer follow, is also a potential problem for AR type rifles.

    AR-15 and variant manufacturers

    Calibers

    Pistol cartridges

    Metric
    Imperial

    Rifle cartridges

    Metric
    Imperial

    Shotgun shells

    In addition, the AR-15 lower receiver can be used as a trigger mechanism for single shot or side-fed upper receivers for a variety of larger calibers, including .50 BMG[59] and crossbow[60] bolts.

    See also

    References

     

    Story 2: It is Jobs, The Economy and National Security — Stopping and Reversing The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Hillary Reads Prepared Speech On Economy and Attacks Trump To Small Ohio Audience  — Indict Hillary and Vote Trump —  Videos

     

    Trump Fires Back at Hillary After She Bashes Him in Economic Speech

    Hillary Clinton Columbus Ohio FULL Speech On Economy & Trump 6/21/16

    DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW WITH BILL O’REILLY FOX NEWS (6/20/2016) [MONDAY, JUNE 20, 2016]

    DONALD J TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW ON FOX & FRIENDS | FOX NEWS (6/21/2016)

    Exclusive : Trump Insider On Lewandowski Firing and Future of Campaign

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 695-703

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 685-694

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 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 01-09

     

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

    The Pronk Pops Show 698, June 14, 2014, Story 1: Happy Flag Day and Happy 70th Birthday Mr. Trump — Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Killer of 49 Was An Angry, Disturbed and Unstable Like The American People Who Want To Defend The Country Against The 30-50 Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Owners of America Who Have Bought Politicians Such as Obama, Clinton, Romney and Ryan of Both Parties Want Open Borders and Cheap Compliant Workers — Tell The Truth About Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists — Wake Up America — Videos

    Posted on June 14, 2016. Filed under: 2016 Presidential Candidates, American History, Blogroll, Books, Breaking News, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Countries, Crime, Donald J. Trump, Donald J. Trump, Donald Trump, Education, Empires, Energy, Eugenics, Foreign Policy, Gangs, Government, Government Dependency, Government Spending, Health Care, Hillary Clinton, History, House of Representatives, Immigration, Independence, Islam, Law, Legal Immigration, Life, Media, Natural Gas, Networking, News, Nuclear, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Polls, President Barack Obama, Progressives, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulation, Religion, Scandals, Security, Senate, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, United States of America, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

    Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

    Story 1: Happy Flag Day and Happy 70th Birthday Mr. Trump — Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadist Killer of 49 Was An Angry, Disturbed and Unstable Like The American People Who Want To Defend The Country Against The 30-50 Illegal Alien Invasion of The United States — Owners of America Who Have Bought Politicians Such as Obama, Clinton, Romney and Ryan of Both Parties Want Open Borders and Cheap Compliant Workers — Tell The Truth About Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists — Wake Up America — Videos

    The United States of America is at war with

    The Enemies of the American People

    Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists

    Wake Up America

    “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.

    If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat.

    If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”

    ~Sun Tzu, Art of War

    Sun Tzu’s 31 Best Pieces Of Leadership Advice

    By Eric Jackson

    There was no greater war leader and strategist than Chinese military general Sun Tzu.  His philosophy on how to be a great leader and ensure you win in work, management, and life is summed up in these 33 pieces of advice.  They can all be applied by you in your job when you go back to work next week:

    1. A leader leads by example, not by force.
    2. You have to believe in yourself.
    3. Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.
    4. If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
    5. The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting.
    6. Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy’s resistance without fighting.
    7. If the mind is willing, the flesh could go on and on without many things.
    8. Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.
    9. To know your Enemy, you must become your Enemy.
    10. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer.
    1. Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?
    2. Even the finest sword plunged into salt water will eventually rust.
    3. Engage people with what they expect; it is what they are able to discern and confirms their projections. It settles them into predictable patterns of response, occupying their minds while you wait for the extraordinary moment — that which they cannot anticipate.
    4. If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
    5. Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:

    1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

    2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.

    3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.

    4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

    5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.

    1. Be extremely subtle, even to the point of formlessness. Be extremely mysterious, even to the point of soundlessness. Thereby you can be the director of the opponent’s fate.
    2. Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat.
    3. There are not more than five musical notes, yet the combinations of these five give rise to more melodies than can ever be heard.There are not more than five primary colors, yet in combination they produce more hues than can ever been seen.There are not more than five cardinal tastes, yet combinations of them yield more flavors than can ever be tasted.
    4. Opportunities multiply as they are seized.
    5. When the enemy is relaxed, make them toil. When full, starve them. When settled, make them move.
    6. Know yourself and you will win all battles.
    7. Move swift as the Wind and closely-formed as the Wood. Attack like the Fire and be still as the Mountain.
    8. Let your plans be dark and impenetrable as night, and when you move, fall like a thunderbolt.
    9. When strong, avoid them. If of high morale, depress them. Seem humble to fill them with conceit. If at ease, exhaust them. If united, separate them. Attack their weaknesses. Emerge to their surprise.
    10. All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
    11. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare.
    12. The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.
    13. Treat your men as you would your own beloved sons. And they will follow you into the deepest valley.
    14. Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across.
    15. All warfare is based on deception.
    16. When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2014/05/23/sun-tzus-33-best-pieces-of-leadership-advice/#e964cf934966

    President  Barack Obama is a Radical Islamic President (RIP) that will be replaced by Donald J. Trump on Inauguration Day January 20, 2017.

    Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists Goal

     World Islamic State Under Sharia Law

    The Caliphate

    under sharia law Homosexuals are executed

    a-public-stoning-in-somaliaexecution by beheadinghomosexual executed by throwing off of roof


    iran_hanging
    ShariaStoningDeath
    iran-execution


    saudi-arabia-execution
    Somalia March 2013 Gay Teen Stoing To Death

    Happy Birthday to America’s Last Hope ”PRESIDENT DONALD JOHN TRUMP” Born JUNE 14, 1946

    You’re a Grand Old Flag

    You’re A Grand Old Flag 2016 Updated – Sing A Long For Kids

    State of the Cartoonion: Baby Boomers in the White House

    FULL: Donald Trump Greensboro NC Birthday Rally 6-14-2016 Greensboro Coliseum Complex [HD]

    Trump: Obama Was ‘More Angry at Me Than He Was at the Shooter’ (FULL SPEECH AND EVENT) On 70th birthday, Donald Trump is holding a Greensboro rally Today June 14th, 2016 Donald J. Trump for President Rally ‘Make America Great Again’ at Greensboro Coliseum Complex, North Carolina, Stump for Trump’ Girls
    GREENSBORO, N.C. — Donald Trump is making his first public appearance in North Carolina in three months and his first since becoming the Republicans’ presumptive presidential nominee.
    Trump was slated to speak at the Greensboro Coliseum on Tuesday night, the same day as his 70th birthday.

    Hindu Nationalists Celebrate Trump’s Birthday

    Trump: Clinton Policies ‘Wrong’ on Fighting Terrorism

    Why Trump, Clinton Debate ‘Radical Islamic Terror’

    President Obama tried to justify his refusal to use the term “radical Islamic terror

    Obama: Orlando Killer Was Angry, Disturbed, Unstable

    DHS whistleblower speaks out about jihad in America

    Krauthammer’s Take: Obama ‘Deliberately Trying to Deny’ Radical Islam Ideology of Terrorists

    Orlando shooting sparks debate over global threat of ISIS

    The Great Deception New World Order & Muslim Brotherhood

    Obama Behind Muslim Brotherhood Caliphate Conspiracy

    Robert Spencer on Why ISIS is Islamic

    Robert Spencer, author of 13 books on Islam and Director of Jihad Watch spoke to a local gathering of ACT! for America, to give his thoughts on Why ISIS is Islamic.

    Al Qaeda has been replaced with the “JV” team, ISIS, as the world’s leading terrorist organization. Our government seems incapable of identifying the growing threat of radical Islamists and is unwilling even to name it. Robert shows, using the Quran, why ISIS is Islamic, and why so many other seemingly benign Islamic groups fail to live up to the true nature of the Quran and life of Muhammad. He lays out this growing threat and what we need to know about their doctrine, goals, and strategies, if we are to have any hope in destroying them!

    Robert Spencer: The Theological Aspects of Islam That Lead to Jihad

    The Brutal Truth About Islam (Hindu Must Watch)-Robert Spencer

    Orlando Gunman’s Dad Not Camera-Shy in Wake of Killings

    Furious Obama blasts ‘yapping’ Trump over proposed Muslim ban

    Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology

    What ISIS Wants

    The Islamic State (Full Length)

    Fighting the Islamic State with Iraq’s Golden Division: The Road to Fallujah

    CNN – Blindsided How ISIS Shook the World

    Islamic State – history channel documentary – Who Is REALLY Behind ISIS?

    Islam | Real Truth Behind islam – Full Documentary

    Three Stages of Jihad

    Jihad proceeds in stages. Stage One: Stealth Jihad. Stage Two: Defensive Jihad. Stage Three: Offensive Jihad.

    Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?

    The Jihadist Next Door

    Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

    Andrew McCarthy: “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America”

    The Third Jihad – Radical Islam’s Vision for America – (A Clarion Project Film)

    Published on Nov 21, 2012

    (http://www.clarionproject.org) The Third Jihad is a film that exposes the threat that Islamic extremism poses to the American way of life. In 1988, the FBI discovered a secret Muslim Brotherhood document which laid out their plans to replace the Constitution with Islamic Sharia law. (Original document accepted as evidence in Holy Land terror financing trial: http://www.clarionproject.org/Muslim_…)

    The document stated that “The Ikhwan [Muslim Brotherhood] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within and ‘sabotaging’ its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers…”

    One person who dared to speak out about the Islamist threat is Dr. Zuhdi Jasser, a devout Muslim-American who served as an officer in the U.S. navy and also as a physician to the US Congress.

    After the FBI released the radical Islamist manifesto describing how to destroy America from within, Dr. Jasser decided to investigate.

    The Third Jihad is about what he discovered.

    Clarion Project brings together Middle East experts, scholars, human rights activists and Muslims to promote tolerance and moderation and challenge extremism.

    Check out Clarion Project’s website to learn more: http://www.clarionproject.org

    100% Video Proof of Radical Muslim Terrorist Training Camps in America – Bill O’Reilly

    The Suppressed & Hidden History of Islam

    THE HISTORY OF THE TURKISH AND OTTOMAN EMPIRE –

    Discovery History Ancient Culture (full documentary)

    Islam: Empire of Faith [PBS Documentary]

    PJTV — Islamic Terrorism: Why Is It So Hard For Liberals to Just Say It?

    Why We Are Afraid, A 1400 Year Secret, by Dr Bill Warner

    Three Quran Verses Every Christian Should Know

    Robert Spencer The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam and the Crusades II

    Tell The Truth About Islam

    How Gay Is Islam?

    Islamic Sexuality A Survey Of Evil

    Gays Must Die Says Speaker At Orlando Mosque – WFTV 9 Orlando Report

    Imam tells ‘gay Muslim’ that he should be executed

    Trump Says Muslim Immigrant Ban Needed

    Arrest Expected Soon Of Alleged Accomplice In Orlando Terror Attack

    Arrest Expected Soon Of Alleged Accomplice In Orlando Terror AttackWitness: Radical Islamic Terrorist Wasn’t Alone

    Globalist, Leftists Use Orlando Terror to Attack 2nd Amendment.

    Full remarks by President Obama on donald trump 14/06/2016

    News Updates | Donald J. Trump says he will ban people from countries

    How Will the Orlando Massacre Affect Trump-Clinton Race?

    Donald Trump Address The Nation Manchester Saint Anselm College New Hampshire

    DONALD TRUMP FULL INTERVIEW WITH BILL O’REILLY – (6/13/2016) MONDAY, JUNE 13, 2016

    10 Countries And Their Shocking Death Penalty Laws

    The Middle East Problem

    Political Playback: Trump is not the first to accuse rivals of “stealing the nomination”

    Ike V. Taft (1952)

    Tribute To Senator Robert Taft (1953)

    Sen. Robert A. Taft Tribute!

    Sen. Robert Taft on government intervention

    Republican National Convention To Name Presidential Nominee For 1964 (1964)

    Barry Goldwater: “Extremism in the defense of liberty…”

    Ronald Reagan: A Time For Choosing (1964: Warns Of NWO)

    This is why Donald Trump deserves to be president! – MUST SEE COMPILATION!

    Published on Apr 20, 2016

    The american people need to realize that Donald J. Trump is our last hope, he is the only person who is capable of saving america, and the western world as a whole from falling into the depths of despair due to globalist agendas and a crippling political correctness era.

    These clips show Donald Trump from all the way back to 1986 up until present day and they do a fantastic job at demonstrating the kind of person Donald Trump is, and why he deserves to be the next president.

    Patton Speech – George C. Scott – 1970

    Police officers on Tuesday were on the scene of the shooting at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Fla., in which a gunman killed 49 people and wounded scores more. CreditDavid Goldman/Associated Press

     Every day, in F.B.I. offices around the country, agents leaf through classified counterterrorism documents on American citizens one last time. They reread informant reports and review surveillance logs. And then they close the case and walk away.

    It is a weighty decision, one that supervisors closely review. But with up to 10,000 F.B.I. terrorism investigations open at any given time, there is little time for hand-wringing.

    The nightclub shooting in Orlando, Fla., in which a gunman killed 49 people, has brought unusual attention to a seemingly mundane process. For 10 months, F.B.I. agents investigated the gunman, Omar Mateen, but closed the investigation after following a standard checklist. F.B.I. supervisors approved the decision. Managers in Washington, who can reverse any decision to close a case, were notified.

    Officials said there was nothing particularly remarkable about the decision — until Sunday’s predawn shooting.n Tuesday, the F.B.I. was scrutinizing Mr. Mateen’s computer use, trying to learn how much his wife knew before the attack. Attorney General Loretta Lynch pledged a thorough investigation that would also address “if there are lessons we can learn to prevent another tragedy.” But perhaps the biggest question raised by this episode — as it was after the Boston Marathon bombing in 2013 and the shooting in Garland, Tex., last year — is why the perpetrator’s behavior was alarming enough to attract the F.B.I.’s attention, but could not be stopped.

    The answer is in part a reflection of American vigilance in the era of “see something, say something.” Tens of thousands of counterterrorism tips flow to the F.B.I. each year. Some are legitimate. Others come from vengeful ex-spouses or people casting suspicion on Arab-Americans.

    Thousands of investigations are opened and closed. Right now, law enforcement officials say, the F.B.I. is investigating 1,000 potential “homegrown violent extremists,” the majority of whom are most likely tied to or inspired by the Islamic State. Fifty to 100 are considered the highest priority.

    The flood of leads is so relentless that, years ago, counterterrorism agents hung an 18-inch section of fire hose outside their office suite in Northern Virginia as a symbol of their mission.

    Intelligence agencies in Europe and the Middle East face similar challenges, particularly with the rise of the Islamic State. But in the United States, Americans enjoy the unique protections of the First and Second Amendments. Criticizing, or even hating, the American government is not a crime. Neither is declaring support for the Islamic State or buying a gun.

    Photo

    Noor Zahi Salman, the wife of Omar Mateen, the gunman. Officials are investigating whether she knew of his plans.

    The number of agents working on terrorism cases is classified and changes with the threat, but across the country it amounts to several thousand, along with countless analysts. Sorting out angry Americans talking tough from would-be terrorists is among their biggest challenges.

    In Mr. Mateen’s case, co-workers said in 2013 that he had boasted of ties to the terrorist groups Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. The remarks prompted the local sheriff to request his removal from the St. Lucie County Courthouse in Fort Pierce, Fla., where he worked as a security guard. The security contractor transferred him to work at a residential golfing community, and the sheriff alerted the F.B.I.

    Government officials said his claim had been dubious from the beginning. Hezbollah is a Shiite group; Al Qaeda is Sunni. But agents opened what is known as a preliminary investigation. They secretly followed him and monitored his movements. They interviewed him twice, and dispatched an informant to get close to him in an investigation that spanned nearly a year.

    “I think the F.B.I. has an incredibly hard job, because this guy seems like a lone wolf,” said Caroline Fredrickson, the president of the American Constitution Society, a frequent critic of the agency. “He was an American citizen born in the United States. Law enforcement has been working its butt off to figure out what else could be done.”

    This dilemma is not new, but it has become more acute in recent years. For years after the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the F.B.I. used Al Qaeda’s rigid hierarchy against the terrorist group. Government experts knew how plots were hatched and who approved them. They knew the terrorism pedigree of the key figures, and monitored travel to watch for people training in camps.

    GRAPHIC

    How Terrorism Suspects Buy Guns — and How They Still Could, Even With a Ban

    Senate Democrats are hoping to resurrect legislation to prevent those on the government’s terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns.

    OPEN GRAPHIC

    Today, the Islamic State encourages anyone to take up arms in its name. Travel and training are unnecessary. Veteran counterterrorism agents ruefully note that the difference between America’s latest school shooting and its latest terrorist attack is whether the gunman praised the Islamic State — regardless of whether he had any actual ties to the group.

    Preventing those attacks is a fundamentally different mission, said James W. McJunkin, a former senior F.B.I. official who oversaw terrorism cases for years during Al Qaeda’s heyday. “It’s the counterterrorism equivalent of ‘How do you prevent someone from robbing a liquor store?’” he said.

    After receiving a briefing Tuesday from investigators, Representative Adam B. Schiff, Democrat of California, said Mr. Mateen appeared to have been motivated by a mixture of violent radicalization and hatred for gays and lesbians. “The picture is filling in, though there are still a lot of unanswered questions,” he said.

    Among those questions is whether Mr. Mateen’s wife knew about his plans. His wife, Noor Zahi Salman, told the F.B.I. that she had driven him to the Pulse nightclub at some point before the attack and that she had been with him when he bought ammunition, a senior law enforcement official said. She said she had tried to talk him out of waging an attack, the official said.

    Her statements were first reported by NBC News.

    “There’s an indication that she was with him in certain parts of the process, and we’re sorting through it,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the investigation is at an early stage. “We don’t know what’s true and what’s not.”

    Photo

    The condominium complex in Fort Pierce, Fla., where Mr. Mateen lived. CreditJoe Skipper/European Pressphoto Agency

    Ms. Salman is not in custody, the official said. While a person who withholds knowledge of a crime could face criminal charges, she is not facing imminent arrest, and no decisions have been made on whether she might be prosecuted, the official said.

    Neighbors of Ms. Salman’s parents in Rodeo, Calif, who are of Palestiniandescent, said she had grown up in a Muslim household. She and her sisters were not allowed to drive, they said. They said they understood Mr. Mateen to be a controlling husband who frequently forbade his wife to visit her family.

    As the F.B.I. pieces together details of Mr. Mateen’s life, lawmakers and lobbyists are already questioning whether the authorities missed any leads. Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Obama administration officials demanding information about Mr. Mateen, his family and the dates he was on a terrorism watch list.

    James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director, has said Mr. Mateen was on a watch list during his investigation. Once it was closed, he was removed from the list, as is required. “We don’t keep people under investigation indefinitely,” he said.

    Even if Mr. Mateen had remained on the watch list, it would not have stopped him from buying a gun. Congress blocked an attempt last year to give the F.B.I. the power to block gun sales to people on terrorism watch lists.

    Had he been on a watch list, however, agents would have been alerted to the gun sale. “Certainly in retrospect in this case we would have liked to have known about it,” Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates said. She said the Justice Department would consider a new policy in which the F.B.I. is alerted on gun sales to people who were previously under investigation for terrorism.

    The National Rifle Association moved quickly to quash discussion of new gun policies. In a piece for USA Today, Chris W. Cox, the group’s executive director, blamed the federal authorities for not doing more to stop Mr. Mateen. “His former co-workers reported violent and racist comments,” Mr. Cox wrote. “Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s political correctness prevented anything from being done about it.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/15/us/politics/noor-zahi-salman-omar-mateen.html?_r=0

    Killing Homosexuals Is Not ISIS Law, It Is Muslim Law

    by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY June 12, 2016

    For nearly 25 years, we’ve been clinging to the fiction that groups such as ISIS are anti-Islamic.

    Various reports indicate that the death toll from the jihadist attack overnight at a popular gay club in Orlando may exceed 50 people, with more than 50 others wounded. The terrorist’s identity has been reported: He is Omar Mateen, a 29-year-old American citizen and devout Muslim from Fort Pierce, Fla., the son of immigrants from Afghanistan.

    The FBI has indicated that Mateen, who was killed in a shootout with police at about 5 a.m., was an Islamic extremist. Representative Peter King (R., N.Y.), who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, says the shooter was “trained in the use of weapons.” As we have noted here many times, military training is generally the key that separates competent terrorists from wannabes. But whether actual or would-be jihadists, these Muslims are motivated by Islamic supremacism, the belief that sharia, Islam’s ancient, totalitarian law, must be imposed on society.

    Based on all this, there is abundant Washington and media speculation that the attack is “ISIS-inspired.” This is consistent with the bipartisan, government-approved inanity we have been following for a quarter-century, what I often call the political class’s concoction of “An Islam of Their Very Own.” It goes something like this:

    Islam is a religion of peace, period. End of discussion. “Violent extremist” outfits such as ISIS and al-Qaeda kill wantonly, with no real ideological motivation. ISIS and al-Qaeda are thus not Islamic, but actually anti-Islamic — and if they cite Islamic scripture to justify their atrocities, they are “hijacking” and “perverting” Islam. Because we must see these groups as “anti-Islam” rather than Islam, it is acceptable to call a mass-murder attack “terrorism” only if law-enforcement develops some plausible tie to these groups. Otherwise, if a Muslim is involved, stick with “workplace violence” and the like. Finally when an attack committed by a Muslim is too obviously terrorism to deny, call it “ISIS-inspired,” or “al-Qaeda-inspired,” or “Hamas political resistance,” etc. — but by all means do not, absolutely do not, ascribe it to Islam in any way shape or form.

    This is idiocy. Will today’s event, the worst mass shooting in American history, help us see that?

    We need to consider separately Islam and its sharia law.

    There are various ways to interpret Islamic scripture in order to attempt to evolve it out of violence. This, of course, does not change the fact that supremacist, fundamentalist Islam is a legitimate, mainstream, virulently anti-Western interpretation of Islam; but it does at least mean that there can be other mainstream versions of Islam that reject violence and Islam’s politico-legal system.

    Sharia, on the other hand, is basically set in stone. (Or should I say “stoning”?) Even most Islamic reformers acknowledge that it badly needs reform — not that it can be reinterpreted, but that it needs to be changed. Its provisions and especially its draconian punishments were largely fixed a millennium ago.

    The mandate that homosexuals be killed is not from ISIS or al-Qaeda. It is from sharia — which draws on Muslim scripture.

    As I’ve observed several times, an English version of the classic sharia manual Reliance of the Traveller has been endorsed by scholars of al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni Islamic learning since the tenth century; by the International Institute of Islamic Thought, a Muslim Brotherhood think tank that is influential in Washington; and by other influential Islamic governments and commentators.

    Here is its teaching on homosexuality, found in the chapter on “Enormities” — the most grave offenses:

    Sec. p17.0: SODOMY AND LESBIANISM

    Sec. p17.1: In more than one place in the Holy Koran, Allah recounts to us the story of Lot’s people, and how He destroyed them for their wicked practice. There is consensus among both Muslims and the followers of all other religions that sodomy is an enormity. It is even viler and uglier than adultery [AM: which is punished brutally, including by death].

    Sec. p17.2: Allah Most High says: “Do you approach the males of humanity, leaving the wives Allah has created for you? But you are a people who transgress” (Koran 26:165-66).

    Sec. p17.3: The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said:

    “Kill the one who sodomizes and the one who lets it be done to him.”

    “May Allah curse him who does what Lot’s people did.”

    “Lesbianism by women is adultery between them.”

    As I noted many times, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi may be Sunni Islam’s most influential living sharia jurist. Here, as reported by the Middle East Forum, is Qaradawi’s teaching on homosexuality:

    We must be aware that in regulating the sexual drive Islam has prohibited not only illicit sexual relations and all what leads to them, but also the sexual deviation known as homosexuality. This perverted act is a reversal of the natural order, a corruption of man’s sexuality, and a crime against the rights of females. (The same applies equally to the case of lesbianism.)

    The spread of this depraved practice in a society disrupts its natural life pattern and makes those who practice it slaves to their lusts, depriving them of decent taste, decent morals, and a decent manner of living. The story of the people of Prophet Lut (Lot), peace be upon him, as narrated in the Koran should be sufficient for us. Prophet Lut’s people were addicted to this shameless depravity, abandoning natural, pure, lawful relations with women in the pursuit of this unnatural, foul, and illicit practice. That is why their Prophet Lut, peace be on him, told them, “What! Of all creatures, do you approach males and leave the spouses whom your Lord has created for you? Indeed, you are people transgressing (all limits)!” (Koran, 26: 165–166)

    The strangest expression of these peoples’ perversity of nature, lack of guidance, depravity of morals, and aberration of taste was their attitude toward the guests of Prophet Lut, peace be upon him. [Here follows a digression on the story of Lot as related in the Koran. —Eds.]

    Muslim jurists have held differing opinions concerning the punishment for this abominable practice. Should it be the same as the punishment for fornication, or should both the active and passive participants be put to death? While such punishments may seem cruel, they have been suggested to maintain the purity of the Islamic society and to keep it clean of perverted elements.

    Since the American invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been no shortage of praise for Ayatollah Ali Sistani, whom the Bush administration frequently lauded as a “moderate” and a supporter of “democracy.” (We critics countered that Sistani is a fundamentalist sharia-supremacist who supported “democracy” — meaning popular vote — in a Muslim-majority society because that was the most direct, efficient way to impose sharia.) Sistani is as influential a Shiite sharia authority as there is. As I have previously recounted, when asked, “What is [Islam’s] judgment on sodomy and lesbianism?” Sistani replied: “Forbidden. Those involved in the act should be punished. In fact, sodomites should be killed in the worst manner possible.”

    Yup, let it sink in: “killed in the worst manner possible.”

    The inspiration for Muslims to brutalize and mass murder gay people does not come from ISIS. It is deeply rooted in Islamic law, affirmed by many of Islam’s most renowned scholars. This is why, wherever sharia is the law, homosexuals are persecuted and killed. See, for instance, this 2014 Washington Post report listing ten Muslim countries where homosexuality may be punished by death (Yemen, Iran, Mauritania, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, United Arab Emirates, and Iraq — notwithstanding its new, U.S.-supported constitution).

    Note, again, that Omar Mateen is the American-born son of immigrants from Afghanistan, where homosexuality may also be punished by death — notwithstanding American nation-building efforts there for the last 15 years.

    As I have argued before, while a categorical ban on Muslim immigration would be bad policy, our immigration law must distinguish between Islam the religion and Islamism, the sharia-supremacist political ideology, which tends to grow strong support wherever Muslims form a critical mass. There absolutely should be severe restrictions on immigration from countries, regions, and communities (e.g., in Europe) in which sharia standards are de jure or de facto imposed.

    The problem with mass immigration from sharia enclaves is not merely that trained terrorists may infiltrate the immigrant population. It is that sharia-adherent, assimilation-resistant Muslims will form sharia enclaves in the U.S., as they have throughout Europe, where young Muslims will be “radicalized” under our noses in the years to come.

    Today, we have gotten another glimpse of radicalization, which is not “homegrown” but rather fueled by a foreign, anti-American, anti-liberty ideology.

    — Andrew C. McCarthy is as senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.

     http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436505/mass-shooting-florida-anti-gay-violence-rooted-muslim-law

    Caliphate

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      (Redirected from Caliphates)
    “Caliph” redirects here. For the ship, see USS Caliph (SP-272).

    A caliphate (Arabic: خِلافة‎‎ khilāfa) is an area containing an Islamicsteward known as a caliph (Arabic: خَليفة‎‎ khalīfahAbout this sound pronunciation )—a person considered a religious successor to the Islamic prophet,Muhammad (Muhammad ibn ʿAbdullāh), and a leader of the entire Muslim community.[1] The Rashidun caliphs, who directly succeeded Muhammad as leaders of the Muslim community, were chosen through shura, a process of community consultation that some consider loosely to be an early form of Islamic democracy.[2] During the history of Islam after the Rashidun period, many Muslim states, almost all of them hereditary monarchies, have claimed to be caliphates.[1] Even though caliphs were thought to go back to Muhammad, they were not thought of as having the same prophetic power as he did.[3]

    The Sunni branch of Islam stipulates that, as a head of state, a caliph should be elected by Muslims or their representatives.[4] Followers of Shia Islam, however, believe a caliph should be an Imam chosen by God from the Ahl al-Bayt (the “Family of the House”, Muhammad’s direct descendants).

    Etymology

    Before the advent of Islam, Arabian monarchs traditionally used the title malik (King, ruler), or another from the same root.[1]

    The term caliph (/ˈklɪf, ˈkælɪf/),[5] derives from the Arabic word khalīfah (خَليفة, About this sound pronunciation ), which means “successor”, “steward”, or “deputy” and has traditionally been considered a shortening of either the term khalifat Allah (“successor to God”) orkhalifat rasul Allah (“successor of the messenger of God]”). However, studies of pre-Islamic texts suggest that the original meaning of the phrase was “successor selected by God.”[1]

    Rashidun Caliphate (632–661)

    Succession to Muhammad

    In his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), Fred Donner argues that the standard Arabian practice at the time was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader’s death and elect a leader from amongst themselves.[citation needed]There was no specified procedure for this shura or consultation. Candidates were usually, but not necessarily, from the same lineage as the deceased leader. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual heir.

    Sunni Muslims believe and confirm that Abu Bakr was chosen by the community and that this was the proper procedure. Sunnis further argue that a caliph should ideally be chosen by election or community consensus.

    The Shia believe that Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of Muhammad, was chosen by Muhammad as his spiritual and temporal successor as the Mawla (the Imam and the Caliph) of all Muslims in the the event of Ghadir Khumm. Here Mohammad called upon the around 100,000 gathered returning pilgrims to give their bay’ah (oath of allegiance) to Ali in his very presence and thenceforth to proclaim the good news of Ali’s succession to his (Muhammad’s) leadership to all Muslims they should come across.

    The caliph was often known as Amir al-Mu’minin (Arabic: أمير المؤمنين‎‎ “Commander of the Believers”). Muhammad established his capital in Medina; after he died, it remained the capital during the Rashidun Caliphate, before Kufa was reportedly made the capital by Caliph Ali. At times there have been rival claimant caliphs in different parts of the Islamic world, and divisions between the Shi’i and Sunni communities.

    According to Sunni Muslims, the first caliph to be called Amir al-Mu’minin was Abu Bakr, followed by Umar, the second of the Rashidun. Uthman and Ali also were called by the same title, while the Shi’a consider Ali to have been the only truly legitimate caliph, of these four men.[6]

    After the first four caliphs, the Caliphate was claimed by the Umayyad Caliphate, the Abbasid Caliphate, and the Ottoman Empire, and for relatively short periods by other, competing dynasties in al-Andalus, North Africa, and Egypt. After the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk officially abolished the system of Caliphate in Islam (the Ottoman Empire) as part of his secular reforms and founded the Republic of Turkey in 1923. The Kings of Morocco still label themselves with the title Amir al-Mu’minin for theMoroccans, but lay no claim to the Caliphate.

    Some Muslim countries, including Somalia, Indonesia and Malaysia, were never subject to the authority of a Caliphate, with the exception of Aceh, which briefly acknowledged Ottoman suzerainty.[7] Consequently, these countries had their own, local, sultans or rulers who did not fully accept the authority of the Caliph.

    Rashidun Caliphs

    Main articles: Rashidun and Rashidun Caliphate

    Rashidun Caliphate at its greatest extent, under Caliph Uthman’s rule

    Abu Bakr, the first successor of Muhammad, nominated Umar as his successor on his deathbed. Umar, the second caliph, was killed by a Persian named Piruz Nahavandi. His successor, Uthman, was elected by a council of electors (majlis). Uthman was killed by members of a disaffected group. Ali then took control but was not universally accepted as caliph by the governors of Egypt, and later by some of his own guard. He faced two major rebellions and was assassinated by Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam, a Khawarij. Ali’s tumultuous rule lasted only five years. This period is known as the Fitna, or the first Islamic civil war. The followers of Ali later became the Shi’a (“shiaat Ali”, partisans of Ali.[8] ) minority sect of Islam and reject the legitimacy of the first 3 caliphs. The followers of all four Rashidun Caliphs (Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali) became the majority Sunni sect.

    Under the Rashidun each region (Sultanate, Wilayah, or Emirate) of the Caliphate had its own governor (Sultan, Wāli or Emir). Muawiyah, a relative of Uthman and governor (Wali) of Syria, succeeded Ali as Caliph. Muawiyah transformed the caliphate into a hereditary office, thus founding the Umayyad dynasty.

    In areas which were previously under Sasanian Empire or Byzantine rule, the Caliphs lowered taxes, provided greater local autonomy (to their delegated governors), greater religious freedom for Jews, and some indigenousChristians, and brought peace to peoples demoralized and disaffected by the casualties and heavy taxation that resulted from the decades of Byzantine-Persian warfare.[9]

    Ali’s caliphate and the rise of the Umayyad dynasty

    Ali’s reign was plagued by great turmoil and internal strife. Ali was faced with multiple rebellions and insurrections. The primary one came from a misunderstanding on the part of Mu’awiyah, the governor of Damascus. The Persians, taking advantage of this, infiltrated the two armies and attacked the other army causing chaos and internal hatred between the companions at the Battle of Siffin. The battle lasted several months, resulting in a stalemate. In order to avoid further bloodshed, Ali agreed to negotiate with Mu’awiyah. This caused a faction of approximately 4,000 people that would be known as the Kharijites, to abandon the fight. After defeating the Kharijites at the Battle of Nahrawan, Ali was later assassinated by the Kharijite Ibn Muljam. Ali’s son Hasan was elected as the next caliph, but handed his title to Mu’awiyah a few months later. Mu’awiyah became the fifth (or second by Shia reckoning) caliph, establishing the Umayyad Dynasty,[10] named after the great-grandfather of Uthman and Mu’awiyah, Umayya ibn Abd Shams.[11]

    Umayyad Caliphate (661–750)

    Main article: Umayyad Caliphate

    The Caliphate, 622–750

      Expansion under Muhammad, 622–632
      Expansion during the Rashidun Caliphs, 632–661
      Expansion during the Umayyad Caliphate, 661–750

    Under the Umayyads, the Caliphate grew rapidly in territory, incorporating the Caucasus, Transoxiana, Sindh, the Maghreb and most of the Iberian Peninsula (Al-Andalus) into the Muslim world. At its greatest extent, the Umayyad Caliphate covered 5.17 million square miles (13,400,000 km2), making it the largest empire the world had yet seen, and the sixth-largest ever to exist in history.[12]

    Geographically, the empire was divided into several provinces, the borders of which changed numerous times during the Umayyad reign. Each province had a governor appointed by the caliph. However, for a variety of reasons, including that they were not elected by Shura and suggestions of impious behaviour, the Umayyad dynasty was not universally supported within the Muslim community. Some supported prominent early Muslims like Al-Zubayr; others felt that only members of Muhammad’s clan, the Banu Hashim, or his own lineage, the descendants of Ali, should rule.

    There were numerous rebellions against the Umayyads, as well as splits within the Umayyad ranks (notably, the rivalry between Yaman and Qays). Allegedly, Shimr Ibn Thil-Jawshan killed Ali’s son Hussein and his family at theBattle of Karbala in 680, solidfying the Shia-Sunni split.[8] Eventually, supporters of the Banu Hashim and the supporters of the lineage of Ali united to bring down the Umayyads in 750. However, the Shi‘at ‘Alī, “the Party of Ali”, were again disappointed when the Abbasid dynasty took power, as the Abbasids were descended from Muhammad’s uncle, ‘Abbas ibn ‘Abd al-Muttalib and not from Ali.

    Abbasid Caliphate (750–1258, 1261–1517)

    Main article: Abbasid Caliphate

    Abbassid Caliphs at Baghdad

    In 750, the Umayyad dynasty was overthrown by another family of Meccan origin, the Abbasids. Their time was marked by scientific, cultural and religious prosperity. Islamic art and music also flourished significantly during their reign. Their major city and capital Baghdad began to flourish as a center of knowledge, culture and trade. This period of cultural fruition ended in 1258 with the sack of Baghdad by the Mongols under Hulagu Khan. The Abbasid Caliphate had however lost its effective power outside Iraq already by c. 920.[13] By 945, the loss of power became official when the Buyids conquered Baghdad and all of Iraq. The empire fell apart and its parts were ruled for the next century by local dynasties.[14]

    In the 9th century, the Abbasids created an army loyal only to their caliphate, composed predominantly of Turkic Cuman, Circassian, and Georgian slave origin known as Mamluks. By 1250 the Mamluks came to power in Egypt. The Mamluk army, though often viewed negatively, both helped and hurt the caliphate. Early on, it provided the government with a stable force to address domestic and foreign problems. However, creation of this foreign army and al-Mu’tasim’s transfer of the capital from Baghdad to Samarra created a division between the caliphate and the peoples they claimed to rule. In addition, the power of the Mamluks steadily grew until Ar-Radi (934–41) was constrained to hand over most of the royal functions to Muhammad ibn Ra’iq.

    Under the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo (1261–1517)

    In 1261, following the devastation of Baghdad at the hands of the Mongols, the Mamluk rulers of Egypt tried to gain legitimacy for their rule by declaring the re-establishment of the Abbasid caliphate in Cairo. The Abbasid caliphs in Egypt had little to no political power; they continued to maintain the symbols of authority, but their sway was confined to religious matters. The first Abbasid caliph of Cairo was Al-Mustansir (r. June–November 1261). The Abbasid caliphate of Cairo lasted until the time of Al-Mutawakkil III, who ruled as caliph from 1508 to 1516, then he was deposed briefly in 1516 by his predecessor Al-Mustamsik, but was restored again to the caliphate in 1517.

    The Ottoman Great Sultan Selim I defeated the Mamluk Sultanate, and made Egypt part of the Ottoman Empire in 1517. Al-Mutawakkil III was captured together with his family and transported to Constantinople as a prisoner where he had a ceremonial role. He died in 1543, following his return to Cairo.[15]

    Parallel caliphates to the Abbasids

    The Abbasid dynasty lost effective power over much of the Muslim realm by the first half of the tenth century.

    The Shiʻa Ubayd Allah al-Mahdi Billah of the Fatimid dynasty, which claimed descent from Muhammad through his daughter, claimed the title of Caliph in 909, creating a separate line of caliphs in North Africa. Initially controlling Algeria, Tunisia and Libya, the Fatimid caliphs extended their rule for the next 150 years, taking Egypt and Palestine, before the Abbasid dynasty was able to turn the tide, limiting Fatimid rule to Egypt. The Fatimid dynasty finally ended in 1171.

    The Umayyad dynasty, which had survived and come to rule over Al-Andalus, reclaimed the title of Caliph in 929, lasting until it was overthrown in 1031.

    Fatimid Caliphate (909–1171)

    Main article: Fatimid Caliphate

    Map of the Fatimid Caliphate at its largest extent in the early 11th century

    The Fatimid Caliphate was an Isma’ili Shi’i caliphate that spanned a vast area of the Arab world. Originally based in Tunisia, the Fatimid dynasty extended their rule across the Mediterranean coast of Africa, and ultimately made Egypt the centre of their caliphate. At its height, in addition to Egypt, the caliphate included varying areas of the Maghreb, Sicily, the Levant and the Hejaz .

    The Fatimids established the Tunisian city of Mahdia and made it their capital city, before conquering Egypt, and building the city of Cairo there in 969. Thereafter, Cairo became the capital of the caliphate, with Egypt becoming the political, cultural and religious centre of the state. Islam scholar Louis Massignon dubbed the 4th century AH /10th century CE as the “Ismaili century in the history of Islam”.[16]

    The term Fatimite is sometimes used to refer to the citizens of this caliphate. The ruling elite of the state belonged to the Ismaili branch of Shi’ism. The leaders of the dynasty were Ismaili Imams and had a religious significance to Ismaili Muslims. They are also part of the chain of holders of the office of the Caliphate, as recognized by some Muslims. Therefore, this constitutes a rare period in history in which the descendants of Ali (hence the name Fatimid, referring to Ali’s wife Fatima) and the Caliphate were united to any degree, excepting the final period of the Rashidun Caliphate under Ali himself.

    The caliphate was reputed to exercise a degree of religious tolerance towards non-Ismaili sects of Islam as well as towards Jews, Maltese Christians and Copts.[17]

    Umayyad Caliphate of Córdoba (929–1031)

    Map of the Caliphate of Cordoba c. 1000

    During the Umayyad dynasty, the Iberian Peninsula was an integral province of the Umayyad Caliphate ruling from Damascus. The Umayyads lost the position of Caliph in Damascus in 750, and Abd al-Rahman I became Emir of Córdoba in 756 after six years in exile. Intent on regaining power, he defeated the existing Islamic rulers of the area who defied Umayyad rule and united various local fiefdoms into an emirate.

    Rulers of the emirate used the title “emir” or “sultan” until the 10th century, when Abd al-Rahman III was faced with the threat of invasion by the Fatimid Caliphate. To aid his fight against the invading Fatimids, who claimed the caliphate in opposition to the generally recognized Abbasid Caliph of Baghdad, Al-Mu’tadid, Abd al-Rahman III claimed the title of caliph himself. This helped Abd al-Rahman III gain prestige with his subjects, and the title was retained after the Fatimids were repulsed. The rule of the Caliphate is considered as the heyday of Muslim presence in the Iberian peninsula, before it fragmented into various taifas in the 11th century. This period was characterized by a remarkable flourishing in technology, trade and culture; many of the masterpieces of al-Andalus were constructed in this period.

    Almohad Caliphate (1147–1269)

    Main article: Almohad Caliphate

    The Almohad Caliphate (Berber: Imweḥḥden, from Arabicالموحدونal-Muwaḥḥidun, “the Monotheists” or “the Unifiers”) was a Moroccan[18][19]BerberMuslim movement founded in the 12th century.[20]

    The Almohad movement was started by Ibn Tumart among the Masmuda tribes of southern Morocco. The Almohads first established a Berber state in Tinmel in the Atlas Mountains in roughly 1120.[20] The Almohads succeeded in overthrowing the Almoravid dynasty in governing Morocco by 1147, when Abd al-Mu’min (r. 1130-1163) conquered Marrakech and declared himself Caliph. They then extended their power over all of the Maghrebby 1159. Al-Andalus followed the fate of Africa and all Islamic Iberia was under Almohad rule by 1172.[21]

    The Almohad dominance of Iberia continued until 1212, when Muhammad al-Nasir (1199–1214) was defeated at the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa in the Sierra Morena by an alliance of the Christian princes of Castile, Aragon, Navarre and Portugal. Nearly all of theMoorish dominions in Iberia were lost soon after, with the great Moorish cities of Córdoba and Seville falling to the Christians in 1236 and 1248, respectively.

    The Almohads continued to rule in northern Africa until the piecemeal loss of territory through the revolt of tribes and districts enabled the rise of their most effective enemies, the Marinid dynasty, in 1215. The last representative of the line, Idris al-Wathiq, was reduced to the possession of Marrakesh, where he was murdered by a slave in 1269; the Marinids seized Marrakesh, ending the Almohad domination of the Western Maghreb.

    Ottoman Caliphate (1517–1924)

    The caliphate was claimed by the sultans of the Ottoman Empire beginning with Murad I (reigned 1362 to 1389),[22] while recognizing no authority on the part of the Abbasid caliphs of the Mamluk-ruled Cairo. Hence the seat of the caliphate moved to the Ottoman capital of Edirne. In 1453, after Mehmed the Conqueror‘s conquest of Constantinople, the seat of the Ottomans moved to Constantinople, present-day Istanbul. In 1517, the Ottoman sultan Selim I defeated and annexed the Mamluk Sultanate of Cairo into his empire.[23][24] Through conquering and unifying Muslim lands, Selim I became the defender of the Holy Cities of Mecca and Medina, which further strengthened the Ottoman claim to the caliphate in the Muslim world. Ottomans gradually came to be viewed as the de facto leaders and representatives of the Islamic world. However, the earlier Ottoman caliphs did not officially bear the title of caliph in their documents of state, inscriptions, or coinage.[24] It was only when the Ottoman Empire fell into a decline that the claim to caliphate was discovered by the sultans to have a practical use, since it gave them prestige among Sunni Muslims.[25]

    According to Barthold, the first time the title of “caliph” was used as a political instead of symbolic religious title by the Ottomans was the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca with the Russian Empire in 1774, when the Empire retained moral authority on territory whose sovereignty was ceded to the Russian Empire.

    The British supported and propagated the view that the Ottomans were Caliphs of Islam among Muslims in British India and the Ottoman Sultans helped the British by issuing pronouncements to the Muslims of India telling them to support British rule from Sultan Ali III and Sultan Abdülmecid I.[26]

    The outcome of the Russo-Turkish War of 1768–74 was disastrous for the Ottomans. Large territories, including those with large Muslim populations, such as Crimea, were lost to the Russian Empire. However, the Ottomans under Abdul Hamid I claimed a diplomatic victory by being allowed to remain the religious leaders of Muslims in the now-independent Crimea as part of the peace treaty: in return Russia became the official protector of Christians in Ottoman territory.

    Around 1880 Sultan Abdul Hamid II reasserted the title as a way of countering Russian expansion into Muslim lands. His claim was most fervently accepted by the Muslims of British India. By the eve of World War I, the Ottoman state, despite its weakness relative to Europe, represented the largest and most powerful independent Islamic political entity. The sultan also enjoyed some authority beyond the borders of his shrinking empire as caliph of Muslims in Egypt, India, and Central Asia.

    In 1899 John Hay, U.S. Secretary of State, asked the American ambassador to Ottoman Turkey, Oscar Straus, to approach Sultan Abdul Hamid II to use his position as caliph to order the Tausūg people of the Sultanate of Sulu in the Philippines to submit to American suzerainty and American military rule; the Sultan obliged them and wrote the letter which was sent to Sulu via Mecca. As a result, the “Sulu Mohammedans … refused to join the insurrectionists and had placed themselves under the control of our army, thereby recognizing American sovereignty.”[27][27][28]

    Abolition of the Caliphate (1924)

    Further information: Atatürk’s Reforms

    Abdülmecid II was the last Caliph of Islam from the Ottoman dynasty.

    After the Armistice of Mudros of October 1918 with the military occupation of Constantinople and Treaty of Versailles (1919), the position of the Ottomans was uncertain. The movement to protect or restore the Ottomans gained force after the Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) which imposed the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire and gave Greece a powerful position in Anatolia, to the distress of the Turks. They called for help and the movement was the result. The movement had collapsed by late 1922.

    On March 3, 1924, the first President of the Turkish Republic, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, as part of Atatürk’s Reforms, constitutionally abolished the institution of the caliphate.[23] Its powers within Turkey were transferred to the Grand National Assembly of Turkey, the parliament of the newly formed Turkish Republic. The title was then claimed by Hussein bin Ali, Sharif of Mecca of Hejaz, leader of the Arab Revolt, but his kingdom was defeated and annexed by ibn Saud in 1925.

    A summit was convened at Cairo in 1926 to discuss the revival of the Caliphate, but most Muslim countries did not participate and no action was taken to implement the summit’s resolutions.

    Though the title Ameer al-Mumineen was adopted by the King of Morocco and by Mohammed Omar, former head of the Taliban of Afghanistan, neither claimed any legal standing or authority over Muslims outside the borders of their respective countries.

    Since the end of the Ottoman Empire, occasional demonstrations have been held calling for the reestablishment of the Caliphate. Organisations which call for the re-establishment of the Caliphate include Hizb ut-Tahrirand the Muslim Brotherhood.[29]

    Sokoto Caliphate (1804–1903)

    Main article: Sokoto Caliphate

    The Sokoto Caliphate was an Islamic state in what is now Nigeria led by Usman dan Fodio. Founded during the Fulani War in the early 19th century, it controlled one of the most powerful empires in sub-Saharan Africaprior to European conquest and colonization. The caliphate remained extant through the colonial period and afterwards, though with reduced power.[citation needed] The current head of the Sokoto Caliphate is Sa’adu Abubakar.

    Khilafat Movement (1919–24)

    Main article: Khilafat Movement

    The Khilafat Movement was launched by Muslims in British India to defend the Ottoman Caliphate at the end of the First World War and it spread throughout the British colonial territories. It was strong in British India where it formed a rallying point for some Indian Muslims as one of many anti-British Indian political movements. Its leaders included Mohammad Ali Jouhar, his brother Shawkat Ali, and Abul Kalam Azad, Mukhtar Ahmed Ansari, and Barrister Muhammad Jan Abbasi. For a time it was supported by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, who was a member of the Central Khilafat Committee.[30][31] However, the movement lost its momentum after the arrest or flight of its leaders, and a series of offshoots splintered off from the main organization.

    Sharifian Caliphate (1924–25)

    Main article: Sharifian Caliphate

    The Sharifian Caliphate (Arabic: خلافة شريفية‎‎) was an Arab caliphate proclaimed by the Sharifian rulers of Hejaz in 1924, in lieu of the Ottoman Caliphate. The idea of the Sharifian Caliphate had been floating around since at least the 15th century.[32] Toward the end of the 19th century, it started to gain importance due to the decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was heavily defeated in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. There is little evidence, however, that the idea of a Sharifian Caliphate ever gained wide grassroots support in the Middle East or anywhere else for that matter.[33]

    Non-political caliphates

    Though non-political, some Sufiorders and the Ahmadiyya movement[34] define themselves as caliphates. Their leaders are thus commonly referred to as khalifas (caliphs).

    Sufi caliphates[edit]

    In Sufism, tariqas (orders) are led by spiritual leaders (khilafah ruhaniyyah), the main khalifas, who nominate local khalifas to organize zaouias.[35]

    Sufi caliphates are not necessarily hereditary. Khalifas are aimed to serve the silsilah in relation to spiritual responsibilities and to propagate the teachings of the tariqa.

    Ahmadiyya Caliphate (1908-present)

    The Ahmadiyya flag, first designed in 1939, during the leadership of the Second Caliph.

    Main article: Ahmadiyya Caliphate

    The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community is an Islamic revivalist movement founded in 1889 by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad of Qadian, India, who claimed to be the promised Messiah and Mahdi, awaited by Muslims. He also claimed to be a follower-prophet subordinate to Muhammad the prophet of Islam. After his death in 1908, his first successor, Hakeem Noor-ud-Din became the caliph of the community and assumed the title ofKhalifatul Masih (Successor or Caliph of the Messiah).

    Ahmadi Muslims believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate established after the passing of the community’s founder is the re-establishment of the Rashidun Caliphate.[36] The Ahmadiyya caliphate has spanned over a century, seen five caliphs and continues to operate under this structure, with the caliph having overall authority for all religious and organizational matters. According to Ahmadiyya thought, it is not essential for a caliph to be the head of a state, rather the religious and organisational significance of the caliphate is emphasised. It is above all a religious office, with the purpose to uphold, strengthen and spread Islam and maintain the high moral standards within the Muslim community established by Muhammad, who was not merely a political leader but primarily a religious leader. The caliphate is understood as a system dealing with the organisation of believers and relating to the administration (nizām) of the Muslim community whether or not it involves a governmental role.[37] Being based on the ‘precepts of Prophethood’, the institution of caliphate can therefore, like prophethood, exist and flourish without a state.[38] If a caliph does happen to bear governmental authority as a head of state, it is incidental and subsidiary in relation to his overall function as caliph which is applicable to believers transnationally and not limited to one particular state or political entity. The system of caliphate in Islam, thus understood, transcends national sovereignty and ethnic divide, forming a universal supra-national entity.[39][40] According to Ahmadi Muslims, the caliphate seeks to establish God’s authority on earth and the caliph strives to uphold that authority within the community of followers. It is required that the caliph carry out his duties through consultation and taking into consideration the views of the members of the Majlis-ash-Shura (consultative body). However, it is not incumbent upon him to always accept the views and recommendations of the members. The caliph has overall authority for all religious and organisational matters and is bound to decide and act in accordance with the Qur’an and sunnah.

    After Hakeem Noor-ud-Din, the first caliph, the title of the Ahmadiyya caliph continued under Mirza Mahmud Ahmad, who led the community for over 50 years. Following him were Mirza Nasir Ahmad and then Mirza Tahir Ahmad who were the third and fourth caliphs respectively. The current caliph is Mirza Masroor Ahmad, who lives in London[41] with a following of 10 to 20 million in over 200 countries and territories of the world.[42]

    Religious basis

    Qur’an

    The Quran uses the term khalifa twice. First, in al-Baqara, 30, it refers to God creating humanity as his khalifa on Earth. Second, in Sad, 26, it addresses King David as God’s khalifa and reminds him of his obligation to rule with justice.[43]

    In addition, the following excerpt from the Quran, known as the ‘Istikhlaf Verse’, is used by some to argue for a Quranic basis for Caliphate:

    God has promised those of you who have attained to faith and do righteous deeds that, of a certainty, He will make them Khulifa on earth, even as He caused [some of] those who lived before them to becomeKhulifa; and that, of a certainty, He will firmly establish for them the religion which He has been pleased to bestow on them; and that, of a certainty, He will cause their erstwhile state of fear to be replaced by a sense of security [seeing that] they worship Me [alone], not ascribing divine powers to aught beside Me. But all who, after [having understood] this, choose to deny the truth – it is they, they who are truly iniquitous!” (An-Nur, 55)

    In the above verse, the word Khulifa (the plural of Khalifa) has been variously translated as “successors” and “ones who accede to power”.

    Small subsections of Sunni Islamism argue that to govern a state by Sharia is, by definition, to rule via the Caliphate, and use the following verses to sustain their claim.

    So govern between the people by that which God has revealed (Islam), and follow not their vain desires, beware of them in case they seduce you from just some part of that which God has revealed to you

    — [Quran 005:049]

    O you who believe! Obey God, and obey the messenger and then those among you who are in authority; and if you have a dispute concerning any matter, refer it to God and the messenger’s rulings, if you are (in truth) believers in God and the Last Day. That is better and more seemly in the end.

    — [Quran 004:059]

    Hadith

    The following hadith from Musnad Ahmad ibn Hanbal can be understood to prophesy two eras of Caliphate (both on the lines/precepts of prophethood).

    Hadhrat Huzaifa narrated that the Messenger of Allah said: Prophethood will remain among you as long as Allah wills. Then Caliphate (Khilafah) on the lines of Prophethood shall commence, and remain as long as Allah wills. Then corrupt/erosive monarchy would take place, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. After that, despotic kingship would emerge, and it will remain as long as Allah wills. Then, the Caliphate (Khilafah) shall come once again based on the precept ofProphethood.[44][page needed]

    In the above, the first era of Caliphate is commonly accepted by Muslims to be that of the Rashidun Caliphate.

    Nafi’a reported saying:

    It has been reported on the authority of Nafi, that ‘Abdullah b. Umar paid a visit to Abdullah b. Muti’ in the days (when atrocities were perpetrated on the People Of Medina) at Harra in the time of Yazid b. Mu’awiya. Ibn Muti’ said: Place a pillow for Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman (family name of ‘Abdullah b. ‘Umar). But the latter said: I have not come to sit with you. I have come to you to tell you a tradition I heard from the Messenger of Allah. I heard him say: One who withdraws his band from obedience (to the Amir) will find no argument (in his defence) when he stands before Allah on the Day of Judgment, and one who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyyah. – Sahih Muslim, Book 020, Hadith 4562.

    Hisham ibn Urwah reported on the authority of Abu Saleh on the authority of Abu Hurairah that Muhammad said:

    Leaders will take charge of you after me, where the pious (one) will lead you with his piety and the impious (one) with his impiety, so only listen to them and obey them in everything which conforms with the truth (Islam). If they act rightly it is for your credit, and if they acted wrongly it is counted for you and against them.

    Muslim narrated on the authority of al-A’araj, on the authority of Abu Hurairah, that Muhammad said:

    Behold, the Imam (Caliph) is but a shield from behind whom the people fight and by whom they defend themselves.

    Muslim reported on the authority of Abdel Aziz al-Muqrin, who said:

    I accompanied Abu Hurairah for five years and heard him talking of Muhammd’s saying: The Prophets ruled over the children of Israel, whenever a Prophet died another Prophet succeeded him, but there will be no Prophet after me. There will beKhalifahs and they will number many. They asked: What then do you order us? He said: Fulfil the bay’ah(transaction/sale) to them one after the other and give them their due. Surely God will ask them about what He entrusted them with.

    Prophesied Caliphate of the Mahdî

    For information about Caliph the Mahdî, and his prophesied Deputy `Îsâ (Jesus), see “Mahdi“, “Jesus in Islam“, “Islamic eschatology” (Section Islamic eschatology#Major figures), and “Second Coming” (Section Second Coming#Islam).

    The Sahaba of Muhammad

    Al-Habbab Ibn ul-Munthir said, when the Sahaba met in the wake of the death of Muhammad, (at the thaqifa hall) of Bani Sa’ida:

    Let there be one Amir from us and one Amir from you (meaning one from the Ansar and one from the Mohajireen).

    Upon this Abu Bakr replied:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs (rulers)…

    Then he got up and addressed the Muslims.[45][46][47][48][49][50][page needed]

    It has additionally been reported[51] that Abu Bakr went on to say on the day of Al-Saqifa:

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interests.

    The Sahaba agreed to this and selected Abu Bakr as their first Khaleef. Habbab ibn Mundhir who suggested the idea of two Ameers corrected himself and was the first to give Abu Bakr the Bay’ah. This indicates an Ijma as-Sahaba of all of the Sahaba. Ali ibni abi Talib, who was attending the body of Muhammad at the time, also consented to this.

    Imam Ali whom the Shia revere said:[52]

    People must have an Amir…where the believer works under his Imara (rule) and under which the unbeliever would also benefit, until his rule ended by the end of his life (ajal), the booty (fay’i) would be gathered, the enemy would be fought, the routes would be made safe, the strong one will return what he took from the weak till the tyrant would be contained, and not bother anyone.

    Sayings of Islamic theologians

    Al-Mawardi says:[53]

    It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

    Al-Nawawi says:[54]

    It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

    Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says:[55]

    It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

    Ibn Hazm says:[56]

    It is permitted to have only one leader (of the Muslims) in the whole of the world.

    Al-sha’rani says:[57]

    It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two leaders whether in agreement or discord.

    Abd al-Jabbar ibn Ahmad (a Mu’tazela scholar), says:[58]

    It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one.

    Al-Joziri says:[59]

    The Imams (scholars of the four schools of thought)- may Allah have mercy on them- agree that the Caliphate is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint a leader who would implement the injunctions of the religion, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors. It is forbidden for Muslims to have two leaders in the world whether in agreement or discord.

    The Shia schools of thought and others expressed the same opinion about this.[60][61][62][63] However, the Shia school of thought believe that the leader (Imam) must not be appointed by the Islamic ummah, but must be appointed by God.

    Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafsir[64] of the verse, “Indeed, man is made upon this earth a Caliph”[65] that:

    This Ayah is a source in the selection of an Imaam, and a Khaleef, he is listened to and he is obeyed, for the word is united through him, and the Ahkam (laws) of the Caliph are implemented through him, and there is no difference regarding the obligation of that between the Ummah, nor between the Imams except what is narrated about al-Asam, the Mu’tazzili …

    Al-Qurtubi also said:

    The Khilafah is the pillar upon which other pillars rest

    An-Nawawi said:[66]

    (The scholars) consented that it is an obligation upon the Muslims to select a Khalif

    Al-Ghazali when writing of the potential consequences of losing the Caliphate said:[67]

    The judges will be suspended, the Wilayaat (provinces) will be nullified, … the decrees of those in authority will not be executed and all the people will be on the verge of Haraam

    Ibn Taymiyyah said[68][page needed]:

    It is obligatory to know that the office in charge of commanding over the people (ie: the post of the Khaleefah) is one of the greatest obligations of the Deen. In fact, there is no establishment of the Deen except by it….this is the opinion of the salaf, such as al-Fadl ibn ‘Iyaad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal and others

    Period of dormancy

    Main article: Pan-Islamism
    Further information: Islamism and Islamic revival

    Once the subject of intense conflict and rivalry amongst Muslim rulers, the caliphate laid dormant and largely unclaimed since the 1920s. For the vast majority of Muslims the caliph as leader of the ummah, “is cherished both as memory and ideal”[69] as a time when Muslims “enjoyed scientific and military superiority globally”.[70] The Islamic prophet Muhammad is reported to have prophesied:

    Prophethood will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain, then Allah will raise it up whenever he wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood remaining with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, He will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Afterwards, there will be a reign of violently oppressive rule and it will remain with you for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, there will be a reign of tyrannical rule and it will remain for as long as Allah wills it to remain. Then, Allah will raise it up whenever He wills to raise it up. Then, there will be a Caliphate that follows the guidance of Prophethood.

    — As-Silsilah As-Sahihah, vol. 1, no. 5

    Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (2014–present)

    Map of ISIL’s claimed Caliphate at its extent in May 2015

    The group Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn formed as an affiliate of Al-Qaeda network of Islamist militants during the Iraq War. The group eventually expanded into Syria and rose to prominence as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) during the Syrian Civil War. In the summer of 2014, the group launched the Northern Iraq offensive, seizing the city of Mosul.[71][72] The group declared itself a caliphate under Abu Bakr al-Baghdadion June 29, 2014 and renamed itself as the “Islamic State”.[73][74][75]

    ISIL’s claim to be the highest authority of Muslims has not been widely recognized beyond the territory it controls with 10 million people,[76] and the group has been at war with armed forces including the Iraqi Army, the Syrian Army, the Free Syrian Army, Al-Nusra Front, and Iraqi Kurdistan‘s Peshmerga and People’s Protection Units (YPG) along with a 60 nation coalition in its efforts to establish a de facto state on Iraqi and Syrian territory.[77]

    Ahmadiyya view

    Further information: Khalifatul Masih

    The members of the Ahmadiyya community believe that the Ahmadiyya Caliphate (Arabic: Khilāfah) is the continuation of the Islamic Caliphate, first being the Rāshidūn (rightly guided) Caliphate (of Righteous Caliphs). This is believed to have been suspended with Ali, the son-in-law of Muhammad and re-established with the appearance of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (1835-1908, the founder of the movement) whom Ahmadis identify as the Promised Messiah and Mahdi.

    Ahmadis maintain that in accordance with Quranic verses (such as [Quran 24:55]) and numerous ahadith on the issue, Khilāfah can only be established by God Himself and is a divine blessing given to those who believe and work righteousness and uphold the unity of God, therefore any movement to establish the Khilāfah centered on human endeavours alone is bound to fail, particularly when the condition of the people diverges from the ‘precepts of prophethood’ and they are as a result disunited, their inability to establish aKhilāfah caused fundamentally by the lack of righteousness in them. Although the khalifa is elected it is believed that God himself directs the hearts of believers towards an individual. Thus the khalifa is designated neither necessarily by right (i.e. the rightful or competent one in the eyes of the people at that time) nor merely by election but primarily by God.[78]

    According to Ahmadiyya thought, a khalifa need not be the head of a state; rather the Ahmadiyya community emphasises the spiritual and organisational significance of the Khilāfah. It is primarily a religious/spiritual office, with the purpose of upholding, strengthening and spreading Islam and of maintaining the high spiritual and moral standards within the global community established by Muhammad – who was not merely a political leader but primarily a religious leader. If a khalifa does happen to bear governmental authority as a head of state, it is incidental and subsidiary in relation to his overall function as khalifa which is applicable to believers transnationally and not limited to one particular state.[79][80]

    Ahmadi Muslims believe that God has assured them that this Caliphate will endure to the end of time, depending on their righteousness and faith in God. The Khalifa provides unity, security, moral direction and progress for the community. It is required that the Khalifa carry out his duties through consultation and taking into consideration the views of the members of the Shura (consultative body). However, it is not incumbent upon him to always accept the views and recommendations of the members. The Khalifatul Masih has overall authority for all religious and organisational matters and is bound to decide and act in accordance with the Qur’an and sunnah.

    Islamic call

    A number of Islamist political parties and mujahideen called for the restoration of the caliphate by uniting Muslim nations, either through political action (e.g., Hizb ut-Tahrir), or through force (e.g., al-Qaeda).[81] Various Islamist movements gained momentum in recent years with the ultimate aim of establishing a Caliphate. In 2014, ISIL/ISIS made a claim to re-establishing the Caliphate. Those advocating the re-establishment of a Caliphate differed in their methodology and approach. Some[who?] were locally oriented, mainstream political parties that had no apparent transnational objectives.[citation needed]

    Abul A’la Maududi believed the caliph was not just an individual ruler who had to be restored, but was man’s representation of God‘s authority on Earth:

    Khilafa means representative. Man, according to Islam is the representative of “people”, His (God’s) viceregent; that is to say, by virtue of the powers delegated to him, and within the limits prescribed by the Qu’ran and the teaching of the prophet, the caliph is required to exercise Divine authority.[82]

    The Muslim Brotherhood advocates pan-Islamic unity and the implementation of Islamic law. Founder Hassan al-Banna wrote about the restoration of the Caliphate.[83]

    One transnational group whose ideology was based specifically on restoring the caliphate as a pan-Islamic state is Hizb ut-Tahrir (literally, “Party of Liberation”). It is particularly strong in Central Asia and Europe and is growing in strength in the Arab world. It is based on the claim that Muslims can prove that God exists[84] and that the Qur’an is the word of God.[85][86] Hizb ut-Tahrir’s stated strategy is a non-violent political and intellectual struggle.

    In Southeast Asia, groups such as Jemaah Islamiyah aimed to establish a Caliphate across Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei and parts of Thailand, the Philippines and Cambodia.

    al-Qaeda’s Caliphate goals

    Main article: al-Qaeda

    Al-Qaeda has as one of its clearly stated goals the re-establishment of a caliphate.[87] Its former leader, Osama bin Laden, called for Muslims to “establish the righteous caliphate of our umma”.[88]Al-Qaeda chiefs released a statement in 2005, under which, in what they call “phase five” there will be “an Islamic state, or caliphate”.[89] Al-Qaeda has named its Internet newscast from Iraq “The Voice of the Caliphate”.[90] According to author and Egyptian native Lawrence Wright, Ayman al-Zawahiri, bin Laden’s mentor and al-Qaeda’s second-in-command until 2011, once “sought to restore the caliphate… which had formally ended in 1924 following the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire but which had not exercised real power since the thirteenth century.” Zawahiri believes that once the caliphate is re-established, Egypt would become a rallying point for the rest of the Islamic world, leading the jihad against the West. “Then history would make a new turn, God willing”, Zawahiri later wrote, “in the opposite direction against the empire of the United States and the world’s Jewish government”.[91]

    Opposition

    Scholar Olivier Roy writes that “early on, Islamists replace the concept of the caliphate … with that of the emir.” There were a number of reasons including “that according to the classical authors, a caliph must be a member of the tribe of the Prophet (the Quraysh) … moreover, caliphs ruled societies that the Islamists do not consider to have been Islamic (the Ottoman Empire).”[92] This is not the view of the majority of Islamist groups, as both the Muslim Brotherhood and Hizb ut-Tahrir view the Ottoman state as a caliphate.[93][94]

    Government

    Electing or appointing a Caliph

    In his book The Early Islamic Conquests (1981), Fred Donner argues that the standard Arabian practice during the early Caliphates was for the prominent men of a kinship group, or tribe, to gather after a leader’s death and elect a leader from amongst themselves, although there was no specified procedure for this shura, or consultative assembly. Candidates were usually from the same lineage as the deceased leader, but they were not necessarily his sons. Capable men who would lead well were preferred over an ineffectual direct heir, as there was no basis in the majority Sunni view that the head of state or governor should be chosen based on lineage alone.

    This argument is advanced by Sunni Muslims, who believe that Muhammad’s companion Abu Bakr was elected by the community and that this was the proper procedure. They further argue that a caliph is ideally chosen by election or community consensus.

    Traditionally, Sunni Muslim madhhabs all agreed that a Caliph must be a descendant of the Quraysh.[95]Al-Baqillani has said that the leader of the Muslims simply should be from the majority. The founder of the biggest Sunni legal school, Abu Hanifa, also wrote that the Caliph must be chosen by the majority.[4]

    Sunni belief

    Following the death of Muhammad, a meeting took place at Saqifah. At that meeting, Abu Bakr was elected caliph by the Muslim community. Sunni Muslims developed the belief that the caliph is a temporal political ruler, appointed to rule within the bounds of Islamic law (Sharia). The job of adjudicating orthodoxy and Islamic law was left to mujtahids, legal specialists collectively called the Ulama. Many Muslims call the first four caliphs the Rashidun, meaning the Rightly-Guided, because they are believed to have followed the Qur’an and the sunnah (example) of Muhammad.[citation needed]

    Shi’a belief

    The Shia believe in the Imamate, a principle by which rulers are Imams who are divinely chosen, infallible, and sinless and must come from the Ahl al-Bayt regardless of majority opinion, shura or election. They claim that before his death, Muhammad had given many indications, in the hadith of the pond of Khumm in particular, that he considered Ali, his cousin and son-in-law, as his successor. For the Twelvers, Ali and his eleven descendants, the twelve Imams, are believed to have been considered, even before their birth, as the only valid Islamic rulers appointed and decreed by God.

    After these Twelve Imams, the potential Caliphs, had passed, and in the absence of the possibility of a government headed by their Imams, some Twelvers believe it was necessary that a system of Shi’i Islamic government based on the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist be developed, due to the need for some form of government, where an Islamic jurist or faqih rules Muslims, suffices. However this idea, developed by the marja’AyatollahRuhollah Khomeini and established in Iran, is not universally accepted among the Shia.

    Ismailis believe in the Imamate principle mentioned above, but they need not be secular rulers as well.

    • The Nizari continue to have a living Imam; the current Imam is the Aga Khan.
    • The Taiyabi Ismaili have, since the year 1130, followed the Imam’s chief officer, the Dai al-Mutlaq, as they believe the Imams are in a state of hiding.

    Majlis al-Shura (parliament)

    See also: Majlis-ash-Shura, Shura, and Majlis

    Traditional Sunni Islamic lawyers agree that shura, loosely translated as “consultation of the people”, is a function of the caliphate. The Majlis al-Shura (literally “consultative assembly”) or parliament was a representation of this idea of consultative governance. The importance of this is premised by the following verses of the Qur’an:

    • “…those who answer the call of their Lord and establish the prayer; and who conduct their affairs by Shura [are loved by God].”[42:38]
    • “…consult them (the people) in their affairs. Then when you have taken a decision (from them), put your trust in Allah”[3:159]

    The majlis is also the means to elect a new caliph.[4] Al-Mawardi has written that members of the majlis should satisfy three conditions: they must be just, have enough knowledge to distinguish a good caliph from a bad one, and have sufficient wisdom and judgment to select the best caliph. Al-Mawardi also said that in emergencies when there is no caliphate and no majlis, the people themselves should create a majlis and select a list of candidates for caliph; then the majlis should select a caliph from the list of candidates.[4]

    Some Islamist interpretations of the role of the Majlis al-Shura are the following: In an analysis of the shura chapter of the Qur’an, Islamist author Sayyid Qutb argues that Islam only requires the ruler to consult with some of the representatives of the ruled and govern within the context of the Sharia. Taqiuddin al-Nabhani, the founder of a transnational political movement devoted to the revival of the Caliphate, writes that although the Shura is an important part of “the ruling structure” of the Islamic caliphate, “(it is) not one of its pillars”, meaning that its neglect would not make a Caliph’s rule un-Islamic such as to justify a rebellion. However, the Muslim Brotherhood, the largest Islamic movement in Egypt, has toned down these Islamist views by accepting in principle that in the modern age the Majlis al-Shura is democracy but during its governance of Egypt in 2013, the Muslim Brotherhood did not put that principle into practice.

    Accountability of rulers

    Sunni Islamic lawyers have commented on when it is permissible to disobey, impeach or remove rulers in the Caliphate. This is usually when the rulers are not meeting their obligations to the public under Islam.

    Al-Mawardi said that if the rulers meet their Islamic responsibilities to the public the people must obey their laws, but a Caliph or ruler who becomes either unjust or severely ineffective must be impeached via the Majlis al-Shura. Similarly, Al-Baghdadi[clarification needed]believed that if the rulers do not uphold justice, the ummah via the majlis should warn them, and a Caliph who does not heed the warning can be impeached. Al-Juwayni argued that Islam is the goal of the ummah, so any ruler who deviates from this goal must be impeached. Al-Ghazali believed that oppression by a caliph is sufficient grounds for impeachment. Rather than just relying on impeachment, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani stated that the people have an obligation to rebel if the caliph begins to act with no regard for Islamic law. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani said that to ignore such a situation is haraam and those who cannot revolt from inside the caliphate should launch a struggle from outside. Al-Asqalani used two ayahs from the Qur’an to justify this:

    “…And they (the sinners on qiyama) will say, ‘Our Lord! We obeyed our leaders and our chiefs, and they misled us from the right path. Our Lord! Give them (the leaders) double the punishment you give us and curse them with a very great curse’…”[33:67–68]

    Islamic lawyers commented that when the rulers refuse to step down after being impeached through the Majlis, becoming dictators through the support of a corrupt army, if the majority is in agreement they have the option to launch a revolution. Many noted that this option is to be exercised only after factoring in the potential cost of life.[4]

    Rule of law

    See also: Sharia and Islamic ethics

    The following hadith establishes the principle of rule of law in relation to nepotism and accountability[96]

    Narrated ‘Aisha: The people of Quraish worried about the lady from Bani Makhzum who had committed theft. They asked, “Who will intercede for her with Allah’s Apostle?” Some said, “No one dare to do so except Usama bin Zaid the beloved one to Allah’s Apostle.” When Usama spoke about that to Allah’s Apostle; Allah’s Apostle said: “Do you try to intercede for somebody in a case connected with Allah’s Prescribed Punishments?” Then he got up and delivered a sermon saying, “What destroyed the nations preceding you, was that if a noble amongst them stole, they would forgive him, and if a poor person amongst them stole, they would inflict Allah’s Legal punishment on him. By Allah, if Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad (my daughter) stole, I would cut off her hand.”

    Various Islamic lawyers, however, place multiple conditions and stipulations on the execution of such a law, making it difficult to implement. For example, the poor cannot be penalized for stealing out of poverty, and during a time of drought in the Rashidun caliphate,capital punishment was suspended until the effects of the drought passed.

    Islamic jurists later formulated the concept that all classes were subject to the law of the land, and no person is above the law; officials and private citizens alike have a duty to obey the same law. Furthermore, a Qadi (Islamic judge) was not allowed to discriminate on the grounds of religion, race, colour, kinship or prejudice. In a number of cases, Caliphs had to appear before judges as they prepared to render their verdict.[97]

    According to Noah Feldman, a law professor at Harvard University, the system of legal scholars and jurists responsible for the rule of law was replaced by the codification of Sharia by the Ottoman Empire in the early 19th century:[98]

    Economy

    During the Muslim Agricultural Revolution, the Caliphate understood that real incentives were needed to increase productivity and wealth and thus enhance tax revenues. A social transformation took place as a result of changing land ownership[99] giving individuals of any gender,[100]ethnic or religious background the right to buy, sell, mortgage, and inherit land for farming or any other purpose. Based on the Quran, signatures were required on contracts for every major financial transaction concerning agriculture, industry,commerce, and employment. Copies of the contract were usually kept by both parties involved.[99]

    There are similarities between Islamic economics and leftist or socialist economic policies. Islamic jurists have argued that privatization of the origin of oil, gas, and other fire-producing fuels, agricultural land, and water is forbidden. The principle of public or joint ownership has been drawn by Muslim jurists from the following hadith of Muhammad:

    Ibn Abbas reported that the Messenger of Allah said: “All Muslims are partners in three things- in water, herbage and fire.” (Narrated in Abu Daud, & Ibn Majah)[101] Anas added to the above hadith, “Its price is Haram (forbidden).”[citation needed]

    Jurists have argued by qiyas that the above restriction on privatization can be extended to all essential resources that benefit the community as a whole.[citation needed]

    Aside from similarities to socialism, early forms of proto-capitalism and free markets were present in the Caliphate,[102] since an early market economy and early form of merchant capitalism developed between the 8th and 12th centuries, which some refer to as “Islamic capitalism”.[103] A vigorous monetary economy developed based on the circulation of a stable high-value currency (the dinar) and the integration of previously independent monetary areas. Business techniques and forms of business organization employed during this time included early contracts, bills of exchange, long-distance international trade, early forms of partnership (mufawada) such as limited partnerships (mudaraba), and early forms of credit, debt, profit, loss, capital (al-mal), capital accumulation (nama al-mal),[104]circulating capital, capital expenditure, revenue, cheques, promissory notes,[105]trusts (waqf), startup companies,[106]savings accounts, transactional accounts, pawning, loaning, exchange rates, bankers, money changers, ledgers, deposits, assignments, the double-entry bookkeeping system,[107] and lawsuits.[108]Organizationalenterprises similar to corporations independent from the state also existed in the medieval Islamic world.[109][110] Many of these concepts were adopted and further advanced in medieval Europe from the 13th century onwards.[104]

    The concepts of welfare and pension were introduced in early Islamic law as forms of Zakat (charity), one of the Five Pillars of Islam, since the time of the Rashidun caliphUmar in the 7th century. The taxes (including Zakat and Jizya) collected in the treasury (Bayt al-mal) of an Islamic government were used to provide income for the needy, including the poor, elderly, orphans, widows, and the disabled. According to the Islamic jurist Al-Ghazali (Algazel, 1058–1111), the government was also expected to stockpile food supplies in every region in case a disaster or famine occurred.[citation needed]

    The demographics of medieval Islamic society varied in some significant aspects from other agricultural societies, including a decline in birth rates as well as a change in life expectancy. Other traditional agrarian societies are estimated to have had an average life expectancy of 20 to 25 years,[111] while ancient Rome and medieval Europe are estimated at 20 to 30 years.[112] The life expectancy of Islamic society diverged from that of other traditional agrarian societies, with several studies on the lifespans of Islamic scholarsconcluding that members of this occupational group enjoyed a life expectancy between 69 and 75 years.[113] Such studies have given the following estimates for the average lifespans of religious scholars at various times and places: 72.8 years in the Middle East, 69–75 years in 11th century Islamic Spain,[114] 75 years in 12th century Persia,[115] and 59–72 years in 13th century Persia.[116] However, Maya Shatzmiller considers these religious scholars to be a misleading sample who are not representative of the general population.[117] Conrad I. Lawrence estimates the average lifespan in the early Islamic Caliphate to be above 35 years for the general population.[118]

    The early Islamic Empire also had the highest literacy rates among pre-modern societies, alongside the city of classical Athens in the 4th century BC,[119] and later, China after the introduction of printing from the 10th century.[120] One factor for the relatively high literacy rates in the early Islamic Empire was its parent-driven educational marketplace, as the state did not systematically subsidize educational services until the introduction of state funding under Nizam al-Mulk in the 11th century.[121] Another factor was the diffusion of paper from China,[122] which led to an efflorescence of books and written culture in Islamic society; thus papermaking technology transformed Islamic society (and later, the rest of Afro-Eurasia) from an oral to scribal culture, comparable to the later shifts from scribal to typographic culture, and from typographic culture to the Internet.[123] Other factors include the widespread use of paper books in Islamic society (more so than any other previously existing society), the study and memorization of the Qur’an, flourishingcommercial activity, and the emergence of the Maktab and Madrasah educational institutions.[124]

    Difference between caliphate and democracy

    Source of legislation

    In a democracy, laws are made by an assembly elected by the people; in a caliphate, the sources of legislation are supposed to be the Qur’an and the Sunnah۔ Concerning the supremacy of God in making laws rather than people, the Qur’an states:

    Say, “Allah is most knowing of how long they remained. He has [knowledge of] the unseen [aspects] of the heavens and the earth. How Seeing is He and how Hearing! They have not besides Him any protector, and He shares not His legislation with anyone.” (18:26)

    “Legislation is not but for Allah”. (12:40)

    [We said], “O David, indeed We have made you a caliph upon the earth, so judge between the people in truth and do not follow [your own] desire, as it will lead you astray from the way of Allah.” Indeed, those who go astray from the way of Allah will have a severe punishment for having forgotten the Day of Account. (38:26)

    Concerning the dangers of following the will of the people (rather than the will of God as expressed in the Qur’an and the sunnah), the Qur’an states:

    And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah . They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying. (2:116)

    but most of the people do not know. (12:40)

    And indeed, many among the people, of Our signs, are heedless. (10:92)

    And indeed, many among the people are defiantly disobedient. Then is it the judgement of [the time of] ignorance they desire? But who is better than Allah in judgement for a people who are certain [in faith]. (5:49-50)

    Or do they say, “In him is madness?” Rather, he brought them the truth, but most of them, to the truth, are averse. But if the Truth had followed their inclinations, the heavens and the earth and whoever is in them would have been ruined. Rather, We have brought them their message, but they, from their message, are turning away. (23:70-71)

    And indeed do many lead [others] astray through their [own] inclinations without knowledge. Indeed, your Lord – He is most knowing of the transgressors. (2:119)

    While in a democracy, people vote for members of their representative assembly (and may impact legislation through direct votes in referenda), in a caliphate popular feedback is provided through a consultative group (shura), although this happened rarely in the historical caliphates. The Qur’an mentions this:

    And those who have responded to their lord and established prayer and whose affair is [determined by] consultation among themselves, and from what We have provided them, they spend. (42:38)

    Selection of the leader

    In a democracy, the head of government is elected (directly or indirectly) by the people and must meet requirements established in legislation. A democratic leader is answerable to the people.

    A candidate for caliph must meet the conditions described in the Qur’an and the Sunnah, which are as follows:

    1. He must be a Muslim.
    2. He must be an adult (past puberty)
    3. He must be male.
    4. He must be sane.
    5. He must be just (عادل ‘aadil).
    6. He must not be a faasiq (فاسق), that is, someone publicly known to be a sinner.
    7. He must be capable of carrying the responsibility of a Caliph.

    The right to choose a leader belongs to the Muslim public, generally known as the Muslim Ummah (أمة مسلمة) referring to all Muslims as a single group. The non-Muslim residents of the caliphate do not have any voice in this matter. The Muslim Ummah may choose a leader through any of the following means.

    1. If a caliph is given the pledge of allegiance by Ahl al hal wal ‘aqd (أهل الحل والعقد), which signifies the people of authority and influence. These are the people whom the public listens to, and who represent the public. If they give the pledge of allegiance (Bay’ah) to any one person, he has been enacted the caliph. This is how Abu Bakr, the first caliph was chosen.
    2. The Muslim public may delegate their right to choose to a person who they believe will make the right decision. If this person then pledges allegiance to anyone, he is enacted the caliph. Omar, the second caliph, was chosen this way by Abu Bakr when the public asked him to choose his successor. Otherwise, a caliph does not have the right to choose his successor.
    3. The caliph may be elected by general election. This was the mode of succession of Uthman, the third caliph.
    4. If a large group of Muslims pledges allegiance to a person, he is enacted caliph. This was the mode of succession of Ali, the fourth caliph.

    The above are the only valid ways by which a caliph may accede to the caliphate. The determining factor of the enactment of a person’s caliphate is the Bay’ah, of which there are two versions: Bay’atul In’iqaad (بيعة الإنعقاد), the pledge of enactment is the Bay’ah that enacts that Caliphate of a Caliph, and it is not required to be given by all Muslims, as detailed in the above four points. Bay’atul Itaa’ah (بيعة الإطاعة), the pledge of obedience is the pledge given by the general (Muslim) public. It may not always be given explicitly by every Muslim, but it is an individual obligation (Fard فرض) for every Muslim.

    The Caliph, once enacted, serves for life, unless a change in his situation causes him to no longer fulfill the seven aforementioned conditions, or if he begins to defy the Quran and Sunnah in his rule, or fails to implement the Shari’ah. In this case, the Chief Justice, known as Qadi al Qudat (قاضي القضاة) is authorized to depose him. If he insists on remaining in power, he must be deposed forcefully, which becomes a duty upon Muslims.

    There may be only one Caliph at a time (in the world). Anyone who declares himself Caliph while there is an existing Caliph is subject to execution by Shari’ah Law. Obedience to the Caliph is a duty upon every Muslim, as long as the Caliph does not issue any commands such that obedience would entail disobedience to Allah or His Messenger. Moreover, if the Caliph becomes subject to deposition, the Bay’ah contract is considered voided, and obedience is no longer required of Muslims.

    Notable caliphs

    For a more comprehensive list, see List of Caliphs.
    • Rashidun (“Righteously Guided”)
      • Abu Bakr, first Rashidun Caliph. Subdued rebel tribes in the Ridda wars.
      • Umar (Umar ibn al-Khattab), second Rashidun Caliph. During his reign, the Islamic empire expanded to include Egypt, Jerusalem and Persia.
      • Uthman Ibn Affan, third Rashidun Caliph. The various written copies of the Qur’an were standardized under his direction. Killed by rebels.
      • Ali (Ali ibn Abu Talib), fourth Rashidun Caliph. Considered by Shi’a Muslims however to be the first Imam. His reign was fraught with internal conflict, with Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (Muawiyah I) and Amr ibn al-As controlling the Levant and Egypt regions independently of Ali.
    • Hasan ibn Ali, fifth Caliph. Considered as “rightly guided” by several historians. He abdicated his right to the caliphate in favour of Muawiyah I in order to end the potential for ruinous civil war.
    • Muawiyah I, first caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. Muawiyah instituted dynastic rule by appointing his son Yazid I as his successor, a trend that would continue through subsequent caliphates.
    • Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz (Umar II), Umayyad caliph who is considered one of the finest rulers in Muslim history. He is also considered by some (mainly Sunnis) to be among the “rightly guided” caliphs.
    • Harun al-Rashid, Abbasid caliph during whose reign Baghdad became the world’s prominent centre of trade, learning, and culture. Harun is the subject of many stories in the famous One Thousand and One Nights. He established the legendary library Bayt al-Hikma (“House of Wisdom”).
    • Al-Ma’mun, a great Abbasid patron of Islamic philosophy and science.
    • Mehmed II, an Ottoman caliph who brought an end to the Byzantine Empire.
    • Suleiman the Magnificent, an Ottoman caliph during whose reign the Ottoman Empire reached its zenith.
    • Abdul Hamid II, last Ottoman caliph to rule with independent, absolute power.
    • Abdülmecid II, last caliph of the Ottoman dynasty. Nominally the 37th Head of the Ottoman dynasty.

    See also

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

    Did Eisenhower Steal the Presidency?

    According to popular legend, Dwight Eisenhower was a shoo-in for the Presidency in 1952. He won the Republican primary on the first ballot by a large margin. He then proceeded to crush Adlai Stevenson in the general election. But in truth, he came very close to losing the primary race and only prevailed thanks to some questionable tactics. Did Eisenhower steal the nomination and thus, the Presidency?

    General Eisenhower versus “Mr. Republican”?

    In the aftermath of World War II, General Eisenhower was immensely popular with Americans and both parties courted him as a Presidential candidate. Initially, “Ike” showed little interest. However, that changed when he met Robert Taft, aka “Mr. Republican.”

    Taft was the leader of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party (a mantle now carried by Dr. Ron Paul). He believed in reducing the size of government and supported a policy of non-interventionism. But his opposition to the Cold War didn’t sit well with Eisenhower. At the same time, the Democrats looked particularly vulnerable thanks to public disgust with corruption in President Truman’s administration. Many people thought that the Republican nominee, regardless of who it was, would easily win the Presidency.

    Although Eisenhower had yet to commit to the race, his name was put forth on the New Hampshire ballot by Thomas Dewey, Taft’s arch rival. He didn’t campaign. He hadn’t even expressed his opinion on political issues. And yet, he won convincingly. Shortly afterward, Eisenhower decided to throw his hat into the ring.

    The Race for the Republican Nomination?

    The campaign that followed was one of the most bitter and hotly contested races in history. Eisenhower enjoyed tremendous popularity and attracted tons of new voters to the party who were derisively referred to as “Republicans for a Day.” But Taft was popular as well. In addition, he faced a structural advantage. Back then, the majority of convention delegates were chosen by caucuses. And most of those caucuses were controlled by Taft supporters. As the Republican Convention neared, Taft had 530 delegates to Ike’s 427. Still, although Taft was in control, he was short of the 604 delegates needed to secure the nomination.

    Eisenhower’s team swiftly accused Taft of stealing delegates from Texas, Louisiana, and Georgia. Supposedly, Taft supporters had kept Eisenhower voters from participating in these caucuses. The voters proceeded to form their own pro-Eisenhower delegations, which resulted in conflicting delegations being sent to the Republican Convention. Taft’s team offered a compromise split of the delegates but Ike’s people refused, believing that they could use the issue to their advantage at the Convention.

    The 1952 Republican Convention?

    In July 1952, the Convention opened. Taft had every reason to be optimistic. Besides his lead in delegates, the committees were largely controlled by his team. But Ike’s people were prepared. They quickly proposed the “Fair Play” rule, which would forbid contested delegates from participating in roll call votes. Taft’s team badly mishandled the parliamentary issue and as a result, lost the fight. This vote remains controversial today as many people believe that third-place candidate Earl Warren’s decision to support “Fair Play” was influenced by Eisenhower offering him a position on the Supreme Court.

    With Taft’s delegates forced to sit on the sidelines, Eisenhower had the numerical advantage for the remainder of the roll call votes. This led to a series of votes in which Taft’s contested delegates were rejected and Eisenhower’s were approved. Still, Taft thought he had a chance. Even with the newfound delegates, Eisenhower seemed likely to garner just 560 votes, well short of 604. But during the first roll call vote, Ike took 595 votes to just 500 for Taft thanks to the support from several uncommitted delegations. Recognizing a patronage opportunity, Minnesota party leaders quickly switched their 20 votes to Eisenhower and the battle was over. Others followed suit and Eisenhower ended up winning on the first ballot by a vote of 845 to 280 (with an additional 77 delegates supporting Earl Warren).

    Guerrilla Explorer’s Analysis

    So, did Eisenhower steal the primary election and thus, the Presidency? He didn’t do anything illegal. Still, his victory can be attributed largely to parliamentary trickery that kept Taft’s delegates from having a voice at the Convention. It’s possible that Eisenhower deserved those delegates in the first place although Taft vigorously denied any wrongdoing. It should also be noted that Taft won the popular vote handily, with 2.8 million votes to just 2.1 million votes for Ike. Still, he wasn’t the clear favorite since this represented just 35.8% of all votes.

    The various Republican factions were clearly divided over their choices in 1952. But after the Convention, they joined forces and thus propelled Eisenhower to the Presidency in a landslide. As for Taft, he fell sick soon after the Convention and passed away in 1953. His death, coupled with Ike’s victory, marked the end of the Old Right wing of the Republican Party and the subsequent rise of the Conservative movement.

    http://www.davidmeyercreations.com/mysteries-of-history/did-eisenhower-steal-the-presidency/

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 695-698

    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 01-09

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

    The Pronk Pops Show 568, November 4, 2015, Story 1: Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA and Expanded DACA programs Court injunction — Criminal Behavior — Waiting For Court Decision And Action Against Obama’s Department of Homeland Security — Stop The Illegal Alien Invasion Now! — Videos

    Posted on November 4, 2015. Filed under: American History, Assault, Blogroll, Breaking News, College, Communications, Congress, Constitutional Law, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Energy, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Government, Government Spending, Hillary Clinton, History, Homicide, House of Representatives, Illegal Immigration, Immigration, Independence, Labor Economics, Law, Obama, Progressives, Public Sector Unions, Radio, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Scandals, Senate, Social Security, Taxation, Taxes, Terror, Terrorism, Transportation, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, Wall Street Journal, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 568: November 4, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 567: November 3, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 566: November 2, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 565: October 30, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 564: October 29, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 563: October 28, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 562: October 27, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 561: October 26, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 560: October 23, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 559: October 22, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 558: October 21, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 557: October 20, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 556: October 19, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 555: October 16, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 554: October 15, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 553: October 14, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 552: October 13, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 551: October 12, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 550: October 9, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 549: October 8, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 548: October 7, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 547: October 5, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 546: October 2, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 545: October 1, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 544: September 30, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 543: September 29, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 542: September 28, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 541: September 25, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 540: September 24, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 539: September 23, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

    Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

    Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

    Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

    Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

    Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

    Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

    Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

    Story 1: Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA and Expanded DACA programs Court injunction — Criminal Behavior — Waiting For Court Decision And Action Against Obama’s Department of Homeland Security — Stop The Illegal Alien Invasion Now! — Videos

    EAD-Frontead_back-features

    daca DACA-EXPANSION dapa immigrationesq_infographDAPA-DACA-Injunction

    The ten countries with greatest number of foreign born residents.
    10. Spain 6.5 million immigrants (13.8% of pop)
    9. Australia 6.5 million immigrants (27.7%)
    8. Canada 7.3 million immigrants (20.7%)
    7. France 7.4 million immigrants (11.6%)
    6. United Kingdom 7.8 million immigrants (12.4%)
    5. United Arab Emirates 7.8 million immigrants (83.7%)
    4. Saudi Arabia 9.1 million immigrants (31.4%)
    3. Germany 9.8 million immigrants (11.9%)
    2. Russia 11 million immigrants (7.7%)
    1. USA 45.7 million immigrants (14.3%)

    borderpatrolapprehensionsBorder-Graphs1
    DHS’ STRATEGY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER
    BorderApprehensions02_citizens apps    CRS_ApprehensionsOverTime

    U S House Speaker Ryan rules out work with Obama on immigration

    Sheriff Joe Arpaio on ruling that halts immigration order Fox News Video

    Ingraham: Trump speaks bluntly about Americans’ concerns

    Donald Trump on The Laura Ingraham Radio Show – August 26, 2015

    FEDERAL Judge Rips DOJ Lawyer a Liar In OBAMA’s Executive Amnesty

    Published on Mar 20, 2015

    The U.S. Government lied to a federal judge, misrepresented facts and illegally gave 100,081 illegal aliens immigration status despite a pending lawsuit and an injunction. That is the argument that attorneys representing Texas and more than two dozen other states made.

    During the heated court hearing Andrew Hanen, a U.S. District Court Judge, said that the apparent violation had made him look like an idiot since he initially believed the U.S. Government.

    In a heated court hearing Angela Colmonero from the Texas Attorney General’s office stated that Texas had acted promptly in November 2014 upon learning of President Barack Obama’s executive amnesty and had followed all the timelines set forth with a sense of urgency.

    “This was done to preserve the status quo and to prevent irreparable damage to the state,” Colmonero said referring to the cost that the individuals would bring and to the incentive for further illegal immigration. “You can’t put toothpaste back in the tube.”

    During the hearings leading to an injunction handed down by Judge Hanen, attorney’s with the Department of Justice claimed that if an injunction was filed nothing would be done. That wasn’t the case, the Texas attorney said.

    “The defendant did the exact opposite and gave 100,000 renewals for a term of three years under the expanded DACA,” Colmonero said. “The defendant didn’t inform the court until March 3—15 days after the injunction was filed.”

    According to Colmonero’s statements, the program known as DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival) was implemented in 2012; however in November 2014 it was expanded, changing the time of the permits from two years to three years. Therefore the permits issued by the U.S. Government are a violation.

    The coalition of states asked the court to give them early access as to the defendant’s documents and files since they couldn’t be taken at their word, Colmonero said.

    DOJ attorney Kathleen Hardeck appeared nervous as she stuttered her response saying it was the terminology used that led to confusion, but once they saw that things could be misinterpreted they had tried to notify the court.

    “When I asked you what would happen and you said nothing I took it to heart,” Hanen said. “I was made to look like an idiot. I believed your word that nothing would happen.”

    During the hearing Hanen talked about possible penalties if, in fact, the evidence proved that the government had lied. He said it would probably not be financial since the taxpayer would be footing the bill over damages already made to them.

    Corsi: Illegal Alien Invasion at Brink of Tearing USA Apart

    Obama vows to abide by immigration court order

    Obama’s Executive Order: Immigration, Amnesty and Contradictions

    Advocates demand court decision on Obama’s immigration relief programs

    Federal court rules against Obama immigration orders

    The U.S Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals denied a request from the Justice Department to allow President Obama’s controversial immigration actions to go into effect pending an appeal.

    Illegal Immigrants, Crime And The Media – Laura Ingraham O’Reilly Talking Point – Wake Up America!

    Laura Ingraham lights up Special Report

    Illegal Immigrant Outrage – Rap Sheet Incl 5 Deportations, 7 Felonies – Laura Ingraham Fox & Friends

    Laura Ingraham Confronts Marco Rubio Over Immigration Reform: ‘Stop Dividing The Republican Party’

    Published on Jun 4, 2013

    6/4/13 – During a segment on Fox & Friends on Tuesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) joined conservative radio host Laura Ingraham to discuss the scandals surrounding the IRS and the Department of Justice. The conversation quickly turned to Rubio’s efforts to reform the immigration system where Ingraham and Rubio found themselves on opposing sides of that issue. Ingraham implored the junior senator from Florida to drop immigration reform, stop “dividing the Republican Party,” and focus on Americans’ true priorities.

    Obama’s Secret Bypass Of The U S Government On Illegal Immigration

    Obama’s Cloward-Piven Strategy

    Cloward Piven Strategy

    Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

    Roy Beck explains why immigration from third world make no sense

    Numbers USA’s Roy Beck on Illegal Aliens Coming to a Town Near You

    How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 1

    How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Walsh – 2

    How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 2.

    Census Bureau estimates of the number of illegals in the U.S. are suspect and may represent significant undercounts. The studies presented by these authors show that the numbers of illegal aliens in the U.S. could range from 20 to 38 million.

    On October 3, 2007, a press conference and panel discussion was hosted by Californians for Population Stabilization (http://www.CAPSweb.org) and The Social Contract (http://www.TheSocialContract.com) to discuss alternative methodologies for estimating the true numbers of illegal aliens residing in the United States.

    This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:

    Mark Levin: The Cloward Piven & Obama strategy

    Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Obama Immigration Action Lawsuit

    Obama Immigration plan blocked

    ALERT! Obama Quietly Prepares ‘Surge’ of Millions of New Immigrant IDs!

    Despite no official action from the president ahead of the election, the Obama administration has quietly begun preparing to issue millions of work authorization permits, suggesting the implementation of a large-scale executive amnesty may have already begun.
    Unnoticed until now, a draft solicitation for bids issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Oct. 6 says potential vendors must be capable of handling a “surge” scenario of 9 million id cards in one year “to support possible future immigration reform initiative requirements.”
    The request for proposals says the agency will need a minimum of four million cards per year. In the “surge,” scenario in 2016, the agency would need an additional five million cards – more than double the baseline annual amount for a total of 9 million.
    “The guaranteed minimum for each ordering period is 4,000,000 cards. The estimated maximum for the entire contract is 34,000,000 cards,” the document says.
    The agency is buying the materials need to construct both Permanent Residency Cards (PRC), commonly known as green cards, as well as Employment Authorization Documentation (EAD) cards which have been used to implement President Obama’s “Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals” (DACA) program. The RFP does not specify how many of each type of card would be issued.
    Jessica Vaughn, an immigration expert at the Center for Immigration Studies and former State Department official, said the document suggests a new program of remarkable breadth.
    The RFP “seems to indicate that the president is contemplating an enormous executive action that is even more expansive than the plan that Congress rejected in the ‘Gang of Eight’ bill,” Vaughn said.

    Employment authorization document

    An employment authorization document (EAD, Form I-765), EAD card, known popularly as a “work permit”, is a document issued by United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) that provides its holder a legal right to work in the US. It is similar to, but should not be confused with the green card.
    Certain ‘aliens’ (non-residents) who are temporarily in the United States may file a Form I-765, application for employment authorization, to request an EAD. An EAD is issued for a specific period of time based on alien’s immigration situation. Foreign nationals with an EAD can lawfully work in the United States for any employer.

    Immigration Visa LC and EAD Differences Immigration 1 Visa USA

    USCIS Form I-765 – Application for Employment Authorization

    Deferred Action for Parental Accountability(DAPA) and Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals(DACA)

    President Obama’s DACA and DAPA Immigration Reform

    President Obama’s DACA and DAPA Guidelines

    OPT – Optional Practical Training for F1 Students

    Optional Practical Training (OPT)

    Still Report #443 – Dealing With the Muslim Invasion

    Still Report #442 – Sweden Could Collapse

    Europeans Begin to Revolt Over Migrant Invasion

    Islamic Invasion PROTEST Thousands in Germany, Hungary, Italy

    Anti Muslim invasion March in Warsaw, Poland, Sept 12, 2015

    Muslim Invasion Being Used To Destroy Western Culture

    WHY MUSLIMS IMMIGRATE TO CHRISTIAN COUNTRIES

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

    Europe could sink into chaos due to muslim immigration

    Migrant Crisis Signals Next World War

    Donald Trump About Europe Migrant Crisis EU Illegal Invader Crisis

    Top 10 Immigrant Countries

    The ten countries with greatest number of foreign born residents.
    10. Spain 6.5 million immigrants (13.8% of pop)
    9. Australia 6.5 million immigrants (27.7%)
    8. Canada 7.3 million immigrants (20.7%)
    7. France 7.4 million immigrants (11.6%)
    6. United Kingdom 7.8 million immigrants (12.4%)
    5. United Arab Emirates 7.8 million immigrants (83.7%)
    4. Saudi Arabia 9.1 million immigrants (31.4%)
    3. Germany 9.8 million immigrants (11.9%)
    2. Russia 11 million immigrants (7.7%)
    1. USA 45.7 million immigrants (14.3%)

    The World in 2015: Global population and the changing shape of world demographics

    Demographic Winter – the decline of the human family (Full Movie)

    Future World Populations (2050)

    Leaked DHS memo shows Obama might circumvent DAPA injunction

    A newly leaked internal DHS memorandum produced for an off-the-record agency conclave reveals that the Obama administration is actively planning to circumvent a federal court injunction that suspended part of last November’s deferral-based amnesty initiative. The document, apparently prepared as follow-up from a DHS “Regulations Retreat” last summer, appears sure to re-ignite concerns in Congress as well as federal judges in the Fifth Circuit. The Administration has already been criticized from the bench for handing out work permits to hundreds of thousands of deferred action beneficiaries, in direct violation of a district court’s order. With the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals deciding any day now whether to deny the Administration’s request to reverse that injunction, this public leak has come at a critical juncture for U.S. enforcement policy.

    Last June, four months after Texas federal judge Andrew Hanen’s order to freeze President’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs—disclosure: the Immigration Reform Law Institute has filed briefs in these cases—DHS’s immigration policy makers apparently held a “Regulations Retreat” to discuss “different options” for “open market Employment Authorization Document (EAD) regulatory changes.” EAD is the statutory term for work permits. From a memo recording these discussions, we now know that the Obama DHS has, rather than pausing to allow the courts to assess the constitutionality of its enforcement nullification initiatives, been gearing up to roll out one or more of four plans drawn up at the meeting, each one designed to provide EADs to millions of nonimmigrants, including those lawfully present and visa overstayers, crippling the actual employment-based visa system on the federal statute-book.

    The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADs only to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.
    As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

    The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

    Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016. According to the authors, one negative factor for granting EADs to illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, etc., is that they’ll still “face difficulties in pursuing permanent residence due to ineligibility or being subject to unlawful presence inadmissibility for which a waiver is required.” This is in reference to the reality that an EAD isn’t a green card and that eventually the EAD-beneficiaries are supposed to apply to ‘adjust their status,’ which cannot be done without showing evidence of lawful status. But this might change, they write. The DHS “macro-level policy goal”, we’re told, is to assist individuals to stay “until they are ready and able to become immigrants.” This would seem to say that DHS, the largest federal law enforcement agency in the nation, is banking on awarding those who’ve broken our laws and violated our national sovereignty.

    Will the 26 plaintiff states that have challenged the President’s DAPA program bring this memo to the Fifth Circuit’s attention, before they issue their closely-awaited decision? If this document is indeed the cutting edge of Obama’s strategy for DHS to circumvent Judge Hanen’s injunction order, it would confirm the Administration’s bad faith and contempt both for the court and the law.

    Smith is an investigative associate with the Immigration Reform Law Institute.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/the-administration/258689-leaked-dhs-memo-shows-obama-might-circumvent-dapa

    Obama set to defy federal court on amnesty

    By Rick Moran

    Once again, President Obama is looking to defy Congress in implementing its immigration reform proposals.

    This time, his administration is looking to also defy a federal court to achieve it.

    A judge sitting on the 5th Circuit in Texas issued an injunction last June against the administration’s regulatory plans to legalize millions of aliens in the U.S. illegally.  The injunction was upheld by a federal appeals court in Louisiana, and the president’s plan is now stalled while the administration works through the federal court system.

    Except now there are plans afoot to change the regulations pertaining to green cards that would accomplish almost everything the president can’t get from Congress or the courts.  A leaked memo from DHS outlines four plans the administration is considering.

    Ian Smith of the Immigration Reform Law Institute:

    The internal memo reveals four options of varying expansiveness, with option 1 providing EADs to “all individuals living in the United States”, including illegal aliens, visa-overstayers, and H-1B guest-workers, while option 4 provides EADsonly to those on certain unexpired non-immigrant visas. Giving EADs to any of the covered individuals, however, is in direct violation of Congress’s Immigration & Nationality Act and works to dramatically subvert our carefully wrought visa system.

    As mentioned, the first plan the memo discusses basically entails giving EADs to anyone physically present in the country who until now has been prohibited from getting one. A major positive to this option, the memo reads, is that it would “address the needs of some of the intended deferred action population.” Although DHS doesn’t say it expressly, included here would be those 4.3 million people covered by the president’s DAPA and Expanded DACA programs whose benefits were supposed to have been halted in the Hanen decision. On top of working around the Hanen injunction, this DHS plan would also dole out unrestricted EADs to those on temporary non-immigrant visas, such as H-1B-holders (their work authorizations being tied to their employers) and another 5 to 6 million illegal aliens thus far not covered by any of the President’s deferred action amnesty programs. By claiming absolute authority to grant work authorization to any alien, regardless of status, DHS is in effect claiming it can unilaterally de-couple the 1986 IRCA work authorization statutes from the main body of U.S. visa law. While DHS must still observe the statutory requirements for issuing visas, the emerging doctrine concedes, the administration now claims unprecedented discretionary power to permit anyone inside our borders to work.

    Get a load of what the DHS bureaucrats think about illegals working in the U.S.:

    The anonymous DHS policymakers state that a positive for this option is that it “could cover a greater number of individuals.” In a strikingly conclusory bit of bureaucratese, they state that because illegal aliens working in the country “have already had the US labor market tested” it has been “demonstrat[ed] that their future employment won’t adversely affect US workers.” The labor market, in other words, has already been stress-tested through decades of foreign-labor dumping and the American working-class, which disproportionately includes minorities, working mothers, the elderly, and students, is doing just fine. Apparently, the fact that 66 million Americans and legal aliens are currently unemployed or out of the job-market was not a discussion point at the DHS “Retreat.”

    Smith concludes: “Bottom line: The memo foreshadows more tactical offensives in a giant administrative amnesty for all 12 million illegal aliens who’ve broken our immigration laws (and many other laws) that will emerge before the next inaugural in January 2016.”

    I’m not sure that judge in Texas will let the administration get away with this.  When the government began handing out green cards anyway in defiance of the injunction, the judge, Andrew Hanen, threatened to arrest the lot of them for contempt.  He forced the government to recall the green cards immediately.  There will be no circumventing the law in his court.

    But the plans may be untouchable because they don’t directly stem from the series of executive orders currently being adjudicated.  Of course, any plan to blanket the country in work permits for illegals will be challenged in court.  But eventually, the administration may find a friendly judge who gives it the go-ahead.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/11/obama_set_to_defy_federal_court_on_amnesty.html

    OBAMA PREPARES GIVE-AWAY OF WHITE-COLLAR JOBS AND CITIZENSHIP TO FOREIGN GRADUATES

    President Barack Obama’s deputies are quietly hacking a gap through immigration regulations to allow them to import hundreds of thousands of university-trained foreign workers for jobs sought by American college grads.

    By Neil Munro

    “They’re bending immigration law until it almost breaks,”  says Ian Smith, a lawyer at the Immigration Reform Law Institute. The Obama-hack, he added, should be fixed by Congress or a judge

    The regulatory hack is part of Obama’s broad immigration-boosting alliance with Fortune 500 Companies and the GOP’s establishment. In 2013 and 2014, most — but not all — of his prior amnesty and immigration plans were blocked by voters and judges, despite furious lobbying of the GOP by business.

    If Obama succeeds, he would make life tougher for young and middle-aged American graduates, who are already facing wage-cutting competition from the roughly 1 million white-collar guest-workers that the U.S. government allows to live in the United States. The extra foreign graduates would also deter young Americans from high-tech careers, and provide the Democratic Party with more donations and more voters.

    But Obama’s hack would also spotlight a large opportunity for any GOP 2016 candidate eager to win votes from America’s young college-grads, their parents and the hard-pressed professional sector. So far, only Donald Trump has seized the opportunity by promising to make foreign guest-workers more expensive to hire. If he is elected, and reforms the H-1B program, he’d likely transfer roughly 600,000 guest-worker jobs to American graduates.

    That’s almost equal to the number of Americans who graduate each year from college with skilled degrees.

    Basically, Obama’s regulatory hack would convert a long-standing bureaucratic band-aid into a process for printing extra work-permits.

    The decision has not been announced, but is being finalized by officials at the Department of State and the Department of Homeland Security, Smith told Breitbart News.

    Currently, the band-aid, dubbed the Employment Authorization Document, is given to people who have been approved for — but have not yet received — their Green Cards.

    But there’s no statute that limits how early the EADS can be granted to people who apply for Green Cards.

    So the administration now wants to award EADs up to six years before foreign workers can get Green Cards, says Smith.

    That change would convert the bureaucratic band-aid EADs into provision

    Rep. Al Green (D-TX) 15%

    Cards. Early distribution of EADs would allow many guest-workers to become U.S. residents and citizens, even though they’re carrying visas that last only two, four or six years.

    “The administration is straying so far beyond the bounds of reasonable interpretation that no court would find passing the laugh test,” Smith said. The “willing distortion… turns the standard into an absolute absurdity,” he added.

    The number of people who would get EADs and Green Cards via Obama’s hack is unclear.  That’s because outsiders don’t know what how far Obama’s deputies are going to extend the EAD give-away.

    Currently, the government awards short-term work-visas — not Green Cards — to roughly 500,000 blue-collar guest workers, 250,000 college grads and roughly 50,000 agricultural workers each year. Those work-visas are in addition to the annual inflow of 1 million legal migrants and roughly 350,000 illegal migrants.

    That’s a huge 2 million inflow compared to the 4 million Americans who enter the workforce each year, or the roughly 800,000 Americans who earn skilled four-year college degrees each year.

    Every extra inflow of college grads is great for companies because it increases the supply of college-grads — doctors, industrial designers, architects, lawyers, software testers, programmers, scientists, pharmacists, therapists and statisticians. Any increased supply reduces payroll costs, so freeing up more funds for profits and boosting Wall Street Values.

    For example, the much-touted H-1B program brings in roughly 100,000 workers each year, partly because the H-1B visas given to non-profit universities, hospitals and research centers don’t count against the much-touted annual limit of 85,000 visas. In 2014, Obama also decided that the spouses of H-1B workers would get work-permits.

    Each H1-B worker can stay for six or even 10 years, so the total resident population of H-1B workers and working spouses is roughly 750,000. The H-1B workers have jobs in all parts of the United States, in many types of careers, partly because they’re cheaper that middle-aged Americans.

    Few Americans know about the Optional Practical Training Program, which allows foreign graduates of American universities to work for a year in the United States for every degree they get from a for-profit or non-profit university. The uncapped program has grown from roughly 80,000 workers in 2009 to 120,000 in 2013, and is expected to grow if colleges can recruit foreign students by offering them Americans jobs and — Obama permitting — EADs and eventual citizenship.

    At the request of companies, Obama has recently doubled the amount of time each foreign graduate can work in the United States, or up to roughly four and half years for people who earn undergraduate and post-graduate technology degrees. However, a judge may block that move following a lawsuit by Smith’s legal group.

    Obama’s deputies have also been handing out roughly 70,000 L visas per year. These visas allow foreign companies to transfer workers from their home-country jobs into the U.S., where they work at home-country wages. If each L-visa worker stays for five years, there’s a resident population of 350,000 L-visa workers. There is no cap to this program, so the number would likely increase if Obama’s EAD-hack allows foreign L-visa workers to get citizenship. Obama’s deputies are already expanding the L program to let foreign companies bring in a wider range of L-visa workers.

    Together, these three programs — H-1B, OPT and L Visa — have created a resident population of more than 1 million lower-wage foreign college grads who are working in jobs sought by American graduates, all around the country.

    If Obama’s deputies annually provide EADs to 125,000 foreign workers — that’s roughly half the current annual inflow of guest-worker graduates— they will further glut the labor market by adding one foreign worker for every six American college graduates.

    Roughly 800,000 Americans annually graduate from college with skilled degrees in medicine, business, science, computers, architecture or math. Many do not find full-time jobs in their specialties.

    In numerous actions and speeches, Obama has made clear that he does not think Americans have any right to restrict immigration — and the establishment GOP has not pushed back.

    For example, since 2011, he’s allowed more than 240,000 unskilled Central American migrants to cross into the United States in search of jobs and government support. In September, his deputies said he wants to bring in 100,000 refugees a year. He’s also rolled back enforcement of immigration law so much that’s he’s released more than 30,000 foreign criminals back into lower-income neighborhoods.

    On September 28, 2015, for example, he told the United Nations that “our most basic bond—our common humanity—compels us to act” against so-called “climate change.” That “most basic bond” claim dismissed the long-standing view that Americans’ “most basic bond” is to their families and to their fellow Americans.

    In November 2014, Obama told a Chicago audience that “there have been periods where the folks who were already here suddenly say, ‘Well, I don’t want those folks,’ even though the only people who have the right to say that are some Native Americans.”

    “Sometimes we get attached to our particular tribe, our particular race, our particular religion, and then we start treating other folks differently… that, sometimes, has been a bottleneck to how we think about immigration,” Obama said in the same Chicago speech, which was intended to just his decision to grant work-permits to roughly 5 million foreign migrants living illegally in the United States.

    That give-away was later stopped — perhaps temporarily — by federal courts.

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/09/28/obama-prepares-give-away-white-collar-jobs-citizenship-foreign-graduates/

    The Myth of the “Otherwise Law-Abiding” Illegal Alien

    By Jon Feere 

    For years advocates of amnesty and high levels of immigration have described the illegal alien population as one made up of “otherwise law-abiding” people who have committed no violation other than the simple act of crossing a border illegally or overstaying a visa.1Journalists routinely invoke this language when writing about amnesty, conspicuously avoiding any discussion of the various crimes the average working illegal alien commits. Many politicians have also embraced the myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien in an effort to promote amnesty, arguing that illegal aliens are no threat to the United States.2

    But the average illegal alien violates numerous statutes, often creating real victims.

    This Backgrounder details the many statutes the average illegal alien who is simply “here to work” may be violating. The violations include laws involving the entry, presence, and travel of illegal aliens as well as laws related to employment such as perjury and identity theft. Examples of oft-violated but under-enforced laws include:

    • False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911). Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable by up to five years in jail, a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer.
    • Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to the government or on official documents. An illegal alien violates this law when claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Employment Eligibility form and faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment.
    • Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). This statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job, where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license, and when an illegal alien used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing, for example. Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

    This Backgrounder does not address crimes of violence, property crimes like vandalism, or other acts like gang activity and drunk driving. The focus is on statutes that come into play when a person enters the country illegally or overstays a visa and becomes employed.

    Over the past several years, the Obama administration has narrowed the scope of immigration enforcement, promising to focus on what President Obama considers “the worst of the worst” violent offenders.3 But just because an illegal alien isn’t a violent threat to society, it does not follow that his or her presence is not a threat to the rule of law, taxpayers, and society generally. Despite the opinion of amnesty advocates — namely, that the United States can give a pass to violations of law without suffering any repercussions — our nation’s immigration laws do serve a variety of purposes and are ultimately meant to protect those who are in the United States lawfully.

    Nevertheless, illegal aliens who violate the statutes listed in this report remain a low priority under the guidelines set forth by the Obama administration.

    Obama’s Administrative Amnesty. According to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency “prioritizes the removal of criminal aliens, those who pose a threat to public safety, and repeat immigration violators.” Although low-level illegal aliens engaged in basic identity theft do pose a threat to the public, the Obama administration has directed ICE to ignore such criminality and to focus on the “worst of the worst”. Often called the White House’s “administrative amnesty”, the immigration agenda pursued by the Obama administration is often referred to as a “prioritization” scheme, but it is largely a decision to not deport illegal aliens unless or until a crime of violence has occurred. The policy came into shape through what are known as the “Morton Memos”, a series of directives from former ICE director John Morton.4 The directives resulted in the union for ICE agents taking a vote of “no confidence” against Morton in June 2011.5

    The Obama administration extended its plan to not enforce some immigration laws on June 15, 2012, announcing that most illegal aliens purporting to be under age 31 and claiming to have come to the United States prior to age 16 would be granted a renewable two-year legalization known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The program excludes illegal aliens convicted of felonies, “significant misdemeanors” (e.g. domestic violence, sexual abuse), or three or more non-significant misdemeanors (one for which the individual was sentenced to time in custody of 90 days or less). Put another way, illegal aliens applying for DACA can commit misdemeanors and create real victims and still qualify for the Obama administration’s amnesty program — a program never approved by Congress, creating conflicts within federal law. These conflicts led to ICE agents suing the Obama administration, claiming that they were being forced to choose between enforcing federal law and abiding by political priorities.6 In the 15 months DACA has been in operation, over 400,000 illegal aliens have received legal status through the program.7

    The fallout from releasing or not detaining so-called low-priority aliens has inflicted serious damage on American society, as detailed in a recent Congressional Research Service (CRS) report. CRS is the non-partisan public policy research arm of the United States Congress. CRS studied an approximately 30-month period and found that ICE took no action against more than 159,000 non-citizens who were arrested by local officers and flagged by the federal Secure Communities program.8 Of these 159,000 criminal aliens, nearly 47,000 were illegal aliens, 16,000 had temporary visas, 87,000 had green cards, and 9,000 had another legal status such as refugee or temporary protected status.

    Upon release, more than 26,000 of the criminal aliens — about one in six — were arrested again within the time period studied (October 27, 2008 through July 31, 2011). They were charged with nearly 58,000 new crimes during this time period. The 58,000 new crimes included more than 5,000 major or violent criminal offenses, including 59 murders, 21 attempted murders, and 542 sex crimes. In addition, they were charged with more than 6,000 drug violations and nearly 8,500 DUI violations.9

    Presumably some of the criminal aliens were jailed, fined, and deported after committing the murders and sex crimes, but many of the aliens were deportable prior to their acts of violence. Victimization of American citizens, it seems, is all too often a prerequisite for immigration enforcement.

    Removing illegal immigrants at the first instance of illegal activity, no matter how small the crime, could prevent larger crimes in the future. This type of enforcement — opposite the approach taken by the Obama administration — might be considered the “broken windows” theory of immigration enforcement. A commitment to immigration enforcement could prevent tens of thousands of Americans from becoming victims.

    Violations in the Context of Legislative Amnesty. If Congress were to pass an amnesty it would immediately give illegal aliens a pass for their violations of immigration law, ranging from illegal entry to overstaying a visa. Many illegal aliens who might benefit from an amnesty have been ordered to leave the country, and they have 90 days to do so from the final removal order. It is incorrect to refer to an alien in the United States 90 days after a removal order as “law-abiding”. The alien faces a fine and imprisonment for the violation. Any amnesty or administrative pass for an alien’s lawlessness would not be a pass for just the illegal entry or overstay of a visa, it would also be a pass for the alien’s decision to ignore the order of removal. It would be a literal get-out-of-jail-free card since the alien would not have to pay a fine or face imprisonment as current law requires.

    But an amnesty would also likely give illegal aliens a pass for the other crimes listed in this report. As written, violation of any of the dozens of laws listed below, such as those involving identity theft, could result in an illegal alien being deported after paying a fine or serving time in jail for the violation. However, proposed amnesties have been written so as to not render an applicant ineligible even if he has violated certain statutes and committed some misdemeanors. And due to political priorities in the Obama administration, many of the laws listed below are not being enforced anyway. Taken together, these policy prescriptions make the concept of conducting background checks on illegal aliens applying for amnesty somewhat absurd. Nevertheless, some of these crimes currently being committed by illegal aliens can amount to aggravated felonies and would prevent an alien from being deemed to have “good moral character”, permanently barring them from naturalization under existing immigration law.10

    Millions of illegal aliens have engaged in identity fraud, a crime that creates real victims. Yet it is unlikely that the White House would require aliens applying for amnesty to declare the names and Social Security numbers they have used in the past. The original application for the DACA amnesty did require applicants to list the Social Security numbers they had previously used; after amnesty advocates complained, the Obama administration removed the requirement, leaving the American victims — the true owners of the numbers — completely in the dark as to the crimes committed against them.11 Real victims have been created yet amnesty gives these violations a pass, putting the interests of the illegal alien before the interests of the U.S. citizen. This is a fact rarely addressed by amnesty advocates or journalists who perpetuate the myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien.

    It is important to remember that, ultimately, an amnesty is a free pass not only for the basic immigration violations, but also a free pass for many other crimes committed during the alien’s stay in the United States.

    What about Detention? The myth of the law-abiding illegal alien is also important in the context of detention. In 2002, Congress tasked ICE with creating an “Alternatives to Detention Program”, which allows aliens “who present a low risk of flight, and who pose no danger to the community” to be released without detention as they await deportation proceedings.12 The threshold of posing “no danger” should be a difficult one to meet considering the numerous criminal statutes the average illegal alien may be violating, but non-violent crimes generally are not considered a bar to alternative detention. In the period studied by ICE between 2002 and 2009, most of the nearly 40,000 aliens granted an alternative to detention only had to meet limited requirements such as calling ICE at certain times throughout the day or being present for unannounced home visitations. Over 2,000 of these aliens simply disappeared. It is unclear how many crimes the aliens committed while in “alternative detention” and whether those who absconded are continuing to commit crimes today, crimes that the Obama administration considers too insignificant to justify deportation.

    What Is a Criminal? Many illegal aliens are potential “criminal aliens” as many have violated a number of criminal statutes (e.g. identity theft).13 Some illegal aliens are “violent criminal aliens” and have committed more serious crimes (e.g. murder).14 It is important that language is used cautiously and that illegal aliens are never referred to as “non-criminal” or “otherwise law-abiding” unless it is clear that they have violated no criminal statutes on the local, state, or federal levels.

    Additionally, it is important to think about what it means to be a criminal. In the legal sense, only after one is found guilty of a legal violation is one considered to be a “criminal”. In the colloquial sense, a person who has broken a law, but has not yet been prosecuted or convicted, is often considered to be a “criminal.” Black’s Law Dictionary, for example, explains that the word “criminal” can be used to describe a person “who has been convicted of a crime” or a person “who has committed a criminal offense”. While those writing on the subject of immigrant criminality are justified in being cautious about referring to an individual as a criminal, writers should be equally cautious about using the phrases “non-criminal” and “law-abiding” when referring to illegal immigrants.

    Simply because a person has not been brought before a court, prosecuted, and found guilty, it does not necessarily follow that the individual has not engaged in criminal activity. This is often true in immigration enforcement where ICE will encounter, for example, a number of illegal aliens using false documents at a worksite. ICE will often make the decision to deport the individuals based on their illegal status without filing identity fraud or perjury charges, for example, even though it is understood that fraud was used to acquire the jobs. The decision to not go after the alien on perjury or fraud charges is a way of avoiding the expenditure of resources on detention and a trial. Such a decision is also advantageous to the alien because he avoids the punishment (a fine or imprisonment) associated with the criminal violation. Of course, deportation without punishment for crimes committed here is arguably a loss to the United States (and to individual victims) because the fines are never collected. It also has the effect of making an illegal alien appear “non-criminal” and “otherwise law-abiding”.

    Discussion

    The statutes below are grouped into four different sections. Section I focuses on laws involving the entry, presence, and travel of illegal aliens. Section II focuses on laws employed illegal aliens may be violating, including identity theft laws. Section III lists additional document laws that illegal aliens often violate. Finally, Section IV lists miscellaneous laws and addresses the issue of state law.

    While the list below may seem lengthy, it is only a sampling of the statutes an average illegal alien may be violating. It is not to be interpreted as a comprehensive list. Whether or not a statute applies to an illegal alien will depend on that individual’s circumstances.

    I. Laws Involving Entry, Presence, and Travel

    Improper Entry by Alien (8 U.S.C. § 1325). While some illegal aliens entered the United States legally and then overstayed a visa, the majority of illegal aliens in the United States have violated this entry-focused statute.15This statute is aimed at any alien who “(1) enters or attempts to enter the United States at any time or place other than as designated by immigration officers, or (2) eludes examination or inspection by immigration officers, or (3) attempts to enter or obtains entry to the United States by a willfully false or misleading representation or the willful concealment of a material fact.” The first time an alien is convicted, he faces a fine and/or up to six months in prison. A second violation results in another fine and/or imprisonment up to two years.16

    Also, any alien who is “apprehended while entering (or attempting to enter) the United States at a time or place other than as designated by immigration officers” is subject to a civil penalty of $50 to $250 for each such entry (or attempt). If the alien is apprehended again making or attempting such an entry, the amounts can be doubled.17

    Registration of Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1302). Advocates of amnesty often argue that a mass legalization program is necessary so that we can determine the identities of illegal aliens in the country. But federal law already requires all aliens, even those in the country illegally, to register their presence if they remain in the United States for 30 days or longer. Specifically,

    It shall be the duty of every alien…in the United States, who (1) is fourteen years of age or older, (2) has not been registered and fingerprinted [during the visa process], and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for registration and to be fingerprinted before the expiration of such thirty days.18

    Aliens under the age of 14 are not exempt from registration, but the duty to make sure it happens falls on the parent or guardian:

    It shall be the duty of every parent or legal guardian of any alien now or hereafter in the United States, who (1) is less than fourteen years of age, (2) has not been registered [during the visa process], and (3) remains in the United States for thirty days or longer, to apply for the registration of such alien before the expiration of such thirty days.19

    If an illegal alien is unregistered and has been in the country for 30 days or longer, the alien is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $1,000 and a jail term of up to six months.20 Since failing to register is a continuing violation, the statute of limitations does not apply and the alien is liable for as long as he remains unregistered in the country.21

    Interestingly, this provision could be applied to millions of illegal aliens today. DHS estimates of 11.5 million illegal aliens as of January 2011 are based the American Community Survey. The survey uses a two-month rule for calculating residency; those here for less than two months are not counted. This means that the 11.5 million illegal immigrants as estimated by DHS are by definition people who have been in the United States illegally for more than 60 days. There is simply no question that the border-hopping portion of the illegal immigrant population is comprised largely of people who are violating this registration statute.22

    Additionally, if an alien procures or attempts to procure registration of himself or another person through fraud, he is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $1,000 and/or a jail term of up to six months.23

    Counterfeiting is also a potential issue here. Any person “who with unlawful intent photographs, prints, or in any other manner makes, or executes, any engraving, photograph, print, or impression in the likeness of any certificate of alien registration or an alien registration receipt card or any colorable imitation thereof” faces a fine of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to five years.24

    Reporting Requirements for Individuals (19 U.S.C. § 1459). Any illegal alien who has walked across the U.S. border and entered illegally at a location that is not a designated crossing point has violated this statute. The statute requires those “individuals arriving in the United States other than by vessel, vehicle, or aircraft” to “enter the United States only at a border crossing point” and “immediately… report the arrival, and… present themselves, and all articles accompanying them for inspection” to a customs officer.25

    People arriving by a reported conveyance — like a cruise ship, bus, or train — “shall remain aboard the conveyance until authorized to depart the conveyance by the appropriate customs officer.” After leaving the conveyance, “passengers and crew members shall immediately report to the designated customs facility with all articles accompanying them.”26

    People arriving by an unreported conveyance — like a private vehicle — “shall immediately notify a customs officer and report their arrival, together with appropriate information concerning the conveyance on or in which they arrived, and present their property for customs examination and inspection.”

    Penalties for violation of this law are quite serious and include “a civil penalty of $5,000 for the first violation, and $10,000 for each subsequent violation” as well as a criminal penalty of up to $5,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year.

    High Speed Flight from Immigration Checkpoint (18 U.S.C. § 758). Depending on how an illegal alien enters the United States, if he came across the border and evaded law enforcement at a checkpoint, he may have violated this statute. To violate this statute, the alien must be in a motor vehicle traveling in excess of the legal speed limit and must be fleeing federal, state, or local law enforcement officers. Such offense is punishable by a fine and/or imprisonment of up to five years.27

    Unlawful Bringing of Aliens into United States (8 U.S.C. § 1323). Oftentimes illegal aliens will enter the United States with other illegal aliens, and if the alien was involved in helping to bring in other aliens, he has violated this law. Put simply, it is unlawful for an illegal alien to bring to the United States from any place outside of the country any alien without valid travel documents. The government can levy a fine of $3,300 for each unlawful alien brought into the country.28

    The sentencing guidelines take into account the severity of the violation, which depends on a number of factors, including how many people were smuggled, whether it was done for profit, and whether it was done recklessly (e.g. no seatbelts for those being smuggled, overcrowding of a vehicle, children smuggled in trunk on hot day, use of a vehicle with bald tires).29

    Some illegal immigrants bring family members into the United States illegally, a fact much-discussed during the recent debate over the failed DREAM Act and President Obama’s Deferred Action program. If the amnesty were to become law, it is interesting to think about how this violation may never be punished; it seems more likely that the parent smugglers of DREAM Act recipients would be able to obtain legal status as a result of existing chain migration laws. But every illegal alien who brought a child across the border is likely liable under this statute.

    Human traffickers are also often charged under 18 U.S.C. § 371, “Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud United States”, discussed later.

    Overstaying Duration of Stay (8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(1)(B) & (C)(i)). Approximately 40 percent of illegal aliens currently in the United States entered legally and overstayed their authorized duration of stay. The actual annual number of overstayers is quite significant; the government estimated that in 2008 alone, 2.9 million foreign visitors on temporary visas were admitted but never officially checked out and that perhaps several hundred thousand of them overstayed.30 Though Congress has requested a working Exit system for nearly two decades, the United States still has no way of determining whether or not a legal immigrant actually leaves when his duration of stay expires.31

    An alien who overstays becomes an illegal alien and is deportable.32 If the alien overstays a by more than 180 days, but less than one year, and then departs the United States voluntarily, he is barred from reentering the United States for a period of three years. If he leaves after having been in the country illegally for one year or more, then the alien is barred from reentering for ten years.33 It is inaccurate to label as “law-abiding” a person who fails to uphold their end of an agreement to visit the United States on a temporary basis and chooses to remain in the country illegally.

    Reentry of Removed Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1326). Many illegal aliens in the United States have either been previously deported or at least denied admission. This statute addresses the alien who has reentered, or attempted to reenter, the United States after having been previously denied admission, excluded, deported, or removed. It is also aimed at the alien who has reentered, or attempted to reenter, after earlier departing the United States while an order of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding. An alien who violates this statute faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to two years. If the deportation was the result of certain criminal convictions, the alien faces imprisonment up to 20 years.34

    Willful Failure or Refusal to Depart (8 U.S.C. § 1253). Many illegal aliens have already been ordered to leave the country by immigration authorities, and they have 90 days to do so from the final removal order. If an alien has had a final order of removal issued against him and he either willfully fails or refuses to depart from the United States, make timely application in good faith for necessary travel documents, or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper his departure, he faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to four years. The alien faces the same penalties for willfully failing or refusing to present himself for removal at the time and place required by the government. If the alien is involved in smuggling, high-speed flight from a checkpoint, or other serious crimes outlined in the statute, the alien faces up to 10 years imprisonment.35 It is incorrect to refer to an alien in the United States 90 days after a removal order as “law-abiding.”

    Civil Penalties for Failure to Depart (8 U.S.C. § 1324d). Any alien subject to a final order of removal who “willfully fails or refuses” to depart from the United States pursuant to the order, make timely application for travel or other documents necessary for departure, or present themselves for removal at the time and place required by the government, is required to pay a civil penalty up to $500 for each day he is in violation of this statute.36 The same penalty applies for an alien who conspires to or takes any action designed to prevent or hamper his own departure. Over the course of a year, an illegal alien could rack up a fine of up to $182,500. As of March 2013, ICE estimates that over 851,000 illegal aliens who have been ordered removed are still living in the United States.37The Senate amnesty bill (S.744) would effectively waive these penalties and replace them with a waiverable fine of only $500 for provisional legal status.

    Failure to Comply with Terms of Release under Supervision (8 U.S.C. § 1253(b)). In some instances, an illegal alien ordered deported is not repatriated due to unique circumstances. For example, some countries refuse to take back their nationals.38 If the alien does not leave or is not removed within the removal period, the alien, pending removal, is to be subject to supervision under regulations prescribed by the DHS secretary. The regulations can include, for example, a requirement that the alien not commit any crimes.39 The regulations “shall” include provisions requiring the alien to appear before an immigration officer periodically for identification; to submit, if necessary, to a medical and psychiatric examination at the expense of the United States government; to give information under oath about the alien’s nationality, circumstances, habits, associations, and activities, and other information the secretary considers appropriate; and to obey reasonable written restrictions on the alien’s conduct or activities that the secretary prescribes for the alien.40

    An alien who willfully fails to comply with the regulations or requirements issued pursuant to the supervised release or knowingly gives false information in response to an inquiry under this release, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.41

    Bringing in and Harboring Certain Aliens (8 U.S.C. § 1324). This statute is aimed at an individual who “knowing that a person is an alien, brings to or attempts to bring to the United States in any manner whatsoever such person at a place other than a designated port of entry.” The statute is also aimed at the person who “knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, transports, or moves or attempts to transport or move such alien within the United States by means of transportation or otherwise, in furtherance of such violation of law”; or with the same knowledge “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection” such an alien; or “encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.” An individual is liable under this statute if they engage in any conspiracy to commit any of these acts, or if they aid or abet the commission the acts.42

    Punishment ranges from one to 10 years, but can reach up to 20 years if the alien places a person’s life in jeopardy during the process, if the aliens presented a life-threatening health risk to people in the United States, or if aliens were transported in groups of 10 or more, for example.43

    Any alien who is participating in the smuggling can be charged as a principal under 18 U.S.C. § 2, as aiding and abetting the illegal entry of an alien is a not a lesser included offense of concealing, harboring, shielding, and illegally transporting aliens as described in §1324.44

    Aiding or Assisting Certain Aliens to Enter (8 U.S.C. § 1327). If a person knowingly aids or assists any alien inadmissible because of an aggravated felony conviction, he faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to 10 years. This is the case even if he simply “connives or conspires” with any person to “allow, procure, or permit” any such alien to enter the United States.45 To be found liable, the individual does not need to have knowledge of the alien’s felony record; he simply needs to have knowledge that the individual is inadmissible. For example, a defendant was found liable under this statute even though he was unaware that the alien he helped enter the country illegally had previously been convicted of possession of a narcotic substance for sale, an aggravated felony, which made the alien inadmissible to the United States.46

    Conspiracy to Commit Offense or to Defraud the United States (18. U.S.C. § 371). Oftentimes an illegal alien will work with other aliens in order to enter the United States or commit some other type of fraud. In such an instance, each party might be violating a conspiracy offense related to defrauding the United States. Specifically, if two or more individuals “conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof” and one or more of the individuals makes even one small act in furtherance of the conspiracy, each can be fined and/or imprisoned up to five years.47 This statute has been invoked where illegal aliens have conspired to falsify entry documents,48 and in the context of illegal aliens transporting and harboring illegal aliens,49 for example. The government can charge the alien with both conspiracy and the underlying, substantive offense.

    Civil Penalty for Failure to Depart under Voluntary Departure (8 U.S.C. § 1229c(d)). Some illegal aliens are given the opportunity to voluntarily leave the United States in a manner that does not include a legal order of removal. They are allowed to leave at their own expense within a specified period of time. Failure to depart within the time granted results in a fine and a ten-year bar of certain forms of relief from deportation. In addition, the alien “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 and not more than $5,000.”50

    Driving without a License. It is increasingly unlikely that an illegal alien who operates a motor vehicle will have a valid driver’s license.51 Driving without a license is a violation of state-level statutes, and the penalties vary from state to state.52 Generally, an illegal alien driving without a license will be guilty of a misdemeanor and will face fines. It is important to remember that some states grant temporary driver’s licenses to legal, temporary aliens which expire at the end of an alien’s visa period.53 Depending on state laws, driving with an expired license can be a greater offense than driving without a license.

    Driving without Insurance. Illegal aliens who drive without a license are very unlikely to carry car insurance. Driving without insurance is a violation of state-level statutes. Generally, driving a car without insurance is a misdemeanor and the penalty is usually either a fine or imprisonment, depending on state law.54

    Driving without a Valid Vehicle Registration. It is likely that millions of illegal aliens across the United States drive unregistered vehicles, a violation that may be either a misdemeanor or felony depending on circumstances and state law.55 When Ohio recently cancelled nearly 50,000 suspected fraudulent registrations, amnesty advocates at the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) seemed to admit that this violation is common among illegal aliens, calling Ohio’s efforts “a thinly veiled and inappropriate attempt to enforce federal immigration policy at the state level.”56 Although a lawsuit filed by LULAC failed, it remains unclear how many illegal aliens continue to drive in the state without a valid registration.57

    False Statement to Law Enforcement. When an illegal alien is stopped or arrested as part of an investigation, particularly if it involves one of the travel-based offenses listed above, it is not uncommon for the alien to make a false statement as to the alien’s identity.58 Depending on circumstances and state law, false statements to a law enforcement officer may be considered a misdemeanor or a felony.59

    II. Laws Involving the Workplace

    Since the comprehensive amnesty of 1986 — the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) — it has been illegal for employers to hire illegal aliens. Employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens are subject to fines that range from $250 to $2,500 for the first violation, to $3,000 to $10,000 for a third violation. If such illegal employment becomes a pattern or practice, the employer can also face imprisonment.60 Any type of amnesty would give employers a pass for such violations and make their illegal hires permanent.

    Illegal aliens who seek out employment often violate many laws themselves, some of which are listed below. Many of these crimes create real victims for which there is often little restitution. American victims face years of correcting problems associated with identity theft and have tremendous difficulty re-establishing their credit.61 It has been reported that every year, nearly nine million people pay their taxes using the wrong Social Security number and that many if not most are the result of illegal aliens using numbers that do not belong to them.62Despite this, amnesties generally give such lawlessness a pass leaving American victims to fend for themselves.

    Under federal law, aliens engaged in certain identity crimes face civil and criminal penalties under both the Immigration and Nationality Act and the U.S. Criminal Code. Those found guilty of such crimes can also be denied certain immigration benefits, including the ability to enter and/or remain in the United States.63

    An Interview with William Riley
    on Identity Theft:View the Full Interview

    False Personation of a U.S. Citizen (18 U.S.C. § 911).Illegal aliens often present themselves as U.S. citizens, an act punishable as a felony. This law is often cited in immigration prosecutions and may involve, for example, an alien claiming U.S. citizenship to his employer. It may also involve an illegal alien claiming to be a citizen for purposes of voting, receiving some government benefit, or an alien attempting to avoid deportation by presenting a fake U.S. birth certificate to an ICE agent during an investigation.64An alien who “falsely and willfully represents himself to be a citizen of the United States” faces a fine and imprisonment up to three years.65

    Fraud and False Statements (18 U.S.C. § 1001). It is common for illegal aliens to make false statements to immigration officials during investigations, and to misrepresent themselves to the government, generally. Any false statement or fraudulent act may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 as a felony. The falsification does not have to be made directly to a government official; it must simply relate to and affect a relationship “within the jurisdiction” of the federal government.66 It is broad in scope, and as the courts have noted, §1001 is “intended to serve the vital public purpose of protecting governmental functions from frustration and distortion through deceptive practices, and it must not be construed as if its object were narrow and technical.”67

    There are a number of ways in which a person may violate §1001. For example, a false statement on an I-9 employment eligibility verification form is a violation of this law.68 Other examples include providing fake identification or orally misrepresenting oneself to a border agent,69 falsely telling a border agent that all vehicle occupants are U.S. citizens,70 and concealing the fact that a marriage was entered into solely for purposes of obtaining legal status.71

    All U.S. employers must complete and retain a Form I-9 for each individual they hire. This includes citizens and noncitizens. The purpose is to document that each new employee is authorized to work in the United States. The form must be completed within three days of the hiring, but if the job is to last less than three days the form must be completed at the time employment begins.72

    Any illegal alien who has filled out an I-9 Employment Eligibility Verification form is likely guilty of perjury. One section requires an attestation of employability and reads as follows:

    I attest, under penalty of perjury, that I am:

    __ A citizen of the United States

    __ A noncitizen national of the United States

    __ A lawful permanent resident

    __ An alien authorized to work.

    The I-9 form also requires employees to attest to the following:

    I am aware that federal law provides for imprisonment and/or fines for false statements or use of false documents in connection with the completion of this form.73

    A person faces a fine and up to five years imprisonment for knowingly and willfully “in any matter within the jurisdiction” of the United States (1) falsifying, concealing, or covering up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) making any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) making or using any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry.74

    It is likely that an amnesty will provide illegal aliens a pass for I-9 perjury. Additionally, businesses that have been violating federal law by not maintaining I-9 forms will also likely face no repercussions.

    Interestingly, “an alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit” under the INA or any other federal or state law, or for the purpose of employment, is inadmissible.75 Yet an amnesty could grant a person who would normally be denied admission for such violations the ability to adjust their status to that of a legal resident and eventually to that of a U.S. citizen.

    Falsely Claiming Citizenship (8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C)(ii) and § 1227(a)(3)(D)). Violations of these statutes make an alien inadmissible to the United States, can make an illegal alien ineligible to adjust his immigration status, and renders an alien deportable. Specifically “any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself or herself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit [under the Immigration and Nationality chapter of the U.S. Code] or any other Federal or State law is inadmissible.”76

    Similarly, “any alien who falsely represents, or has falsely represented, himself to be a citizen of the United States for any purpose or benefit [under the Immigration and Nationality chapter of the U.S. Code] or any Federal or State law is deportable.”

    Claiming to be a U.S. citizen on an employment I-9 Form is a violation of these statutes.77

    This statute is taken quite seriously and courts have held that a violation cannot be waived by the U.S. Attorney General.78 Yet an amnesty would have the effect of waiving these violations and would allow violators to adjust their status to U.S. citizen.

    Since nearly half of working illegal aliens have filled out I-9 Forms and are likely in violation of these statutes, it is incorrect to claim that such individuals are “law-abiding”.

    An interview with USCIS FDNS
    Architect Don Crocetti on Fraud:View the Full Interview

    Fraud and Misuse of Visas, Permits, and Other Documents (18 U.S.C. § 1546). Illegal immigrants often use fraudulent documentation as a means to enter the United States, procure a job, or to obtain certain benefits. As such, this law is frequently used in immigration prosecutions.79

    If the goal is procuring illegal employment and a person uses an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document was not issued lawfully to him, or uses an identification document knowing (or having reason to know) that the document is false, or makes a false attestation, the person faces fines and up to five years imprisonment.80

    This statute is broad and is aimed at anyone who “knowingly forges, counterfeits, alters, or falsely makes any immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, permit, border crossing card, alien registration receipt card”, or other identification document for entry into the United States or for the purpose of either proving permission to stay or work in the United States. It is also aimed at anyone who “utters, uses, attempts to use, possesses, obtains, accepts, or receives” such a document if the person knows it to be “forged, counterfeited, altered, or falsely made, or to have been procured by means of any false claim or statement, or to have been otherwise procured by fraud or unlawfully obtained.”81 Foreign-issued passports that are fraudulently used are covered under this statute.82

    The law also is aimed at anyone who possesses and/or brings into the United States materials used for manufacturing fake documents (e.g. blank permits, distinctive paper adopted by immigration authorities, printing plates). It is also aimed at anyone who sells such items.83

    The law also is aimed at aliens applying for a visa, permit, or other entry document who “personates another, or falsely appears in the name of a deceased individual, or evades or attempts to evade the immigration laws by appearing under an assumed or fictitious name without disclosing his true identity.”84

    A person also is liable under this law for selling or disposing (or simply offering) such a document to a person not authorized to receive such a document.

    A perjury statute is also found in this section of law and it applies to anyone who uses a false statement with respect to a material fact in any application or other document required under immigration laws. For example, it has been invoked where a previously deported alien answered “no” to a question on an entry form asking whether he had ever been previously arrested and deported.85 Similarly, the statute can be invoked where an alien denies existence of an earlier criminal conviction.86

    A basic violation of this law can result in a 10-year jail sentence and/or fine, provided it does not involve terrorism or a drug trafficking. If the violation is in furtherance of terrorism, the penalty can range up to 25 years imprisonment.87

    Every state has its own laws aimed at preventing identity theft. The National Conference of State Legislatures provides a detailed list of some of these laws.88 Depending on the state statute, when an illegal alien uses another person’s identity, he may be guilty of a misdemeanor or felony, may face fines and/or jail time, and may be required to provide restitution to any victims of the ID theft. Even if an illegal alien does not use another’s ID personally, any illegal aliens who facilitates the fraudulent use of IDs belonging to another may face repercussions, as many states provide penalties for individuals who sell, transfer, or convey misappropriated identity information to others. However, any federal legislation aimed at shielding illegal aliens from prosecution (i.e. an amnesty) may also prevent victims of identity theft from having their identities and credit corrected.

    Penalties for Document Fraud (8 U.S.C. § 1324c). This statute makes it illegal for any person or entity to knowingly “forge, counterfeit, alter, or falsely make any document” for the purpose of satisfying a requirement or obtaining a benefit under the “Immigration and Nationality” section of the U.S. Code.89 It also makes it illegal for a person “to use, attempt to use, possess, obtain, accept, or receive or to provide any forged, counterfeit, altered, or falsely made document”, or “to use or attempt to use or to provide or attempt to provide any document lawfully issued to or with respect to a person other than the possessor (including a deceased individual)” for the purpose of satisfying a requirement or obtaining a benefit under the “Immigration and Nationality” section.

    The statute also makes it illegal to “accept or receive” or “provide” any document to a person that was lawfully issued to someone else for the purpose of employment verification, or some other benefit.90 A person who assists someone to knowingly prepare and/or submit a false application for benefits under the “Immigration and Nationality” section of the U.S. Code can be prosecuted under this statute as well.

    Violators face a fine from $250 to $2,000 for each document that is the subject of the violation. Repeat offenders face a fine from $2,000 to $5,000 for each document confiscated during the second violation.

    Penalties for Social Security Fraud (42 U.S.C. § 408). As might be expected, this statute is aimed primarily at preventing individuals from defrauding the Social Security Administration. Much of the statute focuses on unauthorized payments and falsified employment information. However, the statute is broad and can apply in a number of different situations. For example, when it comes to a person illegally receiving government benefits through use of a fraudulent Social Security card, such benefits do not need to be pursuant to the Social Security Act; other governmental benefits such as subsidized housing would trigger this statute.91 Furthermore, any use of a false SSN on nonfederal documents is actionable as the statute reaches private transactions.92

    As examples, this statute has been invoked where an illegal alien provided a false Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a job.93 The statute has been invoked where an illegal alien used a fraudulent Social Security number for the purpose of acquiring a driver’s license.94 In another instance, an illegal alien was found liable under this statute when she used a Social Security card belonging to a citizen in order to obtain Section 8 housing.95

    This statute can likely be invoked against many illegal aliens who are working. After the 2008 ICE effort against Agriprocessors Inc. in Postville, Iowa, federal officials alleged that about 76 percent of the company’s nearly 1,000 workers were using fraudulent Social Security numbers.96 ICE filed almost 700 complaints against the workers for Social Security fraud and other crimes.97 Not surprisingly, ICE explained that their investigation started when the victims of this identity theft came forward after being unable to get credit reports and having problems with their taxes.98

    In 2012 alone, the Internal Revenue Service identified nearly 1.8 million incidents of identity theft.99 The Federal Trade Commission notes that children are prime targets for ID theft since their identities are “blank slate[s] that can be used to obtain goods and services over a long time” and are not generally monitored by their parents. The FTC points out that more than 140,000 instances of identity fraud per year are perpetrated on children in the United States.100

    Specifically, the statute is aimed at anyone who “willfully, knowingly, and with intent to deceive, uses a Social Security account number” acquired through false information provided to the SSA by either the individual himself or any other person. It is also aimed at anyone who “with intent to deceive, falsely represents” a number as a number validly assigned to him. The statute is also aimed at a person who “knowingly alters a Social Security card” issued by the federal government, or “buys or sells a card” that is, or purports to be a Social Security card issued by the federal government, or “counterfeits a Social Security card”, or “possesses a Social Security card or counterfeit Social Security card with intent to sell or alter it.” Finally, the statute is aimed at anyone who “discloses, uses, or compels the disclosure of the Social Security number of any person in violation of the laws of the United States.” Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years. The court can also require violators to provide restitution to the victims.

    Aggravated Identity Theft (18 U.S.C. § 1028A). This statute applies when certain felonies occur during and in relation to an act that constitutes knowingly transferring, possessing, or using, without lawful authority, a means of identification of another. The list of applicable felonies is lengthy and includes a number of immigration-related crimes involving nationality, citizenship, passports, visas, and “False Personation of U.S. Citizen”, (18 U.S.C. § 911). The penalty is a mandatory two years imprisonment. The penalty rises to five years if the act involves terrorism. The sentence can only be served consecutively to any other sentence.101 And since there will often be an imprisonment for the underlying felony, this statute can result in lengthy imprisonment due to the fact that the two years cannot be served concurrently with any other sentence.

    Willful Failure to File Return, Supply Information, or Pay Tax (26 U.S.C. § 7203). According to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), an illegal alien who passes a “Substantial Presence Test” (a tax law formula that measures length of stay in the United States) is to be treated for tax purposes as a resident alien. Specifically, illegal aliens who are present in the United States for at least 183 days over the past three years (31 days of which must be during the current year) in accordance with an IRS formula, are generally subject to tax in the same manner as a U.S. citizen.102 The IRS explains, an “undocumented (illegal) alien under the immigration laws who passes the Substantial Presence Test will be treated for tax purposes as a RESIDENT ALIEN.”103

    Approximately seven to eight million illegal aliens are holding jobs, and approximately 45 to 50 percent of them are estimated to be working off the books.104 This means that millions of illegal aliens are likely violating this statute.

    In order to collect taxes owed, the government can place a levy on the violator’s bank account, place a lien on his home, and/or seize any personal or real property of value (e.g. a vehicle).

    In addition, under § 7203, a person who fails to pay his taxes is guilty of a misdemeanor and faces a fine up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment up to one year, or both.

    Many advocates of the recently passed Senate amnesty bill S.744 frequently claim that the bill would require illegal aliens to pay back taxes for the years they worked off the books. However, such a requirement was never included in the final version of the bill. Instead, it provides that amnesty applicants must have “satisfied any applicable federal tax liability” that has previously been “assessed” by the IRS. A tax is “assessed” only when the IRS officially records that it is owed, which occurs after a tax return has been submitted or after the IRS has conducted an audit. Since illegal immigrants working off the books do not submit tax returns and are generally not the subjects of IRS audits, it is unlikely that this provision will have any impact on the majority of amnesty applicants.105

    The lack of specific language on a back taxes requirement was not an accident. Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of the architects of S.744, has previously worked to prohibit the IRS from requiring amnesty applicants to pay back taxes. Two weeks before the 1986 amnesty bill (IRCA) was enacted, Congress enacted the Tax Reform Act of 1986, which required aliens applying for permanent residence to pay back taxes. Only months after IRCA’s passage, Schumer, then a member of the House of Representatives, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury urging the government to “immediately” issue a regulation declaring that illegal aliens applying for permanent residence pursuant to IRCA were exempt. According to Schumer: “Obviously, we could not have a successful legalization program if by submitting an application an alien became vulnerable to an enforcement action by the IRS.” While the IRS declined, a year later Congress amended the tax law to prohibit the INS from providing the IRS any tax information of amnesty applicants.106

    Similarly, the amnesty bill of 2007 originally included a requirement that illegal aliens pay back taxes. But the Bush administration persuaded Congress to remove the provision, arguing that it would have been too difficult to administer. The National Taxpayers Union estimated the change would mean a loss of tens of billions of dollars, and argued that most law-abiding Americans would find the change “totally distasteful”.107

    If an amnesty bill were to become law, it will send the message that only citizens and legal residents are responsible for paying taxes, and that illegal immigrants are above the law.

    III. Additional Document Laws

    Misuse of Evidence of Citizenship or Naturalization (18 U.S.C. § 1423). This is aimed at a person who knowingly uses any unlawfully issued or made “order, certificate, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship, judgment, decree, or exemplification . . . or copies or duplicates thereof” that shows any person to be naturalized or admitted to be a citizen. A violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.108

    Procurement of Citizenship or Naturalization Unlawfully (18 U.S.C. § 1425). Although invoked often in cases involving legal immigrants applying for U.S. citizenship, this statute covers any alien who illegally obtains or attempts to obtain naturalization or citizenship, such as through marriage fraud.109 It also covers any alien who illegally procures or attempts to procure certain documents. Specifically, the law is aimed at anyone who “knowingly procures or attempts to procure, contrary to law, the naturalization of any person, or documentary or other evidence of naturalization or of citizenship” and also anyone who, “whether for himself or another person not entitled thereto, knowingly issues, procures, or obtains or applies for or otherwise attempts to procure or obtain naturalization, or citizenship, or a declaration of intention to become a citizen, or a certificate of arrival or any certificate or evidence of nationalization or citizenship, documentary or otherwise, or duplicates or copies of any of the foregoing.” A violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.110

    Reproduction of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers (18 U.S.C. § 1426). This statute is broad in scope and addresses a number of issues related to identity fraud and illegal entry into the United States. It is aimed at anyone who “falsely makes, forges, alters, or counterfeits” documents such as certificates of arrival, certificates of evidence of naturalization or citizenship, and a number of other such records, including anything “required or authorized by any law relating to naturalization or citizenship or registry of aliens.”111 It is also aimed at anyone who “utters, sells, disposes of or uses as true or genuine, any false, forged, altered, antedated, or counterfeited” naturalization or citizenship papers.113 The law also criminalizes possession of such documents with the intent to use them.113 Additionally, the law is aimed at anyone who, without lawful authority, engraves or possesses a plate designed for creating naturalization or citizenship papers, or who brings into the United States any document printed therefrom, or who possesses blank naturalization or citizenship papers or distinctive paper used by immigration authorities for citizenship and naturalization purposes.114 The law is also aimed at anyone who without lawful authority “prints, photographs, makes, or executes any print or impression in the likeness of a certificate of arrival, declaration of intention to become a citizen, or certificate of naturalization or citizenship,” or any part thereof.115 Violations of this law result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.116

    Sale of Naturalization or Citizenship Papers (18 U.S.C. § 1427). Not only do Illegal aliens often carry false identification, they also often sell such identification to other illegal aliens. This statute is aimed at the individual who “unlawfully sells or disposes of a declaration of intention to become a citizen, certificate of naturalization, certificate of citizenship or copies or duplicates or other documentary evidence of naturalization or citizenship.”117A U.S. birth certificate is one example of the type of paper referenced here.118 A simple violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to 10 years for the first or second offense. If it was committed to facilitate drug trafficking or terrorism, the imprisonment term can go up to 20 or 25 years, respectively.119

    Naturalization, Citizenship, or Alien Registry (18 U.S.C. § 1015). This statute criminalizes the act of making false statements under oath regarding matters relating to naturalization, citizenship, or registry of aliens. It also criminalizes the use and attempted use of any certificate of arrival, naturalization, or other documentary evidence of naturalization or citizenship with knowledge that the document was procured by fraud or otherwise unlawfully obtained. The statute also criminalizes false statements, affirmations, attestations and the like that are required as part of the immigration, naturalization, citizenship, or registry process.

    Additionally, this statute is aimed at aliens who knowingly make a false statement or claim that they are or have been a citizen or national of the United States for the purpose of obtaining any federal or state benefit for themselves or any other persons, welfare being a significant focus. It is also a violation to make such a statement or claim for the purpose of illegally acquiring employment in the United States.120 For example, the statute has come into play where an illegal alien claimed to be a U.S. citizen on an I-9 Form.1121

    Finally, the statute criminalizes false statement or claims of U.S. citizenship made for the purpose of registering to vote or to vote in a federal, state, or local election. Violation of this statute can result in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.122

    Fraud and Related Activity in Connection with Identification Documents, Authentication Features, and Information (18 U.S.C. § 1028). In 1998, Congress passed the Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act, which prohibits knowingly transferring or using without lawful authority, another person’s identification with the intent to commit, or to aid or abet, any unlawful activity that constitutes a violation of federal law, or a felony under applicable state and local laws. The statute is also aimed at the production and simple possession of false identification as well as trafficking of false identification documents or document-making implements.123 The statute covers fraudulent use of both U.S. and foreign identification. Depending on the violation, an alien violating this law faces a fine and up to 15 years imprisonment; the jail sentence increases if the violation involves drug trafficking or terrorism.

    Possession of False Papers to Defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. § 1002). This statute is aimed at individuals who “knowingly and with intent to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof, possesses any false, altered, forged, or counterfeited writing or document for the purpose of enabling another to obtain from the United States, or from any agency, officer or agent thereof, any sum of money.” Violation of this statute results in a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.

    False Statement in Application and Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1542). There are a number of reasons why an illegal alien may attempt to obtain a passport, not the least of which is to create the appearance of legal status. This statute is aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in applying for a passport with intent to “induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States, either for his own use or the use of another.” It is also aimed at anyone who “knowingly uses or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use any passport” that was obtained through use of a false statement.124 As examples, the law has been invoked where an alien attempted to enter the United States by showing a false passport to an inspector125and where an alien used false statements in applying for a passport — a passport that she planned to provide to her prospective employer as proof of employment eligibility.126

    Forgery or False Use of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1543). Oftentimes illegal aliens will enter the United States using a phony passport. This statute is aimed at anyone who “makes, forges, counterfeits, mutilates, or alters” a passport with the intent that it be used. It is also aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly “uses, or attempts to use, or furnishes to another for use” any such passport. Passports that have become void as a result of certain occurrences are also covered.127 This law covers forgery and false use of both U.S.-issued and foreign passports.128 A violation of this nature can also be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1546.

    Misuse of Passport (18 U.S.C. § 1544). This statute is aimed at anyone who willfully and knowingly “uses, or attempts to use, any passport issued or designed for the use of another” or “any passport in violation of the conditions or restrictions therein contained, or of the rules prescribed pursuant to the laws regulating the issuance of passports.” It also aimed at anyone who “willfully and knowingly furnishes, disposes of, or delivers a passport to any person” for use by a person other than the person to whom it was originally issued. Violations of this law result in a fine and/or imprisonment that ranges from 10 to 25 years depending on the severity of the violation.129

    IV. Additional Laws

    Selective Service Registration. In the United States, all males must register with the Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday for the purpose of preparing for a national military draft. This requirement is not limited to U.S. citizens. Illegal alien males are also required to register, as are permanent resident aliens, seasonal agricultural workers, and refugee, parolee, and asylee aliens.130 In fact, the front page of the Selective Service website includes a special notice to illegal aliens:

    ATTENTION, UNDOCUMENTED MALES & IMMIGRANT SERVICING GROUPS! Selective Service does not collect any information which would indicate whether or not you are undocumented. You want to protect yourself for future U.S. citizenship and other government benefits and programs by registering with Selective Service. Do it today. 131

    The agency will accept late registrations but not after the age of 26. At that point, an unregistered male can be denied federal student financial aid, federal job training, federal employment, and may have difficulty obtaining U.S. citizenship. 132 Citizenship applicants who fail to register for the Selective Service may not meet the statutory requirement of “good moral character.” Additionally, failure to register may result in a fine of up to $250,000 and/or a prison term of up to five years.133 Illegal aliens who do not register may also find themselves unable to obtain state benefits as 41 states have passed legislation that requires registration for certain benefits like driver’s licenses, state financial aid, and employment with a state agency.134

    Voting by Aliens (18 U.S.C. § 611). While it is unclear to what extent illegal aliens have voted in national elections, federal law make it unlawful for “any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.” An alien who violates this statute faces a fine and up to a year in jail, or both.135 This is a general intent crime meaning that the act of voting, even without malicious intent, is sufficient for a conviction.136

    Additionally, under 18 U.S.C. § 1015(f), any alien who “makes any false statement or claim that he is a citizen of the United States in order to register to vote or to vote in any Federal, State or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum)” faces a fine and/or imprisonment up to five years.137

    It is interesting to note that the attestation required on a ballot — a statement that the person filling it out is a U.S. citizen — is identical to the attestation required on an I-9 Form; it is well-established that illegal aliens are willing to violate this legal requirement and lie about their identities.

    Violations of State Laws. Any amnesty put into law by Congress only operates as a pardon for violations of federal law. Illegal aliens would still liable for any violations of state and local laws that occurred prior to the amnesty. For example, states have their own identity theft, forgery, and tax laws that many illegal aliens may be violating.

    Many states have also created immigration-related statutes that may become more relevant after an amnesty, particularly if an alien’s identity and background becomes better understood through the amnesty application process. Amnesties written by Congress have often included a requirement that applicants prove they were in the country for a period of years, and that requirement can be fulfilled by evidence of employment. Such evidence may indicate that the alien and his employer are violating not only federal law, but state law as well. For example, a state government may determine that the employer referenced on the application was engaged in illegal hiring practices such as a failure to abide by state-level E-Verify laws, for example. An investigation could further uncover instances of identity theft that could be prosecuted on the state level depending on the circumstances.

    In fact, some in the business community raised their concern about such liability to the Obama administration after President Obama decreed his “Deferred Action” (DACA) program into existence. The DACA program grants legal status to illegal aliens under 31 years of age if they meet certain requirements. After some business owners voiced concern about facing prosecution as a result of being named in an amnesty application, the pro-amnesty organization Migration Policy Institute demanded that the Obama administration protect law-breaking businesses and bury evidence of any related identity theft. The organization wrote:

    Since 58 percent of potential applicants are currently employed, employer documentation will be vital in establishing eligibility for many applicants. But employers may be reluctant to provide documentation if they suspect that the information may subject them to investigations and sanctions for hiring unauthorized workers. Their fear could be partially addressed if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) issued a specific policy statement that any information presented by a DACA applicant will, by itself, not trigger an employer sanctions investigation. 138

    Within a month of this request, the Obama administration amended its guidelines and promised to not go after employers whose illegal hiring practices are used as evidence of eligibility on an amnesty application.139 State governments have not offered any such assurances to businesses, nor any promise to amnesty applicants that violations of state law will be ignored. Of course, without detailed information about amnesty applicants, including places they have worked and identities used during their illegal stay in the country, it may be difficult for a state to build a case aimed at punishing past acts. Depending on how it is written, an amnesty may effectively give a pass to state-level violations.

    Conclusion

    The myth of the otherwise law-abiding illegal alien is powerful, but it is not grounded in truth. A large share of the illegal alien population has violated numerous laws, oftentimes creating real victims. Enforcement of laws is necessary for the protection of the interests of legal residents. Of course, even if laws listed above are enforced and the alien is punished through imprisonment and/or a fine and later deported to his homeland, the porous nature of our borders may result in the alien returning to the United States. A firm commitment to the rule of law is critical in a modern society. Yet immigration and criminal laws are routinely violated and too many politicians spend time looking for ways to avoid holding the violators accountable for their actions. This unwillingness to support the rule of law simply encourages more illegal activity and more illegal immigration.

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 565-568

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 556-564

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 546-555

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538-545

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 Shows 93

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

    Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 01-09

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

    The Pronk Pops Show 392, December 19, 2014, Story 1: Race Racketeers Shakedown SONY — Reverend Rat Al Sharpton of The Alinsky A Team On The Case — National Action Network Payday — Remember What Happened To Al Capone Reverend Rat — Obama Says SONY Made A Mistake — SONY Responds — Cyber Warfare Is An Act of War Not A Criminal Act — CIA Take Out Anyone? — Lights Out — Videos

    Posted on December 19, 2014. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Disasters, Economics, Education, Empires, Employment, Federal Government, Government, Government Spending, History, Law, Media, Politics, Radio, Regulation, Scandals, Social Science, Taxes, Technology, Terror, Unemployment, Videos, Violence, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

    Project_1

    The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

    Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

    Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

    Story 1: Race Racketeers Shakedown SONY —  Reverend Rat Al Sharpton of The Alinsky A Team On The Case  — National Action Network Payday —  Remember What Happened To Al Capone Reverend Rat — Obama Says SONY Made A Mistake — SONY Responds — Cyber Warfare Is An Act of War Not A Criminal Act — CIA Take Out Anyone? — Lights Out — Videos