Archive for December, 2013

National Security Agency (NSA) Intercepts FedX and UPS Packages To Install Malware Software — Bugs iPhones and Laptops — TOR Network — Videos

Posted on December 31, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

NSA Interception: Spy malware installed on laptops bought online

Glenn Greenwald Keynote on 30c3

The Tor Network [30c3] (with Jacob Applebaum)

NSA Spying Project Prism Glenn Greenwald Interview

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

Spiegel has revealed new details about a secretive hacking unit inside the National Security Agency called the Office of Tailored Access Operations, or TAO. The unit was created in 1997 to hack into global communications traffic. Hackers inside the TAO have developed a way to break into computers running Microsoft Windows by gaining passive access to machines when users report program crashes to Microsoft. In addition, with help from the CIA and FBI, the NSA has the ability to intercept computers and other electronic accessories purchased online in order to secretly insert spyware and components that can provide backdoor access for the intelligence agencies. American Civil Liberties Union Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer and journalist Glenn Greenwald join us to discuss the latest revelations, along with the future of Edward Snowden, who has recently offered to assist U.S. targets Germany and Brazil with their respective probes into NSA spying.

TAO Revealed: The NSA’s ‘top secret weapon’

‘NSA’s goal is elimination of privacy worldwide’ – Greenwald to EU (FULL SPEECH)

Glenn Greenwald and Ruth Marcus Get in Explosive Exchange over Snowden and ‘Horrible’ D.C. Media

How The NSA Hacks Your iPhone (Presenting DROPOUT JEEP)

by Tyler Durden

Following up on the latest stunning revelations released yesterday by German Spiegel which exposed the spy agency’s 50 page catalog of “backdoor penetration techniques“, today during a speech given by Jacob Applebaum (@ioerror) at the 30th Chaos Communication Congress, a new bombshell emerged: specifically the complete and detailed description of how the NSA bugs, remotely, your iPhone. The way the NSA accomplishes this is using software known as Dropout Jeep, which it describes as follows: “DROPOUT JEEP is a software implant for the Apple iPhone that utilizes modular mission applications to provide specific SIGINT functionality. This functionality includes the ability to remotely push/pull files from the device. SMS retrieval, contact list retrieval, voicemail, geolocation, hot mic, camera capture, cell tower location, etc. Command, control and data exfiltration can occur over SMS messaging or a GPRS data connection. All communications with the implant will be covert and encrypted.”

The flowchart of how the NSA makes your iPhone its iPhone is presented below:

  • NSA ROC operator
  • Load specified module
  • Send data request
  • iPhone accepts request
  • Retrieves required SIGINT data
  • Encrypt and send exfil data
  • Rinse repeat

And visually:

What is perhaps just as disturbing is the following rhetorical sequence from Applebaum:

“Do you think Apple helped them build that? I don’t know. I hope Apple will clarify that. Here’s the problem: I don’t really believe that Apple didn’t help them, I can’t really prove it but [the NSA] literally claim that anytime they target an iOS device that it will succeed for implantation. Either they have a huge collection of exploits that work against Apple products, meaning that they are hoarding information about critical systems that American companies produce and sabotaging them, or Apple sabotaged it themselves. Not sure which one it is. I’d like to believe that since Apple didn’t join the PRISM program until after Steve Jobs died, that maybe it’s just that they write shitty software. We know that’s true.”

Or, Apple’s software is hardly “shitty” even if it seems like that to the vast majority of experts (kinda like the Fed’s various programs), and in fact it achieves precisely what it is meant to achieve.

Either way, now everyone knows that their iPhone is nothing but a gateway for the NSA to peruse everyone’s “private” data at will. Which, incidentally, is not news, and was revealed when we showed how the “NSA Mocks Apple’s “Zombie” Customers; Asks “Your Target Is Using A BlackBerry? Now What?

How ironic would it be if Blackberry, left for dead by virtually everyone, began marketing its products as the only smartphone that does not allow the NSA access to one’s data (and did so accordingly). Since pretty much everything else it has tried has failed, we don’t see the downside to this hail mary attempt to strike back at Big Brother and maybe make some money, by doing the right thing for once.

We urge readers to watch the full one hour speech by Jacob Applebaum to realize just how massive Big Brother truly is, but those who want to just listen to the section on Apple can do so beginning 44 minutes 30 seconds in the presentation below.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-12-30/how-nsa-hacks-your-iphone-presenting-dropout-jeep

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

No Such Agency — NSA — National Security Agency — Threat To The Liberty and Privacy of The American People — None Of Their Damn Business — Still Trust The Federal Government? — Videos

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

Bill and Hillary Clinton at Bill DeBlasio Swearing In Ceremony — Just Another Collectivist Progressive Mayor — Videos

Posted on December 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom |

Bill-de-Blasio

usa-elections-new-york-mayor

Bill-de-Blasio_familly

clinton-de-blasio-families

Glenn Beck Program 2013.10.01 – Bill DeBlasio .

Breaking Down Bill de Blasio’s Win in the New York Mayoral Race

Clintons to Boost Bill de Blasio’s Swear

Conversation with Bill De Blasio

 

ing-In Ceremony

 By Colin Campbell

Bill de Blasio’s swearing-in event will feature two of the biggest names in Democratic politics: former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Mr. Clinton himself will officially swear in Mr. de Blasio next Wednesday afternoon, the mayor-elect’s transition team announced Saturday.

Ms. Clinton is widely viewed as a front-running presidential contender in 2016–although she hasn’t declared her intent to run–and every move she makes is watched closely by political observers.

During the election, Ms. Clinton held a prominent fund-raiser for Mr. de Blasio, who was the campaign manager for her U.S. Senate race in 2000. He also previously worked as a HUD official in Mr. Clinton’s administration.

In a statement today, Mr. de Blasio said he “couldn’t be more excited” to have the two at his event.

“I was honored to serve in President Clinton’s Administration and on Secretary Clinton’s campaign for U.S. Senate, and I am honored again that they will both join our celebration for all of New York City. Wednesday’s ceremony will be an event for every New Yorker from all five boroughs, and Chirlane and I couldn’t be more excited to have President Clinton and Secretary Clinton stand with us,” he said.

According to the announcement, Mr. de Blasio will be sworn in with a bible once owned by President Franklin Roosevelt.

http://politicker.com/2013/12/clintons-to-boost-bill-de-blasios-swearing-in-ceremony/#! 

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

Three Cheers for Phil Robertson — Duck Dynasty, Free Speech, and Religious Freedom Win One — GLAAD IS SAD — Live With It and Move On — Videos

Posted on December 28, 2013. Filed under: American History, Art, Art, Babies, Blogroll, Business, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Entertainment, Heroes, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Rifles, Talk Radio, Television, Television, Vacations, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Duck Dynasty” star Phil Robertson reinstated

 

A & E lifts suspension on ‘Duck Dynasty’

‘This Week’ Roundtable: ‘Duck Dynasty’ Debate

‘Duck Dynasty’ Reversal Shows GLAAD Has an Expiration Date

A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations

By Brandon Ambrosino

Phil v. The Gays. With which will we side? Or rather, against which will we side? This is the question that society demands we answer. Are we anti-Phil or anti-gay or anti-GLAAD or anti-A&E or anti- … ?

Perhaps no other word sums up the Duck Dynasty fiasco as aptly as the word “anti.”

Whenever I hear that someone is anti-this or that, I immediately think of the old quip about MADD – are there any mothers for drunk driving? – and ask myself if anyone is really in favor of the particular thing being protested. Since GLAAD has recently taken a hard-line stance against Phil Robertson’s “anti-gay” comments, I’ve been asking myself a similar question about defamation: Who among us is for it? Most of us are decidedly against defamation, although we choose not to publicly participate in institutional demonstrations to prove how against it we are. But, of course, GLAAD is an institution, and therefore their criticism reverberates at systemic levels.

Founded in 1985 in the wake of the AIDS crisis, GLAAD was formed to protest skewed coverage of LGBT issues and “to put pressure on media organizations to end homophobic reporting.” The original name was an acronym for “Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,” and although the organization has recently rebranded itself by deciding that the letters G-L-A-A-D aren’t actually going to stand for anything any more, their reputation for protesting defamatory speech is well known both within and without the LGBT community.

It goes without saying that GLAAD has done a great deal of good for the LGBT community, and for that they deserve our applause and honor. As they noted in their announcement heralding their name change, their work continues to educate and influence the greater culture. Historically they’ve been a symbol of inclusion and tolerance, and they’ve worked tirelessly to infuse these values into our controlling media discourses. Frankly, though, I don’t think their hasty reaction to Phil Robertson displayed our LGBT community’s best values.

Before many of us even learned that Phil Robertson was interviewed by GQ, GLAAD had already convinced us that Phil’s words were vile and offensive, and called upon A&E “to re-examine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.” (I still wonder how many of us – commentators included – have read the actual story in GQ.) A&E offered its own kneejerk response to GLAAD’s kneejerk response, and placed Phil on “indefinite” hiatus, which then prompted some Evangelicals to offer up their own kneejerk response which had something to do with the freedom of speech and now – did I hear this correctly? – Chick-fil-A. In the end, after carefully reviewing all of the responses, A&E issued a final response explaining their decision to lift Phil’s suspension, which resulted in yet another predictable response from GLAAD. I’m not sure how we do it, but we manage to craft responses to our opponents without ever having actual conversations with them.

It isn’t shocking that a conservative Christian duck-hunter from Louisiana has opinions that GLAAD deemed “anti-gay,” and it isn’t shocking that A&E immediately kowtowed to GLAAD at the first drop of the word “homophobic.” What is shocking, however, is that A&E lifted Phil’s hiatus in spite of the fact that they knew GLAAD wasn’t going to be happy about it. A few years ago, I couldn’t imagine a network disregarding GLAAD’s recommendations. A&E is certainly setting a precedent – which makes me wonder about where we are today with queer politics.

In the ’80s and ’90s, GLAAD was necessary, if only because top media outlets needed to be reminded that journalistic ethics applied to AIDS coverage, too. But in 2014, how necessary is GLAAD? I don’t mean to suggest that the organization isn’t doing some good for our world – as I’ve already noted, they are! But as America edges closer and closer to unqualified and full inclusion of LGBT persons, I wonder if an organization whose raison d’etre is to find and shame instances of discrimination isn’t just a bit archaic.

If our goal is to progress beyond defamation against LGBT persons, then that means GLAAD has a sell-by date. To put it in a different, albeit cheekier way: Defamation is good for GLAAD’s business. To bankrupt our society of LGBT defamation would certainly put GLAAD out of work. It’s hard for me to imagine I’m the only one who’s wondered about this. In fact, GLAAD’s recent name-change only confirms that their leadership has been reexamining and revising their purposes moving forward. Again, I’m not suggesting our world doesn’t need GLAAD: There certainly is a place for them. But A&E’s latest reversal should make us question what exactly that place is.
http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/28/duck-dynasty-reversal-shows-glaad-has-an-expiration-date/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

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

How Low Will Poll Numbers Go On Obamacare and Obama? — Videos

Posted on December 23, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth | Tags: , , , |

Poll Obamacare support drops to new low

CNN’s Christmas Present For President Obama: Record Low Obamacare Poll Numbers

Brit Hume on Obama’s 43% Approval Rating: ‘I think these chickens are coming home to roost!’

MSNBC: Obama Poll Numbers At All Time Lows, Dragging Down 2014 Democrats

New Poll: Obamacare Approval Sinks To 31% Down 12 Points Since Oct – Rolling Collapses – Varney

ABC: New Poll Numbers Brutal For Obama

What you missed on Washington Week: Obama’s poll numbers slipping

Democratic senator says Obamacare could have ‘meltdown,’ hurt party

President Barack Obama’s healthcare law could have a “meltdown” and make it difficult for his Democratic Party to keep control of the U.S. Senate next year if ongoing problems with the program are not resolved, a Democratic senator said on Sunday.

Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, who has urged delaying a penalty for people who do not enroll for health insurance in 2014 under the law, told CNN that a transitional year was needed for the complex healthcare program, commonly known as Obamacare, to work.

“If it’s so much more expensive than what we anticipated and if the coverage is not as good as what we had, you’ve got a complete meltdown at that time,” Manchin told CNN’s “State of the Union” program.

“It falls of its own weight, if basically the cost becomes more than we can absorb, absolutely.”

The White House has been scrambling for months to control the damage from the botched October 1 launch of the law, formally called the Affordable Care Act, which aimed at making sure that millions of Americans without health insurance are able to receive medical coverage.

There have been complaints from consumers about higher premiums than they previously had to pay for health insurance after their old plans were canceled because of new standards under the law, as well as lingering problems with the main web portal used to sign up for insurance, HealthCare.gov.

Manchin said Senate Democrats who are up for re-election next year are “feeling the weight” of the program’s woes and could have trouble keeping their majority in the chamber.

Republicans have been highlighting the healthcare law’s difficulties as they seek to gain the six seats they would need to win control of the 100-member Senate.

“It needs to turn around,” Manchin said of Obamacare. “I’m not going to say that I think we will lose it (the Senate). It’s going to be extremely challenging. We have some very good people who are truly there, I believe, for the right reason. They’re going to be challenged for the wrong reason.”

Obama acknowledged on Friday that that the bungled launch of the healthcare law was his biggest mistake of 2013. His public approval numbers have dropped to historic lows over the law’s debut.

The president said more than 1 million people have signed up so far for new coverage under Obamacare through HealthCare.gov, which services 36 states, and 14 state-run marketplaces.

A day earlier, Obama’s administration said people whose insurance plans were canceled because of the law may claim a “hardship exemption” to the requirement that all Americans must have coverage by March 31 next year or face a penalty.

Manchin, a conservative Democrat whose state of West Virginia has been increasingly trending Republican, has made no secret of his frustration over the program’s fits and starts.

Last month he introduced legislation to delay by a year the $95 penalty for failing to sign up for health insurance, saying Americans should not be penalized while Obamacare is going through its “transition period.”

Manchin does not face re-election next year, but some Democrats who do have also urged changes to the program, such as extending the open enrollment period beyond the March 31 deadline. One third of the Senate is re-elected every two years.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/democratic-senator-says-obamacare-could-39-meltdown-39-172125028.html

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

The Rock — Video

Posted on December 21, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Culture, Entertainment, Movies | Tags: , , |

The Rock

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

Individualism vs. Collectivism — Videos

Posted on December 21, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

individualism_collectivism

ClassicalLiberalism

Ayn Rand – Individualism

Cultural Dimension: me or we

Individualism Vs Collectivism

Individualism vs. Collectivism

Milton Friedman ~ The Escape From Collectivism

Milton Friedman-Collectivism

Hayek on Socialism

Friedrich Hayek: Why Intellectuals Drift Towards Socialism

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 1 of 2

Milton Friedman on Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom” 1994 Interview 2 of 2

Milton Friedman Discusses Collectivism vs Liberalism

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #1

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #2

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #3

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism #4

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Ayn Rand: Racism VS. Individualism

Ayn Rand – In Defense of Capitalism

Yaron Brook – Objectivism Is Radical (and Applying It Can Be Hard)

Milton Friedman Interview with Gary Becker (2003)

In Depth with Milton Friedman w/ Q&A (2000)

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

David E. Scheim –Contract On America: The Mafia Murder of President John F. Kennedy — Videos

Posted on December 20, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Raves, Security, Video | Tags: , , , , , |

david_scheim_contract_on_america

Conspiracy Theories ; Jack Ruby [FULL VIDEO]

JFK Assassination Conspiracy Theories: John F. Kennedy Facts, Photos, Timeline, Books, Articles

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 1

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 2

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 3

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 4

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 5

JFK Assassination – Mob Connection part 6

The Killing of President Kennedy (very rare 1978 BBC documentary)

David E. Scheim

David E. Scheim is a director of management information systems. He is the author of several books on the murders of John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy. This includes Contract on America : the Mafia murders of John and Robert Kennedy (1983) andThe Mafia Killed President Kennedy (1988).

In 1989 Scheim told Blaine Taylor who he thought Carlos Marcello, Santos Trafficante and Jimmy Hoffa ordered the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He added: “All three of them were very close friends, and, when we look at Jack Ruby’s telephone records, we find an astonishing peak in the number of out-of-state calls in the months before the assassination – it’s actually 25-fold greater than in the month of the previous January. Most of those calls are to organized crime figures, in particular to top associates of Marcello, Trafficante, and Hoffa.

Scheim is on the Board of Advisors of the Assassination Archives and Research Centre in Washington.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKscheim.htm

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

God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

Posted on December 19, 2013. Filed under: American History, Art, Art, Blogroll, Business, Comedy, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Heroes, history, liberty, Life, Links, media, Music, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Security, Talk Radio, Technology, Television, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 

Merry-Christmas-Happy-New-Year

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 2, 2014

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184

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

Segment 0: God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

 

Phil-Robertsonphil-robertson-meme_2A&E Networks 2012 Upfront - InsidePhil-Robertson5jpgphil_on_foundersA+E Networks 2013 Upfront-3Si-Robertson

Phil+Robertson_friends

phil_robertson_baseballxt0pn55t0rG_Phil_Robertson_football_photo

phil_robertson_quarterbackp_robertson_crusadephil_robertson_words

I am Second® – The Robertsons

Duck Dynasty : Phil’s Way of Life

Duck Dynasty: Unknown Facts About The Robertsons

The Best of Uncle Si

Duck Dynasty : Si Struck

Duck Dynasty: Si’s New Toy

Duck Dynasty: Si’s Dating Tips

Duck Dynasty : Hey

Uncle Si Robertson “ICY STARE” HILARIOUS DUCK DYNASTY ( 720P HD )

Duck Commanders Phil and Willie Robertson Interview – CONAN on TBS

The Robertson’s of Duck Dynasty Talk About How Their Faith in Jesus Turned Around Their Lives!!

Duck Commander Phil Robertson Talks About Why This Country Needs More Jesus

Duck Commander Phil Robertson from Duck Dynasty spoke to the congregation of Saddleback church in July on why people need Jesus and why the founders would agree — and I gotta say it was awesome. I watched it last night and knew I had to post it for you guys. Duck Commander’s message is really simple, that people need to love God and love each other and he delivers it beautifully. He really is a fantastic preacher.

‘Duck Dynasty’ star: Homosexuality wrong

Phil Robertson Duck Dynasty Suspended GQ Anti-Gay -Black Racist Comments Suspension

‘Duck Dynasty’ Star Makes Shocking ‘Gay is Sin’ Comment

Duck Dynasty dared to mention Jesus

‘Duck Dynasty’ star slammed over anti-gay rant

By Andrea Morabito

Phil Robertson, patriarch of the “Duck Dynasty” clan, is being slammed for controversial comments he made about homosexuality in an interview in the January issue of GQ.

“It seems like, to me, a vagina—as a man—would be more desirable than a man’s anus. That’s just me,” Robertson told the magazine. “I’m just thinking: There’s more there! She’s got more to offer. I mean, come on, dudes! You know what I’m saying? But hey, sin: It’s not logical, my man. It’s just not logical.”

When the reporter asked Robertson what he found sinful, he said “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men.”

The self-proclaimed Bible-thumper then went on to paraphrase Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”

On Wednesday, GLAAD called Robertson’s statements “vile” and “littered with outdated stereotypes.”

“Phil and his family claim to be Christian, but Phil’s lies about an entire community fly in the face of what true Christians believe,” said GLAAD spokesperson Wilson Cruz. “He clearly knows nothing about gay people or the majority of Louisianans — and Americans — who support legal recognition for loving and committed gay and lesbian couples.

“Phil’s decision to push vile and extreme stereotypes is a stain on A&E and his sponsors who now need to reexamine their ties to someone with such public disdain for LGBT people and families.”

An A&E spokesman had no comment, but Robertson released his own statement responding to the controversy.

“I myself am a product of the 60s; I centered my life around sex, drugs and rock and roll until I hit rock bottom and accepted Jesus as my Savior,” he said. “My mission today is to go forth and tell people about why I follow Christ and also what the Bible teaches, and part of that teaching is that women and men are meant to be together.

“However, I would never treat anyone with disrespect just because they are different from me. We are all created by the Almighty and like Him, I love all of humanity. We would all be better off if we loved God and loved each other.”

“Duck Dynasty” has been a ratings phenomenon for A&E, drawing 11.8 million viewers to its fourth season premiere last August, the most-watched nonfiction series telecast in cable history.

Its fifth season premieres on Jan. 15.

http://nypost.com/2013/12/18/duck-dynasty-member-slammed-for-comments-on-homosexuality/

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Three Cheers for Phil Robertson —  Duck Dynasty, Free Speech, and Religious Freedom Win One — GLAAD IS SAD —  Live With It and Move On — Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 184, December 19, 2013, Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos

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

Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos

Posted on December 18, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Public Sector, Regulations, Resources, Reviews, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

Merry Christmas and A Happy New Year

Merry-Christmas-Happy-New-Year

Pronk Pops Show 185: January 2, 2014

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 184: December 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 183: December 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184

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

Segment 1: Bubbles Ben Bernanke Bumps Bubble of Quantitative Easing Down By $10 Billion Per Month — Near Zero Interest Rate Policy Will Continue Well Into 2014 –Last Press Conference — Videos

Bernanke-press-conference-Dec-18-2

Bernanke on Fed taper in 90 seconds

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke’s Final Speech

Press Conference with Chairman of the FOMC, Ben S. Bernanke

FED Downgrades Economic Outlook & Says It Will Not Change Policy – Stuart Varney

US Federal Reserve to pull back on stimulus program in economic vote of confidence

Assessing the Ben Bernanke Legacy

Background Articles and Videos

Max Keiser Discusses QE & Rigged Global Markets

Peter Schiff Was Right – ‘Taper’ Edition (Dec 18, 2013 Update)

Peter Schiff We’re in Depression, Dollar Crisis Coming

Peter Schiff Money Causes Economic Crises – Peter Schiff Economic Crisis – Peter Schiff Money

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 184, December 19, 2013, Segment 0: God Is Behind Going Duck Crazy — Duck Dynasty Phil Robertson Suspended From Show For Expressing Views On Gays — Will Not Inherit The Kingdom of God — I’m With Phil — Photos & Videos

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

U.S. District Court Rules National Security Agency (NSA)’s Phone Surveillance Program Unconstitutional — Videos

Posted on December 16, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Constitution, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Reviews, Security, Strategy, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-182

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

Segment 0: U.S. District Court Rules National Security Agency (NSA)’s Phone Surveillance Program Unconstitutional — Videos

Judge rules NSA spying program likely unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules NSA Spying On All American Phone Calls Unconstitutional

OBAMA defends Massive NSA Spying PRISM program. Taps in to Data of Apple, Google, Skype, Verizon

Sen. Paul Applauds the Protection of Fourth Amendment Rights

Dec 16, 2013

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Sen. Rand Paul today issued the following statement applauding the U.S. District Court ruling that deemed the National Security Agency’s (NSA) phone surveillance program unconstitutional:

“I commend U.S. District Court Judge Richard Leon for upholding and protecting our Fourth Amendment rights. This decision represents an important first step in having the constitutionality of government surveillance programs decided in the regular court system rather than a secret court where only one side is presented,” Sen. Paul said. “In June, I introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act which, if enacted, would have restored our Constitutional rights and declared that the Fourth Amendment shall not be construed to allow any agency of the United States government to search the phone records of Americans without a warrant based on probable cause. The NSA phone surveillance program is a blatant abuse of power and an invasion of our privacy. This ruling reminds the Federal government that it is not above the law. I will continue to fight against the violations of American’s Constitutional rights through illegal phone surveillance until it is stopped once and for all.”

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 182, December 16, 2013, Segment 1: Republican Senators and Representatives Traitors To The Principle of Fiscal Responsibility and Conservative and Tea Party Movement — Republican Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Base Will Take Out The Republican Budget Big Interventionist Government Spenders — Videos

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

Republican Senators and Representatives Traitors To The Principle of Fiscal Responsibility and Conservative and Tea Party Movement — Republican Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Base Will Take Out The Republican Budget Big Interventionist Government Spenders — Videos

Posted on December 16, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Comedy, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Culture, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 182: December 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 181: December 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-182

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

Segment 1: Republican Senators and Representatives Traitors To The Principle of Fiscal Responsibility and Conservative and Tea Party Movement — Republican Conservative, Libertarian and Tea Party Base Will Take Out The Republican Budget Big Interventionist Government Spenders — Videos

sequestration-budget-pie-chart-political-cartoon

US budget deal clears key Senate hurdle

Boehner lashes out at conservative groups over fragile budget deal

Budget Deal Exposes GOP Split Fox News Sunday Panel w Chris Wallace

Senate Republicans split over budget deal

Budget Deal Disappointment: Dr. Coburn on Morning Joe 12/11/2013

Grover Norquist – President of Americans for Tax Reform

Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal

GOP Learder Take Aim At Tea Party Critics As House Passes Budget Deal – Sen Mike Lee (R-UT)

John Boehner places blame for horrid Congress where it belongs

By David Horsey

Setting new lows for accomplishment in its first year, the 113th Congress is on track to wrest the title of Worst Congress Ever from the horrid 112th Congress. House Speaker John A. Boehner bears a great deal of blame for this dismal record, but he can be commended for finally calling out the conservative activist organizations that have been cheering on the congressional drive toward ignominy.

Last week, with Congress on the verge of actually doing something – passing a compromise two-year budget that would avoid another disastrous government shutdown – right-wing groups such as the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and the tea party umbrella organization FreedomWorks demanded that Republicans vote against the spending plan and threatened that a “yes” vote could be used against incumbents in the 2014 GOP primaries.

At long last, Boehner had had enough. In a news conference Wednesday, the speaker hammered the conservative hard-liners, saying: “They’re using our members and they’re using the American people for their own goals. This is ridiculous. If you’re for more deficit reduction, you’re for this agreement.”

In another gathering with reporters Thursday, Boehner took a repeat shot. “I think they’re pushing our members in places where they don’t want to be,” he said. “And frankly, I just think that they’ve lost all credibility.”

Boehner went on to lay blame for October’s government shutdown squarely with the right-wing money groups. Those groups pushed the shutdown as a bold plan, encouraging the tea party faction of the House Republicans to resist more moderate voices in their caucus. “My members know that wasn’t exactly the strategy I had in mind,” the speaker said.

Besides the satisfaction of seeing Boehner smack down the people who have helped turn the Republican Party into a narrow cult of neo-Confederates, it is gratifying to have him lay bare the preposterous lie many of his conservative compatriots tried to foist on the American people at the time of the shutdown. The very right-wingers who engineered the government closure and were eager for a rejection of the debt ceiling raise, including Sen. Ted Cruz, Rep. Michele Bachmann and the whole crew on Fox News, are the ones who tried to pin blame for it all on President Obama. Unsurprisingly, the faction of Americans who live in a paranoid, Obama-fearing bubble eagerly swallowed this canard.

Now, though, the Republican speaker has spoken the truth. One can hope it is the first small step toward the Grand Old Party being restored to sanity and the first sign that Congress is edging toward redemption.

http://www.latimes.com/opinion/topoftheticket/la-na-tt-horrid-congress-20131215,0,4941706.story#ixzz2ng2XWc7J

Hatch Joins Other Republicans in Supporting Budget Deal

By

Support for a compromise two-year budget deal grew on Monday ahead of a Tuesday vote in the Senate as Republicans concluded that a measure that achieved overwhelming bipartisan support in the House could not die in Congress’s upper chamber.

Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, announced his support for the measure on Monday, appearing to give it the 60 votes it would need to overcome a filibuster threat and bring it to a final vote, which would need only a majority. Mr. Hatch joined Senators John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Richard M. Burr of North Carolina, Susan Collins of Maine and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, all Republicans who have said they will vote to cut off debate.

“This agreement isn’t everything I’d hoped it would be, and it isn’t what I would have written,” Mr. Hatch said. “But sometimes the answer has to be yes. The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government.”

The deal, struck by Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington, and Representative Paul D. Ryan, Republican of Wisconsin, sailed through the House last week but ran into a toxic mix of re-election politics, presidential positioning and hurt feelings in the Senate.

Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, held a rare session on Sunday to formally file to end debate on the measure. Business groups, including the Business Roundtable, which represents the chief executives of the largest American corporations, pressed Senate Republicans to get on board, countering pressure from conservative groups that oppose the deal.

“The Ryan-Murray budget legislation, while not perfect, offers stability and the opportunity for the U.S. government to once again operate responsibly within the confines of an approved budget. It is both balanced and fiscally responsible. We are confident that if enacted it would help provide a platform for greater investment, job creation, and growth,” wrote Randall Stephenson, chairman-elect of the roundtable and chief executive of AT&T.

Mr. Ryan, chairman of the House Budget Committee and his party’s vice-presidential nominee in 2012, and Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio worked behind the scenes to win support from Senate Republicans.

And with a public showdown looming, undecided Republicans decided on Monday to come off the fence. Even some Republicans who had privately signaled opposition last week were coming around, convinced that a deal that passed the House 332-94, with a strong majority of Republicans behind it, could not be derailed in the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/17/us/politics/hatch-joins-other-republicans-in-supporting-budget-deal.html?hp&_r=0

CNN vote count: Budget deal nearing Senate approval, but not there yet

Posted by

Washington (CNN) – The budget deal struck by Republican and Democratic lawmakers that easily passed the House of Representatives last week has run into some opposition in the Senate. But according to CNN’s vote count, the deal appears to be nearing passage.

There are currently a total of 36 aye votes for the budget, according to the count, with four Republicans joining 31 Democrats and one independent. All no votes, according to the count, are coming from Republicans, with 20 Senate offices telling CNN they plan to vote against the deal.

While Democrats do not have the 50 votes needed for final passage, top aides in both parties privately expressed confidence on Friday the bill will get the necessary support, even if a couple of wary moderate Democrats end up voting “no.”

But before the measure faces a final vote, it will need to pass the higher threshold of 60 votes to clear procedural hurdles. But Republicans – like Richard Burr of North Carolina and Jeff Flake of Arizona – have said they plan to back the motions that will eventually allow Democrats to only need a straight majority to pass the bill.

The four Republicans who plan to support the deal are Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Orrin Hatch of Utah.

Hatch is the most recent Republican to come out in support of the bill. In a Monday statement, the Republican lawmaker said that “this agreement isn’t everything I’d hoped it would be, and it isn’t what I would have written. But sometimes the answer has to be yes.”

“The reality is that Republicans only control one-half of one-third of government,” Hatch said. “Ultimately, this agreement upholds the principles conservatives stand for and, with Democrats controlling the White House and the Senate, it is the best we could hope for.”

The deal worked out by House Budget Chairman Rep. Paul Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray soared through the house, passing by a 332-94 vote. The budget – while smaller than some had wanted – is a bright spot of bipartisanship in what has been a year full of bitter partisanship.

For many, the deal represents a way to ensure that government doesn’t shut down again – like it did for 16 days in October.

In the Senate, however, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have questioned aspects of the deal. More liberal senators – like Tom Harkin for Iowa – complained that an unemployment benefit extension was not included in the deal.

“There’s over a million people now who cannot find a job, out of work, and right at this time of year their unemployment insurance is being cut off,” Harkin told Radio Iowa last week. “It’s really unconscionable.”

If lawmakers don’t act, unemployment benefits – at a cost of $26 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office – will expire for 1.3 million workers on December 28.

On the other side, more conservative members of the the Senate – like John Thune of South Dakota – told CNN he can’t support the deal because it doesn’t “include meaningful spending reforms that address our debt and deficit.”

Republican Sen. Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, along with other senators, have also raised question about reductions in cost of living benefits for military retirees.

“After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,” Graham said in a release. “Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.”

Over a quarter of the Senate remains on the fence – with 27 members, including 12 Democrats – telling CNN they have not yet decided how they plan to vote. Representatives from five offices – two Democrats and three Republicans – told CNN they are not announcing how they are voting.

“I will look closely at the details of this budget and evaluate how it meets the needs of New Mexicans and our country as a whole,” Democrat Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico told CNN. Republicans also remain undecided, like John Cornyn of Texas, whose spokesman told CNN that the senator “will take a close look” at the deal but “is concerned about reversing spending cuts.”

For this vote count, CNN has reached out to all 100 Senate offices and 12 have not responded.

Related Posts On Pronk Pops

The Pronk Pops Show 182, December 16, 2013, Segment 0: U.S. District Court Rules National Security Agency (NSA)’s Phone Surveillance Program Unconstitutional — Videos

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

Obama Wins Award — Lie of The Year — Obama is An Habitual Liar — The Many Legends of Barry Davis — Videos

Posted on December 14, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

lie of the year

obama_lies

keep-it-image

A Montage of Obama’s “If You Like Your Plan Keep It” Lies

Obama Lies Compilation – WAKE UP YOU SHEEPLE!

Glenn Beck Presidential Lies Do You Know Anybody Like Barack Obama

CNN: Politifact Names Obama’s “Keep Your Plan” Promise Its Lie Of The Year

Obama Receives PolitiFact’s “Lie of the Year” Award For This Lie

“Lie Of The Year” – Obama Lied To America – O’Reilly

Glenn Beck: Lie Of The Year

Obama Lie – Broken Obamacare Promise ‘If You Like Your Plan’ Named Lie Of The Year – The Kelly File

The Many Legends of Barry Davis

side-photos-of-frank-and-obama

the_communist_frank_marshall davis

Who is the REAL Barack Obama?

Paul Kengor & Glenn Beck “The Communist” on GBTV Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor

Dreams from My Real Father: A Story of Reds and Deception

Frank Marshall Davis Interview (Obama’s Real Father From The Book “Dreams From My Real Father”)

Was Obama’s Real Daddy Running a Sex Club in Hawaii ?

The Obama Deception HQ Full length version

Legends_Robert_Littell_NBC_TV_series_Penguin_paperback

Legends_robert_littell

Legends Audiobook Sample

The article:

Lie of the Year: ‘If you like your health care plan, you can keep it’

By Angie Drobnic Holan
Published on Thursday, December 12th, 2013 at 4:44 p.m.

Related rulings:

Pants on Fire!

“What we said was, you can keep (your plan) if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Barack Obama, Monday, November 4th, 2013.

Ruling: Pants on Fire! | Details

False

“FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans.”

Valerie Jarrett, Monday, October 28th, 2013.

Ruling: False | Details

Half-True

“If you’re one of the more than 250 million Americans who already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.”

Barack Obama, Thursday, June 28th, 2012.

Ruling: Half-True | Details

Share this article:

We counted dozens of times that President Barack Obama said that if people liked their health plans, they could keep them.

It was a catchy political pitch and a chance to calm nerves about his dramatic and complicated plan to bring historic change to America’s health insurance system.

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep.

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief.  Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

For all of these reasons, PolitiFact has named “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” the Lie of the Year for 2013. Readers in a separate online poll overwhelmingly agreed with the choice. (PolitiFact first announced its selection on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.)

For four of the past five years, PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year has revolved around the health care law, which has been subject to more erroneous attacks than any other piece of legislation PolitiFact has fact-checked.

Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.

Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.

The debate about the health care law rages on, but friends and foes of Obamacare have found one slice of common ground: The president’s “you can keep it” claim has been a real hit to his credibility.

Why the cancellations happened

How did we get to this point?

The Affordable Care Act tried to allow existing health plans to continue under a complicated process called “grandfathering,” which basically said insurance companies could keep selling plans if they followed certain rules.

The problem for insurers was that the Obamacare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Obama’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Obama repeated “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” when seeking re-election last year.

In 2009 and again in 2012, PolitiFact rated Obama’s statement Half True, which means the statement is partially correct and partially wrong. We noted that while the law took pains to leave some parts of the insurance market alone, people were not guaranteed to keep insurance through thick and thin. It was likely that some private insurers would continue to force people to switch plans, and that trend might even accelerate.

In the final months of 2013, several critical elements of the health care law were being enacted, and media attention was at its height. Healthcare.gov made its debut on Oct. 1. It didn’t take long for the media, the public and Obama’s own team to realize the website was a technological mess, freezing out customers and generally not working.

Also on Oct. 1, insurers started sending out cancellation letters for 2014.

No one knows exactly how many people got notices, because the health insurance market is largely private and highly fragmented. Analysts estimated the number at about 4 million (and potentially higher), out of a total insured population of about 262 million.

That was less than 2 percent, but there was no shortage of powerful anecdotes about canceled coverage.

One example: PBS Newshour interviewed a woman from Washington, D.C., who was a supporter of the health care law and found her policy canceled. New policies had significantly higher rates. She told Newshour that the only thing the new policy covered that her old one didn’t was maternity care and pediatric services. And she was 58.

“The chance of me having a child at this age is zero. So, you know, I ask the president, why do I have to pay an additional $5,000 a year for maternity coverage that I will never, ever need?” asked Deborah Persico.

The administration’s botched response

Initially, Obama and his team didn’t budge.

First, they tried to shift blame to insurers. “FACT: Nothing in #Obamacare forces people out of their health plans,” said Valerie Jarrett, a top adviser to Obama, on Oct. 28.

PolitiFact rated her statement False. The restrictions on grandfathering were part of the law, and they were driving cancellations.

Then, they tried to change the subject. “It’s important to remember both before the ACA was ever even a gleam in anybody’s eye, let alone passed into law, that insurance companies were doing this all the time, especially in the individual market because it was lightly regulated and the incentives were so skewed,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney.

But what really set everyone off was when Obama tried to rewrite his slogan, telling political supporters on Nov. 4, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law, and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed.”

Pants on Fire! PolitiFact counted 37 times when he’d included no caveats, such as a high-profile speech to the American Medical Association in 2009: “If you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what.”

Even Obama’s staunchest allies cried foul.

On Nov. 6, columnist Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune wrote that the public “was entitled to hear the unvarnished truth, not spin, from their president about what they were about to face. I don’t feel good about calling out Obama’s whopper, because I support most of his policies and programs. But in this instance, he would have to be delusional to think he was telling the truth.”

The next day, Obama apologized during a lengthy interview with NBC News’ Chuck Todd.

“We weren’t as clear as we needed to be in terms of the changes that were taking place, and I want to do everything we can to make sure that people are finding themselves in a good position, a better position than they were before this law happened. And I am sorry that they are finding themselves in this situation based on assurances they got from me,” he said.

Political fist-fight

The reaction from conservative talk shows was withering. On Nov. 11, Sean Hannity put Obama’s statements up there with President Richard Nixon’s “I am not a crook,” and President Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

On the liberal network MSNBC, Joy-Ann Reid said the Obama administration’s intention was to fight off attacks like the ones that scuttled Clinton’s health proposals in the early 1990s.

“That’s why the administration boiled it down to that, if you like your health care, you can keep it. Big mistake, but it was a mistake that I think came a little bit out of the lesson” of the Clinton years, she said Nov. 12.

Two days later, House minority leader Nancy Pelosi defended Obama’s statement as accurate and blamed insurance companies. “Did I ever tell my constituents that, if they like their plan, they could keep it? I would have, if I’d ever met anybody who liked his or her plan, but that was not my experience,” she said.

Obama offered an administrative fix that same day, allowing state insurance commissioners to extend current plans. But only some have chosen to do so.

In announcing the fix, Obama again conceded he had exaggerated. “There is no doubt that the way I put that forward unequivocally ended up not being accurate,” he said. “It was not because of my intention not to deliver on that commitment and that promise.  We put a grandfather clause into the law, but it was insufficient.”

It is too soon to say what the lasting impact of “if you like your health care plan, you can keep it” will be.

The president’s favorability ratings have tumbled in recent weeks.

A Pew Research/USA Today poll conducted Dec. 3-8 found the percentage of people viewing Obama as “not trustworthy” has risen 15 points over the course of the year, from 30 percent to 45 percent.

Much depends on the law’s continuing implementation and other events during Obama’s final three years in office, said Larry Sabato, a political scientist who runs the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

Still, Obama has work to do to win back public trust, Sabato said.

“A whole series of presidents developed credibility gaps, because people didn’t trust what they were saying anymore. And that’s Obama’s real problem,” he said. “Once you lose the trust of a substantial part of the American public, how do you get it back?”

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

CIA Rattles White House Cage Over Walking Back The Cat On Obama–Lapdog Holder Barks At CIA–No Bite!

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

Republican Senators Oppose House Budget Deal — Republicans Voting For Deal Will Be Targeted By Tea Party and Conservative Movement Voters — Videos

Posted on December 13, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Microeconomics, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Regulations, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

.

IP_BUDGETDEAL7

house_deal

ryan_murray

Breakthrough budget passed in US House of Representatives

Budget deal passes, what’s next?

Sen. Rand Paul on state of GOP, new budget deal

Senator Rubio React To Compromise Budget Deal Approved By House America’s Newsroom

JEFF SESSIONS: SENATE GOP TO FILIBUSTER PAUL RYAN’S BUDGET DEAL

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), the ranking GOP member of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that Senate Republicans plan to filibuster the budget deal that House Budget Committee chairman Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) cut with Senate Budget Committee chairwoman Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA).

The deal passed the House 332-94, with 62 Republicans and 32 Democrats voting against it. The bill is expected to come up for votes in the Senate early next week, either Monday or Tuesday.

The type of filibuster Sessions spoke of is not the traditional “talking filibuster” like the one Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) launched earlier this year to protest Attorney General Eric Holder and President Barack Obama’s drone policies. It is a procedural filibuster, The Hill reports, that would require Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to at least twice obtain 60 votes to pass the bill.

“They’ll need 60 votes on cloture and 60 votes on the budget point of order,” Sessions said, according to The Hill.

Since there are only 55 Democrats in the U.S. Senate, Reid will twice need at least five Republicans to break from their party and support the budget deal. Reid may need more Republicans if liberals like Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) or Bernie Sanders (I-VT) oppose the deal because it does not extend unemployment benefits. Considering 32 Democrats voted against the deal in the House, it seems plausible Reid may lose at least one, maybe two Democrats in the Senate.

Senate Republicans largely seem unified against the bill. As of late Thursday, not one Senate Republican confirmed suppot of the plan.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell will vote against it, and Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn and GOP conference chairman John Thune have indicated their opposition to it as well. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) has said he opposes it. Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jeff Flake (R-AZ), and Sessions each oppose it too.

Sens. Bob Corker (R-TN), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Roger Wicker (R-MS), who usually support similar measures, have each announced their opposition.

Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) is undecided as of this point, and while Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)—easily the Senate’s most liberal Republican—has said he is leaning “yes,” he has not yet committed to voting for the deal, citing concerns with military pension cuts in it.

Appropriators like Sens. Susan Collins (R-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have not committed either, according to Roll Call.

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the Majority Whip in the Senate, confirmed to reporters on Thursday that the Democrats need GOP votes to make this happen.

“We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,” Durbin said. “We need at least five, and I’m hoping that there’ll be more than that. There are not five who Republicans have announced they’re for it, I mean to my knowledge, and I hope there are many more than that, and they’re just holding back for any number of reasons.”

While the deal is more likely to pass the Senate than not, the question becomes about which Republicans — if any — Reid will be able to attract to support the Ryan budget deal.

It’s war! Senate gears up for epic battle as ZERO Republicans line up to support budget agreement (and Democrats need to find at least five)

  • Congress needs to pass a new budget by January 15 to avoid another government shutdown
  • Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray negotiated a framework and tried to sell it to their respective majorities
  • The GOP-led House passed the plan Thursday night despite complaints from tea partiers and other budget hawks
  • But objections from Senate Republicans, including a claim that the plan restores spending cuts by shortchanging veterans’ pensions, could kill it

By DAVID MARTOSKO

A landmark budget agreement that passed in the U.S. House on Thursday faces certain death in the Senate unless at least five Republicans step up to support it – but so far there are no takers at all.

The GOP’s Senate leaders plan to launch a procedural effort to kill the plan over a laundry list of objections – including a claim that it short-changes military veterans and other government retirees.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin conceded that he needs to find Republicans who will vote for the measure after Republicans announced their intention Thursday night to block the deal.

‘We need Republican votes to pass the budget agreement, period,’ Durbin told reporters on Thursday. ‘We need at least five. And I’m hoping that there will be more than that.’

Durbin, an Illinois Democrat and the third-most powerful Senate leader, acknowledged that ‘there are not five Republicans who have announced they’re for it.’

In fact, no Republican senators have publicly said that they will vote in favor of the agreement that Republican Rep. Paul Ryan and Democratic Sen. Patty Murray unveiled Tuesday evening.

Their plan would roll back $63 billion in mandatory cuts from the so-called budget sequester that took effect in March. Some of that restored spending would be offset by cuts to military and civilian government pensions.

Annual cost-of-living increases in most military veterans’ retirement benefits would be cut by 1 per cent, an amount that the Military Officers Association of America says could cost a typical former soldier or sailor $80,000 over a 20-year period.

The GOP’s three most senior senators, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, have announced that they will vote ‘no.’

Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, all considered top-tier presidential contenders in 2016, are all lined up against the measure.

The proposal ‘spends more, taxes more, and allows continued funding for Obamacare,’ Cruz said Thursday. ‘I cannot support it.’

Rubio emailed supporters on Wednesday, saying that the agreement Ryan and Murray negotiated over a six-week period ‘continues Washington’s irresponsible budgeting decisions by spending more money than the government takes in and placing additional financial burdens on everyday Americans.’

House Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal -- but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill itHouse Speaker John Boehner fanned the flames of a civil war inside the GOP by slamming conservative groups that opposed the budget deal — but it could all be for nought if his Senate colleagues decide to kill it

And Paul said in a statement that the March sequester cuts ‘were not nearly enough to address our deficit problem. Undoing tens of billions of this modest spending restraint is shameful and must be opposed.’

Other Republicans who face primary challenges from tea party-backed candidates are also vowing to cast ‘no’ votes.

‘After careful review of the agreement, I believe it will do disproportionate harm to our military retirees,’ South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said in a statement.

‘Our men and women in uniform have served admirably during some of our nation’s most troubling times. They deserve more from us in their retirement than this agreement provides.’

Sen. Roger Wicker, a Mississippi Republican, echoed Graham’s complaint.

‘I do not support paying for increased federal spending on the backs of our retired and active duty troops,’ Wicker’s Thursday statement read. ‘Congress should not change the rules in the middle of the game for those who have chosen to serve our nation in the military. … The plan should be rejected.’

Other Republicans object to what one GOP Senate staffer told MailOnline is the agreement’s ‘pixie dust approach to budgeting.’

‘We’re doing what we always do,’ said the aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity. ‘We set out a ten-year plan while knowing full well that we have a decade to undo it and shift gears again.’

Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions explained that Democrats will need 60 ‘yes’ votes – on two separate procedural ballots – in order to pass it.

The GOP’s parliamentary roadblocks will have the same effect as a traditional filibuster without consuming countless hours of Senate time when the measure is considered early next week.

Even if Senate Democrats manage to find enough Republican support to pass the agreement, it won’t have the force of law.

What Ryan and Murray proposed Wednesday is merely a framework for a budget that has yet to be written. Members of Congress who sit on appropriation committees will still be required to craft – and pass in both houses – a final budget bill by January 15.

Unless they can pull it off, the federal government will be headed for its second shutdown in three months.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523120/ZERO-Senate-Republicans-support-budget-agreement-Democrats-five.html

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

After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

Posted on December 12, 2013. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, Illegal, Immigration, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, Math, media, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 180: December 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 179: December 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 178: December 5, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 177: December 2, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 176: November 27, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 175: November 26, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 174: November 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 173: November 22, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 172: November 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 171: November 20, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 170: November 19, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 169: November 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 168: November 15, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 167: November 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 166: November 13, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 165: November 12, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 164: November 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 163: November 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 162: November 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 161: November 4, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 160: November 1, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 159: October 31, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 158: October 30, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 157: October 28, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 156: October 25, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 155: October 24, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 154: October 23, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 153: October 21, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 152: October 18, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 151: October 17, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 150: October 16, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 149: October 14, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 148: October 11, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 147: October 10, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 146: October 9, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 145: October 8, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 144: October 7, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 143: October 4 2013

Pronk Pops Show 142: October 3, 2013

Pronk Pops Show 141: October 2, 2013

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-180

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

Segment 0: After 6 Years Employment Level of 144.4 Million Still Below Previous Peak of 146.6 Million in November 2007 — 2.2 Million Short — Plus 9 Million To 11 Million New Entrants — Obama Job Shortage 11 Million to 13 Million! — Obama’s Economic Policies and Obamacare Not Working! — Videos

sgs-emp

Alternate Unemployment Charts

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.

The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_data/unemployment-charts

December 6th 2013 CNBC Stock Market Squawk Box (November Jobs Report)

November Unemployment Rate Falls To 7% – Crowley: If This Numbers Are To Be Believed Thats A Big If

Jobs report doesn’t improve outlook for long-term jobless

Nightly Business Report — December 6, 2013

Stock Markets Latest News: Wall St. Eyes Weekly Gain After Jobs Report

Bob Browne: Last week’s strong U.S. jobs report — December 9, 2013

The long-term effects of unemployment among young workers

Friday, December 6, 2013

Larry Kudlow Admits to Being Wrong About Bernanke And The Economy NOT PETER SCHIFF THOUGH!

Employment Level

144,386,000

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

Employment_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 136559(1) 136598 136701 137270 136630 136940 136531 136662 136893 137088 137322 137614
2001 137778 137612 137783 137299 137092 136873 137071 136241 136846 136392 136238 136047
2002 135701 136438 136177 136126 136539 136415 136413 136705 137302 137008 136521 136426
2003 137417(1) 137482 137434 137633 137544 137790 137474 137549 137609 137984 138424 138411
2004 138472(1) 138542 138453 138680 138852 139174 139556 139573 139487 139732 140231 140125
2005 140245(1) 140385 140654 141254 141609 141714 142026 142434 142401 142548 142499 142752
2006 143150(1) 143457 143741 143761 144089 144353 144202 144625 144815 145314 145534 145970
2007 146028(1) 146057 146320 145586 145903 146063 145905 145682 146244 145946 146595 146273
2008 146378(1) 146156 146086 146132 145908 145737 145532 145203 145076 144802 144100 143369
2009 142153(1) 141644 140721 140652 140250 140005 139898 139481 138810 138421 138665 138025
2010 138439(1) 138624 138767 139296 139255 139148 139167 139405 139388 139097 139046 139295
2011 139253(1) 139471 139643 139606 139681 139405 139509 139870 140164 140314 140771 140896
2012 141608(1) 142019 142020 141934 142302 142448 142250 142164 142974 143328 143277 143305
2013 143322(1) 143492 143286 143579 143898 144058 144285 144170 144303 143568 144386
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Civilian Labor Force Level

155,254,000

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

Civilian_Labor_Force_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 142267(1) 142456 142434 142751 142388 142591 142278 142514 142518 142622 142962 143248
2001 143800 143701 143924 143569 143318 143357 143654 143284 143989 144086 144240 144305
2002 143883 144653 144481 144725 144938 144808 144803 145009 145552 145314 145041 145066
2003 145937(1) 146100 146022 146474 146500 147056 146485 146445 146530 146716 147000 146729
2004 146842(1) 146709 146944 146850 147065 147460 147692 147564 147415 147793 148162 148059
2005 148029(1) 148364 148391 148926 149261 149238 149432 149779 149954 150001 150065 150030
2006 150214(1) 150641 150813 150881 151069 151354 151377 151716 151662 152041 152406 152732
2007 153144(1) 152983 153051 152435 152670 153041 153054 152749 153414 153183 153835 153918
2008 154063(1) 153653 153908 153769 154303 154313 154469 154641 154570 154876 154639 154655
2009 154232(1) 154526 154142 154479 154742 154710 154505 154300 153815 153804 153887 153120
2010 153455(1) 153702 153960 154577 154110 153623 153709 154078 153966 153681 154140 153649
2011 153244(1) 153269 153358 153478 153552 153369 153325 153707 154074 154010 154096 153945
2012 154356(1) 154825 154707 154451 154998 155149 154995 154647 155056 155576 155319 155511
2013 155654(1) 155524 155028 155238 155658 155835 155798 155486 155559 154839 155294
1 : Data affected by changes in population controls.

Labor Force Participation Rate

63.0%

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

Civilian_Labor_Force_Participation_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.3 67.1 67.1 66.9 66.9 66.9 66.8 66.9 67.0
2001 67.2 67.1 67.2 66.9 66.7 66.7 66.8 66.5 66.8 66.7 66.7 66.7
2002 66.5 66.8 66.6 66.7 66.7 66.6 66.5 66.6 66.7 66.6 66.4 66.3
2003 66.4 66.4 66.3 66.4 66.4 66.5 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 65.9
2004 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 66.0 66.1 66.1 66.0 65.8 65.9 66.0 65.9
2005 65.8 65.9 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0
2006 66.0 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.1 66.2 66.3 66.4
2007 66.4 66.3 66.2 65.9 66.0 66.0 66.0 65.8 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.0
2008 66.2 66.0 66.1 65.9 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.1 66.0 66.0 65.9 65.8
2009 65.7 65.8 65.6 65.7 65.7 65.7 65.5 65.4 65.1 65.0 65.0 64.6
2010 64.8 64.9 64.9 65.1 64.9 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.6 64.4 64.6 64.3
2011 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.2 64.1 64.1 64.0
2012 63.7 63.9 63.8 63.6 63.8 63.8 63.7 63.5 63.6 63.8 63.6 63.6
2013 63.6 63.5 63.3 63.3 63.4 63.5 63.4 63.2 63.2 62.8 63.0

Employment-Population Ratio

58.6%

Series Id: LNS12300000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment-Population Ratio
Labor force status: Employment-population ratio
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over\

Employment_Population_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 64.6 64.6 64.6 64.7 64.4 64.5 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.2 64.3 64.4
2001 64.4 64.3 64.3 64.0 63.8 63.7 63.7 63.2 63.5 63.2 63.0 62.9
2002 62.7 63.0 62.8 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.7 62.7 63.0 62.7 62.5 62.4
2003 62.5 62.5 62.4 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.1 62.1 62.0 62.1 62.3 62.2
2004 62.3 62.3 62.2 62.3 62.3 62.4 62.5 62.4 62.3 62.3 62.5 62.4
2005 62.4 62.4 62.4 62.7 62.8 62.7 62.8 62.9 62.8 62.8 62.7 62.8
2006 62.9 63.0 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.0 63.1 63.1 63.3 63.3 63.4
2007 63.3 63.3 63.3 63.0 63.0 63.0 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7 62.9 62.7
2008 62.9 62.8 62.7 62.7 62.5 62.4 62.2 62.0 61.9 61.7 61.4 61.0
2009 60.6 60.3 59.9 59.8 59.6 59.4 59.3 59.1 58.7 58.5 58.6 58.3
2010 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.7 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.5 58.3 58.2 58.3
2011 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.4 58.2 58.2 58.3 58.4 58.4 58.5 58.6
2012 58.5 58.6 58.5 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.4 58.7 58.7 58.7 58.6
2013 58.6 58.6 58.5 58.6 58.6 58.7 58.7 58.6 58.6 58.3 58.6

Unemployment Level

10,907,000

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

Unemployment_Level

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5708 5858 5733 5481 5758 5651 5747 5853 5625 5534 5639 5634
2001 6023 6089 6141 6271 6226 6484 6583 7042 7142 7694 8003 8258
2002 8182 8215 8304 8599 8399 8393 8390 8304 8251 8307 8520 8640
2003 8520 8618 8588 8842 8957 9266 9011 8896 8921 8732 8576 8317
2004 8370 8167 8491 8170 8212 8286 8136 7990 7927 8061 7932 7934
2005 7784 7980 7737 7672 7651 7524 7406 7345 7553 7453 7566 7279
2006 7064 7184 7072 7120 6980 7001 7175 7091 6847 6727 6872 6762
2007 7116 6927 6731 6850 6766 6979 7149 7067 7170 7237 7240 7645
2008 7685 7497 7822 7637 8395 8575 8937 9438 9494 10074 10538 11286
2009 12079 12881 13421 13826 14492 14705 14607 14819 15005 15382 15223 15095
2010 15016 15078 15192 15281 14856 14475 14542 14673 14577 14584 15094 14354
2011 13992 13798 13716 13872 13871 13964 13817 13837 13910 13696 13325 13049
2012 12748 12806 12686 12518 12695 12701 12745 12483 12082 12248 12042 12206
2013 12332 12032 11742 11659 11760 11777 11514 11316 11255 11272 10907

U-3 Unemployment Rate

7.0%

Series Id: LNS14000000
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over

U_3_Unemployment_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 4.0 4.1 4.0 3.8 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.1 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.9
2001 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.6 4.9 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.7
2002 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.7 5.7 5.9 6.0
2003 5.8 5.9 5.9 6.0 6.1 6.3 6.2 6.1 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.7
2004 5.7 5.6 5.8 5.6 5.6 5.6 5.5 5.4 5.4 5.5 5.4 5.4
2005 5.3 5.4 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9
2006 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4
2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 9.0 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9
2010 9.8 9.8 9.9 9.9 9.6 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.8 9.3
2011 9.1 9.0 8.9 9.0 9.0 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 8.9 8.6 8.5
2012 8.3 8.3 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.1 7.8 7.9 7.8 7.8
2013 7.9 7.7 7.6 7.5 7.6 7.6 7.4 7.3 7.2 7.3 7.0

U-6 Unemployment Rate

13.2%

Series Id: LNS13327709
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (seas) Total unemployed, plus all marginally attached workers plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of all civilian labor force plus all marginally attached workers
Labor force status: Aggregated totals unemployed
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 years and over
Percent/rates: Unemployed and mrg attached and pt for econ reas as percent of labor force plus marg attached

U_6_Unemployment_Rate

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 7.1 7.2 7.1 6.9 7.1 7.0 7.0 7.1 7.0 6.8 7.1 6.9
2001 7.3 7.4 7.3 7.4 7.5 7.9 7.8 8.1 8.7 9.3 9.4 9.6
2002 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.7 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.6 9.7 9.8
2003 10.0 10.2 10.0 10.2 10.1 10.3 10.3 10.1 10.4 10.2 10.0 9.8
2004 9.9 9.7 10.0 9.6 9.6 9.5 9.5 9.4 9.4 9.7 9.4 9.2
2005 9.3 9.3 9.1 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.8 8.9 9.0 8.7 8.7 8.6
2006 8.4 8.4 8.2 8.1 8.2 8.4 8.5 8.4 8.0 8.2 8.1 7.9
2007 8.4 8.2 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 8.8
2008 9.2 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.7 10.1 10.5 10.8 11.0 11.8 12.6 13.6
2009 14.2 15.1 15.7 15.9 16.4 16.5 16.5 16.7 16.7 17.1 17.1 17.1
2010 16.7 17.0 17.0 17.1 16.6 16.5 16.5 16.5 16.8 16.7 16.9 16.6
2011 16.2 16.0 15.8 16.0 15.8 16.1 16.0 16.1 16.3 16.0 15.5 15.2
2012 15.1 15.0 14.5 14.5 14.8 14.8 14.9 14.7 14.7 14.5 14.4 14.4
2013 14.4 14.3 13.8 13.9 13.8 14.3 14.0 13.7 13.6 13.8 13.2

Teenage Unemployment Rate 16-19 Year

20.8%

Series Id: LNS14000012
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Unemployment Rate – 16-19 yrs.
Labor force status: Unemployment rate
Type of data: Percent or rate
Age: 16 to 19 years

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 12.7 13.8 13.3 12.6 12.8 12.3 13.4 14.0 13.0 12.8 13.0 13.2
2001 13.8 13.7 13.8 13.9 13.4 14.2 14.4 15.6 15.2 16.0 15.9 17.0
2002 16.5 16.0 16.6 16.7 16.6 16.7 16.8 17.0 16.3 15.1 17.1 16.9
2003 17.2 17.2 17.8 17.7 17.9 19.0 18.2 16.6 17.6 17.2 15.7 16.2
2004 17.0 16.5 16.8 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.8 16.7 16.6 17.4 16.4 17.6
2005 16.2 17.5 17.1 17.8 17.8 16.3 16.1 16.1 15.5 16.1 17.0 14.9
2006 15.1 15.3 16.1 14.6 14.0 15.8 15.9 16.0 16.3 15.2 14.8 14.6
2007 14.8 14.9 14.9 15.9 15.9 16.3 15.3 15.9 15.9 15.4 16.2 16.8
2008 17.8 16.6 16.1 15.9 19.0 19.2 20.7 18.6 19.1 20.0 20.3 20.5
2009 20.7 22.2 22.2 22.2 23.4 24.7 24.3 25.0 25.9 27.1 26.9 26.6
2010 26.0 25.4 26.2 25.5 26.6 26.0 26.0 25.7 25.8 27.2 24.6 25.1
2011 25.5 24.0 24.4 24.7 24.0 24.7 24.9 25.2 24.4 24.1 23.9 22.9
2012 23.4 23.7 25.0 24.9 24.4 23.7 23.9 24.5 23.7 23.7 23.6 23.5
2013 23.4 25.1 24.2 24.1 24.5 24.0 23.7 22.7 21.4 22.2 20.8

Average Weeks Unemployed

37.2 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008275
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Average Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Average_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 13.1 12.6 12.7 12.4 12.6 12.3 13.4 12.9 12.2 12.7 12.4 12.5
2001 12.7 12.8 12.8 12.4 12.1 12.7 12.9 13.3 13.2 13.3 14.3 14.5
2002 14.7 15.0 15.4 16.3 16.8 16.9 16.9 16.5 17.6 17.8 17.6 18.5
2003 18.5 18.5 18.1 19.4 19.0 19.9 19.7 19.2 19.5 19.3 19.9 19.8
2004 19.9 20.1 19.8 19.6 19.8 20.5 18.8 18.8 19.4 19.5 19.7 19.4
2005 19.5 19.1 19.5 19.6 18.6 17.9 17.6 18.4 17.9 17.9 17.5 17.5
2006 16.9 17.8 17.1 16.7 17.1 16.6 17.1 17.1 17.1 16.3 16.2 16.1
2007 16.3 16.7 17.8 16.9 16.6 16.5 17.2 17.0 16.3 17.0 17.3 16.6
2008 17.5 16.9 16.5 16.9 16.6 17.1 17.0 17.7 18.6 19.9 18.9 19.9
2009 19.8 20.1 20.9 21.6 22.4 23.9 25.1 25.3 26.7 27.4 29.0 29.7
2010 30.4 29.8 31.6 33.2 33.9 34.4 33.8 33.6 33.4 34.0 34.1 34.8
2011 37.3 37.4 39.2 38.6 39.5 39.6 40.4 40.3 40.4 38.9 40.7 40.7
2012 40.2 39.9 39.5 39.1 39.6 39.7 38.8 39.3 39.6 39.9 39.7 38.1
2013 35.3 36.9 37.1 36.5 36.9 35.6 36.6 37.0 36.9 36.1 37.2

Median Weeks Unemployed

17.0 Weeks

Series Id: LNS13008276
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Median Weeks Unemployed
Labor force status: Unemployed
Type of data: Number of weeks
Age: 16 years and over

Median_Weeks_Unemployed

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.8 6.1 6.0 6.1 5.8 5.7 6.0 6.3 5.2 6.1 6.1 6.0
2001 5.8 6.1 6.6 5.9 6.3 6.0 6.8 6.9 7.2 7.3 7.7 8.2
2002 8.4 8.3 8.4 8.9 9.5 11.0 8.9 9.0 9.5 9.6 9.3 9.6
2003 9.6 9.5 9.7 10.2 9.9 11.5 10.3 10.1 10.2 10.4 10.3 10.4
2004 10.6 10.2 10.2 9.5 9.9 11.0 8.9 9.2 9.6 9.5 9.7 9.5
2005 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.0 9.1 9.0 8.8 9.2 8.4 8.6 8.5 8.7
2006 8.6 9.1 8.7 8.4 8.5 7.3 8.0 8.4 8.0 7.9 8.3 7.5
2007 8.3 8.5 9.1 8.6 8.2 7.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.4 8.6 8.4
2008 9.0 8.7 8.7 9.4 7.9 9.0 9.7 9.7 10.2 10.4 9.8 10.5
2009 10.7 11.7 12.3 13.1 14.3 17.1 15.9 16.2 17.8 18.8 19.8 20.2
2010 20.0 20.0 20.5 22.2 22.4 24.8 22.1 20.9 20.2 21.1 21.2 22.1
2011 21.5 21.3 21.8 21.0 21.8 21.8 21.5 22.2 21.9 20.4 21.1 20.8
2012 20.8 20.1 19.7 19.3 20.1 19.4 16.8 18.2 18.7 19.6 18.9 18.0
2013 16.0 17.8 18.1 17.5 17.3 16.3 15.7 16.4 16.3 16.3 17.0

Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries

7,719,000

Series Id: LNS12032194
Seasonally Adjusted
Series title: (Seas) Employment Level – Part-Time for Economic Reasons, All Industries
Labor force status: Employed
Type of data: Number in thousands
Age: 16 years and over
Hours at work: 1 to 34 hours
Reasons work not as scheduled: Economic reasons
Worker status/schedules: At work part time

Employment_Level_Part_Time_Economic_Reasons

Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 3208 3167 3231 3186 3283 3209 3144 3211 3217 3179 3467 3243
2001 3332 3296 3280 3289 3439 3792 3556 3380 4233 4437 4317 4393
2002 4112 4289 4101 4199 4103 4048 4145 4301 4329 4314 4329 4321
2003 4607 4844 4652 4798 4570 4592 4648 4419 4882 4813 4862 4750
2004 4705 4549 4742 4568 4588 4443 4449 4474 4487 4820 4547 4427
2005 4389 4250 4388 4278 4315 4432 4400 4491 4675 4269 4219 4115
2006 4123 4174 3972 3900 4111 4318 4303 4195 4115 4352 4190 4187
2007 4279 4220 4253 4313 4473 4342 4410 4576 4521 4325 4494 4618
2008 4846 4902 4904 5220 5286 5540 5930 5851 6148 6690 7311 8029
2009 8042 8788 9076 8904 9103 9051 8941 9030 8869 9005 9103 9092
2010 8493 8897 9122 9171 8816 8646 8610 8826 9226 8913 8862 8933
2011 8432 8398 8525 8649 8562 8536 8416 8816 9101 8726 8436 8168
2012 8220 8127 7664 7896 8116 8210 8245 8043 8607 8286 8138 7918
2013 7973 7988 7638 7916 7904 8226 8245 7911 7926 8050 7719

Employment Situation News Release

Transmission of material in this release is embargoed until                   USDL-13-2315
8:30 a.m. (EST) Friday, December 6, 2013

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

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

                        THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION -- NOVEMBER 2013

The unemployment rate declined from 7.3 percent to 7.0 percent in November, and total
nonfarm payroll employment rose by 203,000, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
reported today. Employment increased in transportation and warehousing, health care,
and manufacturing.

Household Survey Data

Both the number of unemployed persons, at 10.9 million, and the unemployment rate, at
7.0 percent, declined in November. Among the unemployed, the number who reported being
on temporary layoff decreased by 377,000. This largely reflects the return to work of
federal employees who were furloughed in October due to the partial government shutdown.
(See tables A-1 and A-11.)

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (6.7 percent),
adult women (6.2 percent), teenagers (20.8 percent), whites (6.2 percent), blacks
(12.5 percent), and Hispanics (8.7 percent) changed little in November. The jobless
rate for Asians was 5.3 percent (not seasonally adjusted), little changed from a year
earlier. (See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

The number of persons unemployed less than 5 weeks declined by 300,000 in November,
partially reflecting the return to work of federal employees on furlough in October.
The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) was essentially
unchanged at 4.1 million in November. These individuals accounted for 37.3 percent of
the unemployed. The number of long-term unemployed has declined by 718,000 over the
past 12 months. (See table A-12.)

The civilian labor force rose by 455,000 in November, after declining by 720,000 in
October. The labor force participation rate changed little (63.0 percent) in November.
Total employment as measured by the household survey increased by 818,000 over the
month, following a decline of 735,000 in the prior month. This over-the-month increase
in employment partly reflected the return to work of furloughed federal government
employees. The employment-population ratio increased by 0.3 percentage point to 58.6
percent in November, reversing a decline of the same size in the prior month. (See
table A-1.)

The number of persons employed part time for economic reasons (sometimes referred to
as involuntary part-time workers) fell by 331,000 to 7.7 million in November. These
individuals were working part time because their hours had been cut back or because
they were unable to find a full-time job. (See table A-8.)

In November, 2.1 million persons were marginally attached to the labor force, down by
409,000 from a year earlier. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) These individuals
were not in the labor force, wanted and were available for work, and had looked for a
job sometime in the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they
had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. (See table A-16.)

Among the marginally attached, there were 762,000 discouraged workers in November, down
by 217,000 from a year ago. (The data are not seasonally adjusted.) Discouraged workers
are persons not currently looking for work because they believe no jobs are available
for them. The remaining 1.3 million persons marginally attached to the labor  force in
November had not searched for work for reasons such as school attendance or family
responsibilities. (See table A-16.)

Establishment Survey Data

Total nonfarm payroll employment increased by 203,000 in November. Job growth averaged
195,000 per month over the prior 12 months. In November, job gains occurred in
transportation and warehousing, health care, and manufacturing. (See table B-1.)

Employment in transportation and warehousing rose by 31,000 in November, with gains
in couriers and messengers (+9,000), truck transportation (+8,000), warehousing and
storage (+5,000), and air transportation (+3,000).

Health care employment continued to increase over the month (+28,000). Job gains occurred
in home healthcare services (+12,000) and offices of physicians (+7,000), while nursing
care facilities lost jobs (-4,000). Job growth in health care has averaged 19,000 per
month thus far this year, compared with an average monthly gain of 27,000 in 2012.

In November, manufacturing added 27,000 jobs. Within the industry, job gains occurred in
food manufacturing (+8,000) and in motor vehicles and parts (+7,000).

In November, employment in professional and business services continued to trend up
(+35,000). Over the prior 12 months, the industry added an average of 55,000 jobs per
month.

Retail trade employment also continued to expand in November (+22,000). Within the
industry, job growth occurred in general merchandise stores (+14,000); in sporting
goods, hobby, book, and music stores (+12,000); and in automobile dealers (+7,000).
Over the prior 12 months, job growth in retail trade averaged 31,000 per month.

Within leisure and hospitality, employment in food services and drinking places continued
to trend up in November (+18,000). Job growth in this industry averaged 28,000 per month
over the prior 12 months.

Employment in construction continued to trend up in November (+17,000). Monthly job
gains in the industry averaged 15,000 over the prior 12 months.

Federal government employment continued to decline (-7,000) in November. Over the past
12 months, federal government employment has decreased by 92,000.

Employment in other major industries, including mining and logging, wholesale trade,
information, and financial activities, showed little or no change in November.

The average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls edged up by
0.1 hour to 34.5 hours in November. The manufacturing workweek edged up by 0.1 hour
to 41.0 hours, and factory overtime edged up by 0.1 hour to 3.5 hours. The average
workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls
edged up by 0.1 hour to 33.7 hours. (See tables B-2 and B-7.)

In November, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose
by 4 cents to $24.15. Over the year, average hourly earnings have risen by 48 cents,
or 2.0 percent. In November, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory
employees increased by 3 cents to $20.31. (See tables B-3 and B-8.)

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for September was revised from +163,000
to +175,000, and the change for October was revised from +204,000 to +200,000. With
these revisions, employment gains in September and October combined were 8,000 higher
than previously reported.

_____________
The Employment Situation for December is scheduled to be released on Friday,
January 10, 2014, at 8:30 a.m. (EST).

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                       |
  |                           Household Survey Reference Period                           |
  |                                                                                       |
  |In the household survey, the reference period for November 2013 was the calendar week  |
  |that included the 5th of the month. Typically, the reference period for the household  |
  |survey is the calendar week that includes the 12th of the month. The November reference|
  |week was moved up in 2013 due to the timing of the November and December holidays. In  |
  |accordance with usual practice, this change is made in November when necessary to allow|
  |for sufficient time to process data and conduct survey operations.                     |
  |                                                                                       |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 |                                                                                        |
 |               Revision of Seasonally Adjusted Household Survey Data                    |
 |                                                                                        |
 |In accordance with usual practice, The Employment Situation release for December 2013,  |
 |scheduled for January 10, 2014, will incorporate annual revisions in seasonally adjusted|
 |unemployment and other labor force series from the household survey. Seasonally adjusted|
 |data for the most recent 5 years are subject to revision.                               |
 |                                                                                        |
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |                                                                                      |
  |                  Upcoming Change to the Household Survey Tables                      |
  |                                                                                      |
  |Effective with the release of January 2014 data on February 7, 2014, household survey |
  |table A-10 will include two new seasonally adjusted series for women age 55 and over— |
  |the number of unemployed persons and the unemployment rate. These will replace the    |
  |series that are currently displayed for this group, which are not seasonally adjusted.|
  |                                                                                      |
   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOUSEHOLD DATA
Summary table A. Household data, seasonally adjusted

[Numbers in thousands]
Category Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013
Nov.
2013
Change from:
Oct.
2013-
Nov.
2013
Employment status
Civilian noninstitutional population 244,174 246,168 246,381 246,567 186
Civilian labor force 155,319 155,559 154,839 155,294 455
Participation rate 63.6 63.2 62.8 63.0 0.2
Employed 143,277 144,303 143,568 144,386 818
Employment-population ratio 58.7 58.6 58.3 58.6 0.3
Unemployed 12,042 11,255 11,272 10,907 -365
Unemployment rate 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Not in labor force 88,855 90,609 91,541 91,273 -268
Unemployment rates
Total, 16 years and over 7.8 7.2 7.3 7.0 -0.3
Adult men (20 years and over) 7.2 7.1 7.0 6.7 -0.3
Adult women (20 years and over) 7.0 6.2 6.4 6.2 -0.2
Teenagers (16 to 19 years) 23.6 21.4 22.2 20.8 -1.4
White 6.8 6.3 6.3 6.2 -0.1
Black or African American 13.2 12.9 13.1 12.5 -0.6
Asian (not seasonally adjusted) 6.4 5.3 5.2 5.3
Hispanic or Latino ethnicity 9.9 9.0 9.1 8.7 -0.4
Total, 25 years and over 6.5 6.0 6.1 5.9 -0.2
Less than a high school diploma 12.1 10.3 10.9 10.8 -0.1
High school graduates, no college 8.1 7.6 7.3 7.3 0.0
Some college or associate degree 6.6 6.0 6.3 6.4 0.1
Bachelor’s degree and higher 3.9 3.7 3.8 3.4 -0.4
Reason for unemployment
Job losers and persons who completed temporary jobs 6,429 5,844 6,253 5,804 -449
Job leavers 926 989 861 893 32
Reentrants 3,325 3,181 3,117 3,073 -44
New entrants 1,326 1,222 1,223 1,165 -58
Duration of unemployment
Less than 5 weeks 2,596 2,596 2,761 2,461 -300
5 to 14 weeks 2,757 2,703 2,656 2,597 -59
15 to 26 weeks 1,820 1,804 1,782 1,766 -16
27 weeks and over 4,784 4,146 4,063 4,066 3
Employed persons at work part time
Part time for economic reasons 8,138 7,926 8,050 7,719 -331
Slack work or business conditions 5,084 4,960 5,047 4,869 -178
Could only find part-time work 2,648 2,557 2,599 2,486 -113
Part time for noneconomic reasons 18,594 18,967 18,786 18,876 90
Persons not in the labor force (not seasonally adjusted)
Marginally attached to the labor force 2,505 2,302 2,283 2,096
Discouraged workers 979 852 815 762
– Over-the-month changes are not displayed for not seasonally adjusted data.
NOTE: Persons whose ethnicity is identified as Hispanic or Latino may be of any race. Detail for the seasonally adjusted data shown in this table will not necessarily add to totals because of the independent seasonal adjustment of the various series. Updated population controls are introduced annually with the release of January data.
ESTABLISHMENT DATA
Summary table B. Establishment data, seasonally adjusted
Category Nov.
2012
Sept.
2013
Oct.
2013(p)
Nov.
2013(p)
EMPLOYMENT BY SELECTED INDUSTRY
(Over-the-month change, in thousands)
Total nonfarm 247 175 200 203
Total private 256 168 214 196
Goods-producing 43 29 31 44
Mining and logging 12 4 3 0
Construction 24 17 12 17
Manufacturing 7 8 16 27
Durable goods(1) 17 12 11 17
Motor vehicles and parts 9.7 2.5 4.1 6.7
Nondurable goods -10 -4 5 10
Private service-providing(1) 213 139 183 152
Wholesale trade 9.8 15.7 -8.1 6.8
Retail trade 69.6 23.3 45.8 22.3
Transportation and warehousing 20.2 36.9 3.1 30.5
Information 14 2 4 -1
Financial activities 5 -3 7 -3
Professional and business services(1) 55 47 48 35
Temporary help services 26.5 27.4 9.1 16.4
Education and health services(1) 14 14 30 40
Health care and social assistance 30.2 19.7 21.3 29.6
Leisure and hospitality 21 -1 49 17
Other services 7 4 4 4
Government -9 7 -14 7
WOMEN AND PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES(2)
AS A PERCENT OF ALL EMPLOYEES
Total nonfarm women employees 49.4 49.4 49.4 49.4
Total private women employees 47.9 47.9 47.9 47.9
Total private production and nonsupervisory employees 82.6 82.6 82.6 82.6
HOURS AND EARNINGS
ALL EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 34.4 34.4 34.4 34.5
Average hourly earnings $23.67 $24.09 $24.11 $24.15
Average weekly earnings $814.25 $828.70 $829.38 $833.18
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2007=100)(3) 97.0 98.7 98.8 99.3
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 -0.1 0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2007=100)(4) 109.5 113.3 113.6 114.4
Over-the-month percent change 0.9 0.0 0.3 0.7
HOURS AND EARNINGS
PRODUCTION AND NONSUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES
Total private
Average weekly hours 33.7 33.7 33.6 33.7
Average hourly earnings $19.88 $20.25 $20.28 $20.31
Average weekly earnings $669.96 $682.43 $681.41 $684.45
Index of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3) 104.7 106.3 106.2 106.7
Over-the-month percent change 0.5 0.1 -0.1 0.5
Index of aggregate weekly payrolls (2002=100)(4) 138.9 143.8 143.9 144.8
Over-the-month percent change 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.6
DIFFUSION INDEX(5)
(Over 1-month span)
Total private (266 industries) 63.9 61.3 61.1 63.5
Manufacturing (81 industries) 52.5 54.3 56.8 63.0
Footnotes
(1) Includes other industries, not shown separately.
(2) Data relate to production employees in mining and logging and manufacturing, construction employees in construction, and nonsupervisory employees in the service-providing industries.
(3) The indexes of aggregate weekly hours are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate hours by the corresponding annual average aggregate hours.
(4) The indexes of aggregate weekly payrolls are calculated by dividing the current month’s estimates of aggregate weekly payrolls by the corresponding annual average aggregate weekly payrolls.
(5) Figures are the percent of industries with employment increasing plus one-half of the industries with unchanged employment, where 50 percent indicates an equal balance between industries with increasing and decreasing employment.
(p) Preliminary
Frequently Asked Questions about Employment and Unemployment Estimates

1. Why are there two monthly measures of employment?

   The household survey and establishment survey both produce sample-based estimates
   of   employment, and both have strengths and limitations. The establishment survey
   employment series has a   smaller margin of error on the measurement of month-to-
   month change   than the household survey because of its much larger sample size. An
   over-the-month employment change of about 100,000 is statistically significant in
   the establishment survey, while the threshold for a statistically significant change
   in the household survey is about 400,000. However, the household survey has a more
   expansive scope than the establishment survey because it includes self-employed
   workers whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, agricultural
   workers, and private household workers, who are excluded by the establishment survey.
   The household survey also provides estimates of employment for demographic groups.
   For more information on the differences between the two surveys, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces_cps_trends.pdf.

2. Are undocumented immigrants counted in the surveys?

   It is likely that both surveys include at least some undocumented immigrants. However,
   neither the establishment nor the household survey is designed to identify the legal
   status of workers. Therefore, it is not possible to determine how many are counted in
   either survey. The establishment survey does not collect data on the legal status of
   workers. The household survey does include questions which identify the foreign and
   native born, but it does not include questions about the legal status of the foreign
   born. Data on the foreign and native born are published each month in table A-7 of
   The Employment Situation news release.

3. Why does the establishment survey have revisions?

   The establishment survey revises published estimates to improve its data series by
   incorporating additional information that was not available at the time of the
   initial publication of the estimates. The establishment survey revises its initial
   monthly estimates twice, in the immediately succeeding 2 months, to incorporate
   additional sample receipts from respondents in the survey and recalculated seasonal
   adjustment factors. For more information on the monthly revisions, please visit
   www.bls.gov/ces/cesrevinfo.htm.

   On an annual basis, the establishment survey incorporates a benchmark revision that
   re-anchors estimates to nearly complete employment counts available from unemployment
   insurance tax records. The benchmark helps to control for sampling and modeling errors
   in the estimates. For more information on the annual benchmark revision, please visit
   www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cesbmart.htm.

4. Does the establishment survey sample include small firms?

   Yes; about 40 percent of the establishment survey sample is comprised of business
   establishments with fewer than 20 employees. The establishment survey sample is
   designed to maximize the reliability of the statewide total nonfarm employment
   estimate; firms from all states, size classes, and industries are appropriately
   sampled to achieve that goal.

5. Does the establishment survey account for employment from new businesses?

   Yes; monthly establishment survey estimates include an adjustment to account for
   the net employment change generated by business births and deaths. The adjustment
   comes from an econometric model that forecasts the monthly net jobs impact of
   business births and deaths based on the actual past values of the net impact that
   can be observed with a lag from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. The
   establishment survey uses modeling rather than sampling for this purpose because
   the survey is not immediately able to bring new businesses into the sample. There
   is an unavoidable lag between the birth of a new firm and its appearance on the
   sampling frame and availability for selection. BLS adds new businesses to the survey
   twice a year.

6. Is the count of unemployed persons limited to just those people receiving unemployment
   insurance benefits?

   No; the estimate of unemployment is based on a monthly sample survey of households.
   All persons who are without jobs and are actively seeking and available to work are
   included among the unemployed. (People on temporary layoff are included even if
   they do not actively seek work.) There is no requirement or question relating to
   unemployment insurance benefits in the monthly survey.

7. Does the official unemployment rate exclude people who want a job but are not currently
   looking for work?

   Yes; however, there are separate estimates of persons outside the labor force who
   want a job, including those who are not currently looking because they believe no
   jobs are available (discouraged workers). In addition, alternative measures of labor
   underutilization (some of which include discouraged workers and other groups not
   officially counted as unemployed) are published each month in table A-15 of The
   Employment Situation news release. For more information about these alternative
   measures, please visit www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#altmeasures.

8. How can unusually severe weather affect employment and hours estimates?

   In the establishment survey, the reference period is the pay period that includes
   the 12th of the month. Unusually severe weather is more likely to have an impact on
   average weekly hours than on employment. Average weekly hours are estimated for paid
   time during the pay period, including pay for holidays, sick leave, or other time off.
   The impact of severe weather on hours estimates typically, but not always, results in
   a reduction in average weekly hours. For example, some employees may be off work for
   part of the pay period and not receive pay for the time missed, while some workers,
   such as those dealing with cleanup or repair, may work extra hours.

   In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment,
   employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period. Slightly more
   than 20 percent of all employees in the payroll survey sample have a weekly pay
   period. Employees who receive pay for any part of the pay period, even 1 hour, are
   counted in the payroll employment figures. It is not possible to quantify the effect
   of extreme weather on estimates of over-the-month change in employment.

   In the household survey, the reference period is generally the calendar week that
   includes the 12th of the month. Persons who miss the entire week's work for weather-
   related events are counted as employed whether or not they are paid for the time
   off. The household survey collects data on the number of persons who had a job but
   were not at work due to bad weather. It also provides a measure of the number of
   persons who usually work full time but had reduced hours. Current and historical
   data are available on the  household survey's most requested statistics page at
   http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/surveymost?ln.
Technical Note

   This news release presents statistics from two major surveys, the Current
Population Survey (CPS; household survey) and the Current Employment Statistics
survey (CES; establishment survey). The household survey provides information
on the labor force, employment, and unemployment that appears in the "A" tables,
marked HOUSEHOLD DATA. It is a sample survey of about 60,000 eligible households
conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS).

   The establishment survey provides information on employment, hours, and
earnings of employees on nonfarm payrolls; the data appear in the "B" tables,
marked ESTABLISHMENT DATA. BLS collects these data each month from the payroll
records of a sample of nonagricultural business establishments. Each month
the CES program surveys about 145,000 businesses and government agencies,
representing approximately 557,000 individual worksites, in order to provide
detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm
payrolls. The active sample includes approximately one-third of all nonfarm
payroll employees.

   For both surveys, the data for a given month relate to a particular week or
pay period. In the household survey, the reference period is generally the
calendar week that contains the 12th day of the month. In the establishment
survey, the reference period is the pay period including the 12th, which may or
may not correspond directly to the calendar week.

Coverage, definitions, and differences between surveys

   Household survey. The sample is selected to reflect the entire civilian 
noninstitutional population. Based on responses to a series of questions on 
work and job search activities, each person 16 years and over in a sample
household is classified as employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force.

   People are classified as employed if they did any work at all as paid employees
during the reference week; worked in their own business, profession, or on their
own farm; or worked without pay at least 15 hours in a family business or farm.
People are also counted as employed if they were temporarily absent from their jobs
because of illness, bad weather, vacation, labor-management disputes, or personal
reasons.

   People are classified as unemployed if they meet all of the following criteria:
they had no employment during the reference week; they were available for work at
that time; and they made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the
4-week period ending with the reference week. Persons laid off from a job and
expecting recall need not be looking for work to be counted as unemployed. The
unemployment data derived from the household survey in no way depend upon the
eligibility for or receipt of unemployment insurance benefits.

   The civilian labor force is the sum of employed and unemployed persons.
Those persons not classified as employed or unemployed are not in the labor 
force. The unemployment rate is the number unemployed as a percent of the 
labor force. The labor force participation rate is the labor force as a 
percent of the population, and the employment-population ratio is the 
employed as a percent of the population. Additional information about the 
household survey can be found at www.bls.gov/cps/documentation.htm.

   Establishment survey. The sample establishments are drawn from private
nonfarm businesses such as factories, offices, and stores, as well as
from federal, state, and local government entities. Employees on nonfarm
payrolls are those who received pay for any part of the reference pay
period, including persons on paid leave. Persons are counted in each job
they hold. Hours and earnings data are produced for the private sector for
all employees and for production and nonsupervisory employees. Production
and nonsupervisory employees are defined as production and related employees
in manufacturing and mining and logging, construction workers in construction,
and nonsupervisory employees in private service-providing industries.

   Industries are classified on the basis of an establishment’s principal
activity in accordance with the 2012 version of the North American Industry
Classification System. Additional information about the establishment survey
can be found at www.bls.gov/ces/.

   Differences in employment estimates. The numerous conceptual and methodological
differences between the household and establishment  surveys result in important
distinctions in the employment estimates derived from the surveys. Among these are:

   --The household survey includes agricultural workers, self-employed workers
     whose businesses are unincorporated, unpaid family workers, and private
     household workers among the employed. These groups are excluded from the
     establishment survey.

   --The household survey includes people on unpaid leave among the employed.
     The establishment survey does not.

   --The household survey is limited to workers 16 years of age and older.
     The establishment survey is not limited by age.

   --The household survey has no duplication of individuals, because
     individuals are counted only once, even if they hold more than one
     job. In the establishment survey, employees working at more than one
     job and thus appearing on more than one payroll are counted separately
     for each appearance.

Seasonal adjustment

   Over the course of a year, the size of the nation's labor force and the levels
of employment and unemployment undergo regularly occurring fluctuations. These 
events may result from seasonal changes in weather, major holidays, and the opening
and closing of schools. The effect of such seasonal variation can be very large.

   Because these seasonal events follow a more or less regular pattern each year,
their influence on the level of a series can be tempered by adjusting for regular
seasonal variation. These adjustments make nonseasonal developments, such as
declines in employment or increases in the participation of women in the labor
force, easier to spot. For example, in the household survey, the large number of
youth entering the labor force each June is likely to obscure any other changes
that have taken place relative to May, making it difficult to determine if the 
level of economic activity has risen or declined. Similarly, in the establishment
survey, payroll employment in education declines by about 20 percent at the end
of the spring term and later rises with the start of the fall term, obscuring the
underlying employment trends in the industry. Because seasonal employment changes
at the end and beginning of the school year can be estimated, the statistics can be
adjusted to make underlying employment patterns more discernable.  The seasonally
adjusted figures provide a more useful tool with which to analyze changes in
month-to-month economic activity.

   Many seasonally adjusted series are independently adjusted in both the household
and establishment surveys. However, the adjusted series for many major estimates,
such as total payroll employment, employment in most major sectors, total employment,
and unemployment are computed by aggregating independently adjusted component series.
For example, total unemployment is derived by summing the adjusted series for four
major age-sex components; this differs from the unemployment estimate that would be
obtained by directly adjusting the total or by combining
the duration, reasons, or more detailed age categories.

   For both the household and establishment surveys, a concurrent seasonal adjustment
methodology is used in which new seasonal factors are calculated each month using all
relevant data, up to and including the data for the current month. In the household
survey, new seasonal factors are used to adjust only the current month's data. In the
establishment survey, however, new seasonal factors are used each month to adjust the
three most recent monthly estimates. The prior 2 months are routinely revised to
incorporate additional sample reports and recalculated seasonal adjustment factors.
In both surveys, 5-year revisions to historical data are made once a year.

Reliability of the estimates

   Statistics based on the household and establishment surveys are subject to both
sampling and nonsampling error. When a sample, rather than the entire population,
is surveyed, there is a chance that the sample estimates may differ from the true
population values they represent. The component of this difference that occurs
because samples differ by chance is known as sampling error, and its variability
is measured by the standard error of the estimate. There is about a 90-percent
chance, or level of confidence, that an estimate based on a sample will differ by
no more than 1.6 standard errors from the true population value because of sampling
error. BLS analyses are generally conducted at the 90-percent level of confidence.

   For example, the confidence interval for the monthly change in total nonfarm
employment from the establishment survey is on the order of plus or minus 90,000.
Suppose the estimate of nonfarm employment increases by 50,000 from one month to
the next. The 90-percent confidence interval on the monthly change would range from
-40,000 to +140,000 (50,000 +/- 90,000). These figures do not mean that the sample
results are off by these magnitudes, but rather that there is about a 90-percent
chance that the true over-the-month change lies within this interval. Since this
range includes values of less than zero, we could not say with confidence that
nonfarm employment had, in fact, increased that month. If, however, the reported
nonfarm employment rise was 250,000, then all of the values within the 90- percent
confidence interval would be greater than zero. In this case, it is likely (at
least a 90-percent chance) that nonfarm employment had, in fact, risen that month.
At an unemployment rate of around 6.0 percent, the 90-percent confidence interval
for the monthly change in unemployment as measured by the household survey is
about +/- 300,000, and for the monthly change in the unemployment rate it is about
+/- 0.2 percentage point.

   In general, estimates involving many individuals or establishments have lower
standard errors (relative to the size of the estimate) than estimates which are based
on a small number of observations. The precision of estimates also is improved when
the data are cumulated over time, such as for quarterly and annual averages.

   The household and establishment surveys are also affected by nonsampling error,
which can occur for many reasons, including the failure to sample a segment of the
population, inability to obtain information for all respondents in the sample,
inability or unwillingness of respondents to provide correct information on a
timely basis, mistakes made by respondents, and errors made in the collection or
processing of the data.

   For example, in the establishment survey, estimates for the most recent 2 months
are based on incomplete returns; for this reason, these estimates are labeled
preliminary in the tables. It is only after two successive revisions to a monthly
estimate, when nearly all sample reports have been received, that the estimate is
considered final.

   Another major source of nonsampling error in the establishment survey is the
inability to capture, on a timely basis, employment generated by new firms. To
correct for this systematic underestimation of employment growth, an estimation
procedure with two components is used to account for business births. The first
component excludes employment losses from business deaths from sample-based
estimation in order to offset the missing employment gains from business births.
This is incorporated into the sample-based estimation procedure by simply not
reflecting sample units going out of business, but imputing to them the same
employment trend as the other firms in the sample. This procedure accounts for
most of the net birth/death employment.

   The second component is an ARIMA time series model designed to estimate the
residual net birth/death employment not accounted for by the imputation. The
historical time series used to create and test the ARIMA model was derived from
the unemployment insurance universe micro- level database, and reflects the actual
residual net of births and deaths over the past 5 years.

   The sample-based estimates from the establishment survey are adjusted once a
year (on a lagged basis) to universe counts of payroll employment obtained from
administrative records of the unemployment insurance program. The difference 
between the March sample-based employment estimates and the March universe counts
is known as a benchmark revision, and serves as a rough proxy for total survey
error. The new benchmarks also incorporate changes in the classification of
industries. Over the past decade, absolute benchmark revisions for total nonfarm
employment have averaged 0.3 percent, with a range from -0.7 to 0.6 percent.

Other information

   Information in this release will be made available to sensory impaired
individuals upon request. Voice phone: (202) 691-5200; Federal Relay
Service: (800) 877-8339.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tea Party and Conservatives Revolt Over Trivial Budget Deal — Videos

Posted on December 11, 2013. Filed under: American History, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

BUREAU OF THE FISCAL SERVICE
                                                  STAR - TREASURY FINANCIAL DATABASE
             TABLE 1.  SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS, OUTLAYS AND THE DEFICIT/SURPLUS BY MONTH OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT (IN MILLIONS)

                                                        ACCOUNTING DATE:  11/13

   PERIOD                                                                     RECEIPTS                OUTLAYS    DEFICIT/SURPLUS (-)
+  ____________________________________________________________  _____________________  _____________________  _____________________
   PRIOR YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   184,316                304,311                119,995
     NOVEMBER                                                                  161,730                333,841                172,112
     DECEMBER                                                                  269,508                270,699                  1,191
     JANUARY                                                                   272,225                269,342                 -2,883
     FEBRUARY                                                                  122,815                326,354                203,539
     MARCH                                                                     186,018                292,548                106,530
     APRIL                                                                     406,723                293,834               -112,889
     MAY                                                                       197,182                335,914                138,732
     JUNE                                                                      286,627                170,126               -116,501
     JULY                                                                      200,030                297,627                 97,597
     AUGUST                                                                    185,370                333,293                147,923
     SEPTEMBER                                                                 301,469                226,355                -75,114

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                          2,774,011              3,454,243                680,232

   CURRENT YEAR

     OCTOBER                                                                   198,927                290,520                 91,592
     NOVEMBER                                                                  182,453                317,679                135,226

       YEAR-TO-DATE                                                            381,380                608,199                226,819

U.S. National Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

House Speaker Boehner Slams Conservative Groups For Opposing Budget Deal – Cavuto

 Sen. Mike Lee • ObamaCare • Budget Deal • Hannity • 12/11/13 •

Rand Paul on Budget Deal: ‘I Can’t Believe Any Conservative Would Consider This Budget Deal’

Mark Levin to Paul Ryan: Budget Deal is ‘Mickey Mouse’

Two year budget deal announced to avoid gov’t shut down

Reaction to lawmakers announcing budget agreement

New Budget Deal Announced By Ryan and Murray

Key congressional budget negotiators on Tuesday said they reached a budget agreement to avert a government shutdown and bring a rare dose of stability to Congress’s fiscal policy-making over the next two years.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/tea-partiers-turn-capitol-hill-budget-deal/

New budget accord saves $23 billion — after $65 billion spending spree

By Jacqueline Klimas

Key lawmakers from both parties announced Tuesday a bipartisan budget proposal that would avoid another government shutdown and restore some defense spending that would have been lost to upcoming sequester cuts.

Rep. Paul Ryan, brushing aside objections from some fiscal conservatives that the proposal would undo spending caps that have helped slow the growth of the federal deficit, told reporters the compromise is a win for the GOP.


PHOTOS: Ladies’ men: Presidents in hot demand with ladies at Mandela memorial


Mr. Ryan, at a joint news conference with Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said the spending plan calls for reducing the deficit by $23 billion over 10 years without raising taxes.

The Wisconsin Republican, the House’s chief budget writer, said the deal would reverse about $65 billion in previously agreed-upon automatic spending cuts to the military and other government programs.

“I see this agreement as a step in the right direction,” he said. “In divided government, you don’t always get what you want. That said, we still can make progress toward our goals. I see this agreement as that kind of progress.”

President Obama and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Harold Rogers, Kentucky Republican, welcomed the proposal, which both chambers of Congress could vote on before the end of the week.

“Earlier this year, I called on Congress to work together on a balanced approach to a budget that grows our economy faster and creates more jobs — not through aimless, reckless spending cuts that harm our economy now, but by making sure we can afford to invest in the things that have always grown our economy and strengthened our middle class,” Mr. Obama said. “Today’s bipartisan budget agreement is a good first step.”

The House-Senate deal sets the top-line spending number at $1.012 trillion for the rest of the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30, and $1.014 trillion for fiscal 2015, which begins Oct. 1.


PHOTOS: Iowa is the place to be for GOP as presidential politics gets early start


The proposed spending is more than the levels lawmakers approved in the 2011 Budget Control Act, which would have capped non-mandatory government spending at $967 billion in 2014, with the cuts coming from, among other places, the military, Veterans Affairs and the FBI.

The details of the deal remained sketchy as of press time, though Mr. Ryan and Mrs. Murray said they would post the proposal on their respective websites and it would require that federal employees and members of the military pay more for their retirement benefits.

“We think it’s only right and fair that they pay something more toward their pensions just like the hardworking taxpayer who pays for those pensions in the first place,” Mr. Ryan said.

The deal faces challenges from both the political left and the right, with conservatives warning that they could not support a deal that increased spending levels and liberals pushing back against making federal employees contribute more to their pensions.

Democrats also are frustrated with the growing prospect that Congress will not come up with the $26 billion to extend unemployment benefits for more than 1.3 million people through the end of next year.

Mrs. Murray acknowledged that neither side got everything it wanted, but that the compromise will bring some stability to a government that has been run by fiscal crisis for years.

“We have some differences in policies, but we agree that our country needs some certainty and we need to show that we can work together,” she said.

Conservative groups, meanwhile, pushed back against reports that the deal includes higher “fees” and other gimmicks that critics say are tax hikes in disguise, including fees on airline tickets.

Chris Edwards, editor of DownsizingGovernment.org at the Cato Institute, said it would be hard for Republicans to get conservatives to back a proposal that surrenders ground on the sequesters.

“Politically, I just think it’s crazy for Republicans. Here is the one big thing, they can say, ‘We held President Obama’s feet to the fire and passed the Budget Control Act of 2011.’ It’s really paying dividends now, spending has been flat for the past two years,” he said. “They are going to be throwing away their single biggest accomplishment on fiscal policy for the past few years. It would be like President Obama throwing away Obamacare.”

By breaking the budget caps set in 2011, the deal also sets the precedent that the numbers can be changed in future years, Mr. Edwards said.

“[Appropriators] are just playing trench warfare, pushing the trench forward a year at a time. If they break the cap this year, they’ll feel empowered to push hard and try to break the caps next year,” he said.

Heritage Action said that it could not support a budget deal that “would increase spending in the near-term for promises of woefully inadequate long-term reductions.”

“While imperfect, the sequester has proven to be an effective tool in forcing Congress to reduce discretionary spending, and a gimmicky, spend-now-cut-later deal will take our nation in the wrong direction,” the conservative think tank said in a statement.

Mr. Ryan said the House would vote on the plan before the end of the week and launched a pre-emptive strike against potential critics of the plan.

“As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists,” Mr. Ryan said. “I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way I want them to be.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/10/house-and-senate-negotiators-reach-two-year-budget/

US congressional leaders unveil two-year budget deal

• Bipartisan deal will fix federal spending at $1.012tn
• Deal will relieve worst effects of the sequester
 in Washington

Congress was on the verge of the first bipartisan budget deal in nearly three decades on Tuesday night after Democrat and Republican negotiators unveiled a proposal to fix federal spending at $1.012tn.

The long-awaited agreement struck between senator Patty Murray and congressman Paul Ryan staves off the threat of another government shutdown for two years and will relieve the worst effects of blanket budget cuts known as the sequester.

Aspects of the deal may alarm both parties, particularly Democrats, who are being asked to accept additional spending cuts, no new taxes and increased pension contributions from public sector workers.

Nevertheless the prospect of ending years of political deadlock appeared to satisfy political leaders of both parties, whose expectations have been lowered by the recent government shutdown and a virtual standstill on a host of other issues.

Barack Obama declared the budget deal “a good first step” and both House speaker John Boehner and and majority leader Eric Cantor indicated they would allow a vote to pass with a mixture of Republican and Democrat support.

Congress has been deadlocked over the budget since Democrats lost control of the House in the 2010 midterm elections and the proposal from Murray and Ryan represents the first realistic chance of a divided government agreeing a formal budget since 1986.

If passed by the House and Senate, the two-year deal would fix federal spending at $1.012tn in 2014 and $1.014tn in 2015 – roughly halfway between the $1.058tn sought by Democrats in the Senate and the $967bn proposed by the Republican-controlled House.

The blanket sequester cuts would be reduced by $63bn over the two years, split equally between defence and non-defence spending, although Republicans also succeeded in negotiating a further $20-$23bn in deficit reduction.

Rather than raising new taxes to pay for the sequester relief – something Republicans were implacably opposed to – negotiators agreed to raise additional government revenue through fees, such as airport charges and by demanding that federal workers pay more toward their pensions.

Union umbrella group, the AFL-CIO, has already hit out at the proposal, arguing that federal workers were acting as a “punching bag” for Republicans.

There was also no agreement over the vexed issue of long-term unemployment benefits, which are due to expire shortly, or any agreement on medicare or social security reforms, which Republicans had been pushing for.

Senator Patty Murray, Democratic chair of the budget committee, admitted much was missing from the deal.

We need to acknowledge that there are long-term structural problems that this deal does not address,” she told reporters. “This deal does not solve all of our problems but it is an important step.”

“For far too long here in Washington DC, compromise has been a dirty word, especially when it comes to the budget,” added Murray.

“For years we have lurched from crisis to crisis. That uncertainty was devastating to our fragile economic recovery.”

Ryan also portrayed the deal as a major breakthrough but played down expectations among his own supporters.

“The agreement is a clear improvement on the status quo … it makes sure we don’t lurch from crisis to crisis,” said the chairman of the House budget committee.

“We have been talking all year, but that hard work has paid off. In divided government you don’t always get what you want.”

The proposal, which will be voted on by the House later this week, was also welcomed by the White House.

“This agreement doesn’t include everything I’d like – and I know many Republicans feel the same way,” President Obama said in a statement. “That’s the nature of compromise. But it’s a good sign that Democrats and Republicans in Congress were able to come together and break the cycle of short-sighted, crisis-driven decision-making to get this done.”

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/us-congress-reaches-budget-deal

All-out war breaks out in GOP over budget

Tea party groups and fiscal conservatives wasted no time Wednesday in savaging a bipartisan budget agreement negotiated between House Republicans and Senate Democrats, drawing an unusually angry response from House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

All sides were rating the winners and losers in the deal struck a day earlier between House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat. The modest deficit-cutting deal had some sweeteners for defense contractors and oil drillers, while air travelers, federal workers and some corporate executives would take a hit.


PHOTOS: Ladies’ men: Presidents in hot demand with ladies at Mandela memorial


But most of the passion focused on the politics of the deal, with Mr. RyanMr. Boehner and the House GOP leadership defending their handiwork from attacks from conservative colleagues on Capitol Hill and from outside groups such as the Club for Growth, Heritage Action and Americans for Prosperity. Critics said the agreement effectively raised taxes in the form of higher fees, failed to restrain entitlement programs and permitted new spending in the short term in exchange for vague promises of long-term cuts.

Rep. Jim Jordan, Ohio Republican, said in an interview that Republicans sacrificed their biggest point of leverage — the tough “sequester” spending cuts that were already in force — in the rush to get a short-term deal that did not address the long-term costs of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid.

“I am against [the deal] from just a basic point that we embarked on a position at the beginning of the year that said, ‘We will keep the sequester in place unless we get to make changes on mandatory spending that will save those program and put the budget on path to balance within the next 10 years,’” Mr. Jordan said.

Added Chris Chocola, president of the fiscally hawkish Club for Growth, “Apparently, there are some Republicans who don’t have the stomach for even relatively small spending reductions that are devoid of budgetary smoke and mirrors. If Republicans work with Democrats to pass this deal, it should surprise no one when Republican voters seek alternatives who actually believe in less spending when they go to the ballot box.”

Despite conservative unhappiness and tepid reviews from many House Democrats, the proposal could be voted on in the House as early as Thursday and Mr. Ryan said Wednesday on CNN that he is confident he has the votes to pass the bill.

Mr. Boehner used unusually pointed language in hitting back at conservative opponents of the deal, charging that critics opposed the agreement even before knowing what was in it.


SEE ALSO: Rand Paul: Budget deal ‘shameful,’ ‘huge mistake’


“They’re using our members and the American people to their own purposes,” an angry Mr. Boehner said. “This is ridiculous.”

But several Republican senators, including Kentucky’s Rand Paul and Oklahoma’s Tom Coburn, immediately came out against the deal and many other Republican senators are expected to oppose the accord.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated Wednesday that the bulk of the plan’s deficit reduction would come in the final three years of the deal, while the new spending would happen over the next two years.

The estimate followed news that the U.S. government ran a $135.2 billion budget deficit through the first two months of the year — well short of the $226.8 billion deficit the nation had built up by this time a year ago. The Treasury Department said that more revenue was coming into the federal government thanks to higher tax rates and an improving economy.

The Ryan-Murray agreement increases spending in 2014 to $1.012 trillion and in 2015 to $1.014 trillion and restores more than $60 billion in sequester spending cuts.

The new spending is offset in part by lowering the cost-of-living adjustment for military retirees, requiring higher pension contributions from recently hired federal employees and raising fees on travelers collected by the Transportation Security Administration.

Some winners in the deal included the Pentagon and the defense industry, where much of the defense-related sequester cuts were restored, and the energy industry, which won expanded rights for joint drilling along the U.S.-Mexico border and in the Gulf of Mexico.

Industries and interests that emerged as losers in the final deal were quick to make their unhappiness known.

“As we have said consistently, airlines and our customers are already overtaxed, and we are disappointed that fees on air travel were increased, and believe those higher taxes will impact demand, jobs and our economy,” said Katie Connell, spokeswoman for Airlines for America, a Washington-based trade group representing U.S. airlines.

The National Treasury Employees Union launched a pre-emptive strike against the proposal, saying last week that federal employees had suffered enough under pay freezes and furloughs.

“We continue to believe that there should be zero cuts to federal pay and benefits in this deal and that federal employees are being asked to contribute a disproportionate share toward deficit reduction,” the group said Wednesday.

National Nurses United took issues with the cuts aimed at federal workers, especially nurses working in Veterans Affairs hospitals.

“There is no reason to cheer an agreement that requires unwarranted pension cuts for federal workers, including VA nurses who earned that pension, underfunds nutrition programs and fails to extend assistance for the long-term unemployed,” said Jean Ross, co-president of the nurses group.

Military members said they are also bearing more than their fair share of the government’s financial problems. Military retirees’ cost-of-living allowance will be decreased to 1 percent below the inflation rate, leading to a 20 percent cut to retirement benefits over their lives, according to a statement from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.

“The budget agreement balances the budget on the backs of military retirees. It’s the latest example of how Washington is broken, forcing those who have sacrificed the most over the last 10 years to choose between this deal, sequestration or government shutdown,” said Paul Rieckhoff, chief executive officer of IAVA.

Many liberal lawmakers said the federal budget should not be balanced on the backs of federal workers and that the bill could have trouble passing if it does not extend unemployment insurance for the 1.3 million Americans who are set to get kicked off the rolls before the end of the year.

“That does put the overall effort at risk,” said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, Maryland Democrat.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat and supporter of the plan, tried to ease some of the concerns coming from his side of the aisle by vowing to push for an extension of unemployment insurance and for an increase in the minimum wage when the Senate returns to Washington after the new year.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/tea-partiers-turn-capitol-hill-budget-deal/?page=2

Tea partiers turn on Capitol Hill budget deal

By Jacqueline Klimas

Tea party and conservative groups pounced on the budget proposal that congressional leaders carved out behind closed doors, saying that the plan is based on the faulty premise of increasing spending now in exchange for future spending cuts that will never materialize.

They said that House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, the GOP budget negotiator, can kiss goodbye any chance of winning over grassroots activists if he chooses to run for president in 2016 after he surrendered ground on across-the-board “sequester” cuts to spending rolled back in the new deal.

“While no one was expecting a grand bargain, we hoped that the budget leaders would stand by the only fiscally responsible accomplishment of Obama’s presidency: sequestration,” said Amy Kremer, chairwoman of the Tea Party Express. “This budget deal creates a faux peace in Washington, D.C., while burdening taxpayers by sweeping the impending fiscal crisis under the rug.”

Mr. Ryan and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, announced late Tuesday that they had reached a two-year budget deal that would reduce the deficit by $23 billion over ten years without raising taxes.

The proposal restored $63 billion on the across-the-board “sequester” cuts to defense and non-defense programs. It also included higher fees on airline travel and requires federal employees to contribute more for their retirement benefits.

Judson Phillips, the leader of Tea Party Nation, likened the proposal to a character in the long-running comic strip Popeye, calling it “the Wellington Wimpy budget deal.”

Paul Ryan is telling America that he will gladly pay us Tuesday for a hamburger today,” Mr. Phillips said. “It should forever dissuade us of the idea that the Republican Party is the party of fiscal conservatism.”

Mr. Phillips said that Mr. Ryan has shown that he is “is another Washington insider who will talk to the public about how fiscally conservative he is and then he goes to Washington and wants to spend money like a drunken Democrat.”

“As far as the conservative movement is concern, Ryan is not only the 2016 candidate of ‘no,’ but ‘hell no.’ There is no way he will have grassroots support after this deal,” he said.

For his part, Mr. Ryan, who has no ruled out a presidential run, told reporters that the the plan is a step in the right direction because it achieves deficit reduction without increasing taxes.

“As a conservative, I deal with the situation as it exists,” Mr. Ryan said. “I deal with the way things are, not necessarily the way things I want them to be.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/11/tea-partiers-turn-capitol-hill-budget-deal/

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

Nelson Mandela Becomes The Good Terrorist Communist — Rest In Peace — Videos

Posted on December 10, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Constitution, Demographics, Economics, Employment, Energy, European History, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Genocide, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

nelson-mandelanelsonmandelacommunistmandela_castromandelamandela_castro_arafatnelson-mandela-statesman-quote-communists-have-always-played-an-active-role-in-themandelaarafatmandela_friendfoto CORNEL VAN HEERDEN . .mandelaunravelsmandela_fistnelson-mandela-love-3waves_goodbye_mandela

Nelson Mandela Dies

Nelson Mandela Death: A Look at South Africa’s First Black President – Documentary

Nelson Mandela – Who was Madiba? Truthloader

Remembering South African leader Nelson Mandela

25 Things You Didn’t Know About Nelson Mandela And His Enduring Legacy

Randall Robinson on Nelson Mandela, U.S. Backing of Apartheid

A Tribute To Nelson Mandela (R.I.P) 1918-2013

The Right Wing Vs Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela & Fidel Castro: A Video You Won’t See on the Evening News

Desmond Tutu Blasts ANC South African Gov’t as Worse Than Apartheid

Mandela The Man and His Country

African National Congress Terrorists Captured (1988)

The Truth on the ANC and South Africa

Christopher Hitchens on the ANC, South African Apartheid, History, Desmond Tutu (1985)

100 Years of Struggle — Mandela’s ANC

Umkhonto we Sizwe(MK)

ANC – VIP’s of Violence Part 1 of 3

Part 1 of 3. A fully factual, well researched and presented documentary on the actions of the ANC that it was hoped would never surface in public – ANC – African National Congress, ruling party in South Africa. What was said in 1987 still applies today, most Black people have not seen a dramatic change in their circumstances……
Nelson Mandela never did renounce the use of violence.

ANC VIP’s of Violence Part 2 of 3

ANC – VIP’s of Violence Part 3 of 3

The Death Of Apartheid – The Whites Last Stand

Who is Nelson Mandela ?

Nelson Mandela Exposed: Communist ANC Ties & The Stupidity Of Black People

WATCH Bill O’Reilly Open Fire on Nelson Mandela: ” Great Man, But He Was a Communist “

Alex Jones: Nelson Mandela is “a horrible person”, “communist mass-bomber”

Racist songs of the ANC and Nelson Mandela- Part 1 of 2

Racist songs by the ANC and Nelson Mandela- Part 2 of 2

Nelson Mandela sings about killing whites

My tribute to vintage Nelson Mandela of South Africa.

NBC and ABC Bash Reagan as Pro-Apartheid During Mandela Coverage

South Africa Today: Did the Mandela Revolution Succeed?

November 30, 2010 | The relatively peaceful transition from apartheid to the beginning of democracy in 1994 was greeted around the world as the beginning of a new era in African politics. Professor Charles Villa-Vicencio, former national research director of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, offered an assessment of the positive momentum and the challenges facing his native South Africa sixteen years later. Assessing the tendency among some rulers of new democracies to resort to the authoritarian tendencies of the governments they have replaced, the question was asked as to what extent South Africa’s current rulers have consolidated and advanced the gains introduced by the Mandela administration. Special attention was given to the current political divisions within the ANC government and the economic challenges facing the country.

Charles Villa-Vicencio is a leading global authority in matters related to transitional justice and reconciliation. A distinguished theologian, he has published numerous works in various scholarly forums. His contributions extend beyond academics: from 1996-1998, he played a central role in South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, where he acted as national research director. Villa-Vicencio has used his insight and expertise to advise numerous countries dealing with the challenges of rebuilding their societies after periods of internal strife, including Peru and various African nations. Villa-Vicencio is the author of several books, including A Theology of Reconstruction: Nation-Building and Human Rights (1992) and Civil Disobedience and Beyond: Law, Resistance, and Religion in South Africa (1990). In addition, he has edited or co-edited various volumes, such as Looking Back, Reaching Forward: Reflections on the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Africa (2000, with Wilhelm Verwoerd), and The Provocations of Amnesty: Memory, Justice, and Impunity (2003, with Erik Doxtader).

Former ANC Youth League President Julius Malema has officially formed a new political party.

Malema makes 360 since corruption charges

NELSON MANDELA the TRUTH IS REVEALED

The Life and Times of Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela

http://djausar.wordpress.com/2013/12/08/the-life-and-times-of-nelson-rolihlahla-mandela/

Background Articles and Videos

Nelson Mandela 1918-2013

by David Horowitz

mandela5

Mandela began as a terrorist and never turned his back on monsters like Arafat and Castro, whom he considered brothers in arms. When he was released from prison by deKlerk, he showed unexpected statesmanship, counseling reconciliation rather than revenge, no small achievement in a country in which the “liberation” movement (led by Mandela’s wife and party) placed oil filled inner tubes around the necks of former comrades and set them on fire.

But if a leader should be judged by his works, the country Mandela left behind is an indictment of his political career, not an achievement worthy of praise – let alone the unhinged adoration he is currently receiving across the political spectrum.

http://www.horowitzfreedomcenter.org/nelson_mandela_1918_2013

Mandela’s Economic Legacy Threatened by S. Africa Inequality

By Mike Cohen

Nelson Mandela emerged from 27 years in apartheid jails in 1990 pledging to seize South Africa’s mines and banks. Four years later, his government slashed spending and courted foreign investors, paving the way for the longest period of growth in the country’s history.

The former president and Nobel Laureate, who died yesterday at the age of 95, was instrumental in getting the African National Congress, which led the fight against apartheid and has ruled ever since, to embrace an open economy.

“Only a Mandela could have realigned the ANC’s economic policy from the mindset of the 1950s, with the development state, with socialism, with nationalization, to the world of the 1990s and beyond,” Robert Schrire, a politics professor at the University of Cape Town, said in an interview. “He recognized that for the poor to prosper, the rich had to feel they had a future in the country.”

Yet Mandela’s legacy of economic stability is beginning to come under attack as the country fails to slash unemployment and reduce inequality. The jobless rate remains 24.7 percent, while average earnings for black households are a sixth of their white counterparts. The ANC’s youth wing last year waged a campaign for the nationalization of banks and mines, the very policies ditched by Mandela in 1994, and poor communities have staged a series of protests against a lack of housing and basic services.

Photographer: Dean Hutton/Bloomberg

Mourners gather outside the home of former South African President Nelson Mandela in…Read More

The rand has plunged 19 percent against the dollar this year, the worst performer of 16 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg, and was trading at 10.4751 as of 1:32 p.m. in Johannesburg today.

White Hands

“We still have racial unemployment, racial poverty and racial inequality,” said Sidumo Dlamini, president of the 2.2-million-member Congress of South African Trade Unions, the country’s largest labor grouping and a member of the ruling alliance. “Our country is still in white hands.”

Mandela’s embrace of spending rigor and foreign capital allowed the economy to expand for 15 years, until the third quarter of 2008, when the global financial crisis pushed it into recession. That growth and rising tax receipts enabled the post-apartheid government to extend welfare grants to about 16 million people and give more than 85 percent of households access to electricity, up from 45 percent in 1996.

Pariah State

Instead of nationalizing companies, Mandela coaxed foreign investors into the country. His ideological shift laid the groundwork for Lakshmi Mittal’s LNM Group to buy Africa’s biggest steelmaker in 2004 and London-based Barclays Plc to take control of South Africa’s largest consumer bank in 2005. In 2011, Fayetteville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. bought a majority stake in the nation’s biggest general-goods wholesaler.

Photographer: Tom Stoddart/Getty Images

Then South African President Nelson Mandela addresses stock brokers at the Johannesburg…Read More

Restoring confidence in South Africa’s economy in 1994 was a significant achievement. Apartheid had turned South Africa into a pariah state, subjected to international sanctions and boycotts. The economy was hemorrhaging foreign capital, had only enough reserves to cover 10 days of imports and was running a budget deficit of 9.1 percent of gross domestic product.

Mandela asked Chris Liebenberg, who had just retired as chief executive officer of what is now Nedbank Group Ltd., the country’s fourth-largest bank, to become finance minister. He accepted the job on condition that South Africa would have a market-related economy and exercise fiscal discipline.

‘Steady Progress’

“Those were tough times,” Liebenberg said in an interview. “We were heading for bankruptcy. Mandela was very mindful that the ANC having not been in government would not be as astute in managing the economy as it should be. He came to me because I was a banker with lots of international contacts and experience.”

In his first budget, Liebenberg raised taxes, equalized the tax system for all racial groups and slashed the defense budget. Those measures helped the government to raise $750 million in 1994 in its first post-apartheid international bond sale, 50 percent more than originally planned. By 1999, the Finance Ministry had reduced the budget deficit to 2.3 percent of GDP.

Mandela also persuaded Chris Stals, the central bank governor, to postpone his retirement by five years to help manage the country’s transition.

Life in Prison

“We made steady progress from day one on for those first five years,” Stals said in an interview. “Our main task was to bring us back into the world economy. Mr. Mandela certainly made a major contribution to that. The trust people had in him and his policies certainly enabled us to lay a very good foundation.”

That trust was hard won.

Mandela was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted of treason in June 1964, serving much of his sentence on Robben Island near Cape Town. His economic thinking was framed in terms of the ANC’s 1955 Freedom Charter, which called for the country’s mineral wealth and banks to be transferred to the ownership of the people.

“The question of nationalization of mines is a fundamental policy of the ANC,” Mandela said shortly after his release. “I believe the ANC is quite correct in this attitude and we should support it.”

A year later, he assured foreign companies their investments were safe following talks with then-Chinese Premier Li Peng, who told him nationalization wasn’t viable and that China was considering selling state companies.

Broad Sweep

“The world had changed while Mandela was in jail,” said Iraj Abedian, an economist who helped craft the Mandela’s administration’s 1996 hallmark economic policy, which won praise from international investors. “His engagement with the role players in the political, economic and financial world brought that reality home.”

Mandela helped set the broad parameters of economic policy, while leaving formulation and execution to his subordinates, according to Liebenberg, who now helps manage charities established by the former president.

“Until Mandela set his stamp on a policy I think it would not have been possible to drive it through the ANC,” Liebenberg said. “It certainly would not have been possible to drive it through government.”

Abedian, now CEO of Pan-African Capital Holdings, a Johannesburg-based advisory service, was struck by the attention to detail that Mandela, a trained lawyer, gave to policy making.

Phone Calls

“He would go through every document word by word, line by line,” Abedian said. “It was a question of understanding the rationale for every step, weighing it up, questioning it in detail, far more than people would believe.”

Stals recounts how after Trevor Manuel was appointed finance minister in 1996 and the rand tumbled 8.8 percent in the space of a month, Mandela would phone him two or three times a day for market updates.

“He showed a great interest in what we did and he was always quite well-informed,” said Stals. “He liked to discuss the monetary policy issues. He never really interfered, he never really gave instructions.”

Still, the stability that Mandela engineered in those early years after apartheid never made South Africa an economic dynamo. Economic growth has averaged 3.5 percent since 2004, compared with 10.5 percent in China and 7.7 percent in India.

Economic Framework

Moreover, the Gini coefficient, a measure of income inequality, has risen to 0.63 in 2009 from 0.59 in 1993, making South Africa one of the world’s most unequal societies. Poverty remains most prevalent among black South Africans, who make up 79 percent of the population of 53 million.

Mandela never tackled labor laws that companies say stifle investment, or turned around an education system that has left South Africa with labor shortages for skilled jobs.

A wave of violent labor unrest that swept the country in 2012 has continued this year, with workers in the mining, agriculture and transportation industries going on strike for higher wages. The unrest peaked on Aug. 16, when police killed 34 protesters at a Lonmin Plc platinum mine.

Labor unions and the South African Communist Party blame the 1996 economic framework, known as Growth, Employment and Redistribution, for entrenching apartheid-era inequity. The policy, which was spearheaded by Manuel and described by Mandela as “non-negotiable,” sought to trim state borrowing, contain inflation and gradually relax exchange controls.

Working Class

“Established capital benefited from stabilization and liberalization measures,” while the interests of the poor and working class were largely overlooked, said Blade Nzimande, the SACP’s general secretary.

The ANC’s Youth League revived calls for nationalization, saying drastic steps were needed to distribute the country’s wealth more equitably. The league has toned down its demands since its leader Julius Malema was expelled from the ANC last year.

Mandela did the best he could for the country under the circumstances, Abedian said.

“Very few people appreciated what unstable macroeconomic conditions apartheid had left behind,” he said. “In that type of environment what was critical was to have a credible, not necessarily an instant, solution. Mandela realized what steps had to be taken to normalize and stabilize the economy.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-12-06/mandela-free-market-legacy-imperiled-by-south-african-inequality.html

South Africa’s economy

Strangers will not always be so kind

A COSTLY strike by carworkers in South Africa was at last called off on October 6th. The production lost to the dispute cannot easily be made up as car plants often work around the clock. Worse, the country’s reputation as a place for foreign investment has suffered. BMW, a big German carmaker, says the damage caused by the strike will influence the company’sfuture investment plans.

That sobering statement came just days after the IMF’s anual health-check on the economy. It is a portrait of a country that increasingly relies on foreign creditors to plug the holes in its finances yet does little to ensure that this much-needed investment will keep flowing.

The IMF’s judgment could scarcely be more damning. The report says that South Africa’s economy has grown far more slowly than its peers. The misery in Europe, where a big chunk of South Africa’s exports usually go, has not helped. But it does not excuse troubles at home: “Although weak trading-partner growth contributed, domestic factors were an important reason why South Africa’s growth has been below that of other emerging markets,” the report notes.

It might beggar belief that carworkers can strike for big wage increases when South Africa’s economy is growing so slowly and its unemployment rate is a depressing 25%. Yet the crux of the country’s economic difficulties is an “insider-outsider” complex, says the IMF, which affects both jobs and goods markets. It is costly to fire workers even with good reason. The protections afforded to insiders with jobs leave employers less willing to hire in case they turn out to be work-shy or incompetent. Meanwhile outsiders, mostly the young, are locked out of work.

Business in South Africa is part of the racket. It feigns to loathe costly regulations but in fact red tape makes it harder for job-creating start-ups to challenge established businesses. The IMF notes that the rate of creation and survival of new companies is one of the lowest in the world. This is a sweet deal for incumbent firms, which are more profitable in South Africa than their peers in many emerging markets, including Brazil, China, India and Russia. The lack of competition imposes an additional cost (over forgone jobs) on poor households in the form of high prices.

The social problems related to joblessness are reason enough to shake things up. But reform is even more urgent because of South Africa’s reliance on the kindness of strangers. It runs a current-account deficit of more than 6% of GDP: this is how much it adds to its overdraft with foreigners each year. It would better if this was funded by foreign direct investment, the sort of long-term capital that a BMW plant represents. But the gap between what South Africa spends and what it earns has been bridged by foreign buying of government bonds. The proceeds have gone on public-sector wages rather than on infrastructure projects, such as roads, ports and power plants.

Such purchases cannot be relied on for ever. Interest rates will eventually return to more normal levels in America and Europe. When that happens, capital will flow less freely to emerging markets, such as South Africa. And foreign investors might take fright sooner than that. In the rush for the exits, long-term interest rates would rise and the currency would wilt, leaving the economy in even deeper trouble.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/baobab/2013/10/south-africa-s-economy?zid=304&ah=e5690753dc78ce91909083042ad12e30

Nelson Mandela

Page semi-protected
This is a good article. Click here for more information.
His Excellency
Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela
OM AC CC OJ GCStJ QC GCH BR RSO NPk
Nelson Mandela on the eve of his 90th birthday in Johannesburg in May 2008
Mandela in Johannesburg, on 13 May 2008
President of South Africa
In office
10 May 1994 – 14 June 1999
Deputy Thabo Mbeki
F. W. de Klerk
Preceded by F. W. de Klerk
Succeeded by Thabo Mbeki
Personal details
Born Rolihlahla Mandela
18 July 1918
MvezoCape Province
Union of South Africa
Died 5 December 2013 (aged 95)
JohannesburgGauteng
South Africa
Nationality South African
Political party African National CongressSouth African Communist Party
Spouse(s) Evelyn Ntoko Mase
(m. 1944–1957; divorced)
Winnie Madikizela
(m. 1958–1996; divorced)
Graça Machel
(m. 1998–2013; his death)
Children

step children

  • Josina Z. Machel
  • Samora M. Machel Jnr.
Alma mater University of Fort Hare
University of London External System
University of South Africa
University of the Witwatersrand
Profession
Signature Signature of Nelson Mandela
Website www.nelsonmandela.org

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (Xhosa pronunciation: [xoˈliːɬaɬa manˈdeːla]) (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013) was a South African anti-apartheid revolutionarypolitician, and philanthropist who served as President of South Africa from 1994 to 1999. He was the first black South African to hold the office, and the first elected in a fully representative democratic election. His government focused on dismantling the legacy of apartheid through tackling institutionalised racism, poverty and inequality, and fostering racial reconciliation. Politically an African nationalist and democratic socialist, he served as President of the African National Congress (ANC) from 1991 to 1997. Internationally, Mandela was Secretary General of the Non-Aligned Movement from 1998 to 1999.

Xhosa born to the Thembu royal family, Mandela attended the Fort Hare University and the University of Witwatersrand, where he studied law. Living in Johannesburg, he became involved in anti-colonial politics, joining the ANC and becoming a founding member of its Youth League. After the South African National Party came to power in 1948, he rose to prominence in the ANC’s 1952 Defiance Campaign, was appointed superintendent of the organisation’s Transvaal chapter and presided over the 1955 Congress of the People. Working as a lawyer, he was repeatedly arrested for seditious activities and, with the ANC leadership, was unsuccessfully prosecuted in the Treason Trial from 1956 to 1961. Although initially committed to non-violent protest, he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK) in 1961 in association with the South African Communist Party, leading a sabotage campaign against the apartheid government. In 1962 he was arrested, convicted of conspiracy to overthrow the state, and sentenced to life imprisonment in the Rivonia Trial.

Mandela served over 27 years in prison, initially on Robben Island, and later in Pollsmoor Prison and Victor Verster Prison. An international campaign lobbied for his release. He was released in 1990, during a time of escalating civil strife. Mandela joined negotiations with President F. W. de Klerk to abolish apartheid and establish multiracial elections in 1994, in which he led the ANC to victory and became South Africa’s first black president. He published his autobiography in 1995. During his tenure in the Government of National Unity he invited several other political parties to join the cabinet. As agreed to during the negotiations to end apartheid in South Africa, he promulgated a new constitution. He also created the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate past human rights abuses. While continuing the former government’s liberal economic policy, his administration also introduced measures to encourage land reform, combat poverty, and expand healthcare services. Internationally, he acted as mediator between Libya and the United Kingdom in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing trial, and oversaw military intervention in Lesotho. He declined to run for a second term, and was succeeded by his deputy, Thabo Mbeki. Mandela became an elder statesman, focusing on charitable work in combating poverty and HIV/AIDS through the Nelson Mandela Foundation.

Mandela was a controversial figure for much of his life. Denounced as a Marxist terrorist by critics,[1][2] he nevertheless gained international acclaim for his activism, having received more than 250 honours, including the 1993 Nobel Peace Prize, the USPresidential Medal of Freedom, the Soviet Order of Lenin and the Bharat Ratna. He is held in deep respect within South Africa, where he is often referred to by his Xhosa clan nameMadiba, or as Tata (“Father”); he is often described as “the father of the nation”.

Childhood: 1918–1936

Mandela was born on 18 July 1918 in the village of Mvezo in Umtatu, then a part of South Africa’s Cape Province.[3] Given the forename Rolihlahla, a Xhosa term colloquially meaning “troublemaker”,[3] in later years he became known by his clan name, Madiba.[4] His patrilineal great-grandfather, Ngubengcuka, was ruler of the Thembu people in theTranskeian Territories of South Africa’s modern Eastern Cape province.[5] One of this king’s sons, named Mandela, became Nelson’s grandfather and the source of his surname.[6]Because Mandela was only the king’s child by a wife of the Ixhiba clan, a so-called “Left-Hand House”, the descendants of his cadet branch of the royal family were morganatic, ineligible to inherit the throne but recognized as hereditary royal councillors.[6] His father, Gadla Henry Mphakanyiswa, was a local chief and councillor to the monarch; he had been appointed to the position in 1915, after his predecessor was accused of corruption by a governing white magistrate.[7] In 1926, Gadla, too, was sacked for corruption, but Nelson was told that he had lost his job for standing up to the magistrate’s unreasonable demands.[8] A devotee of the god Qamata,[9] Gadla was a polygamist, having four wives, four sons and nine daughters, who lived in different villages. Nelson’s mother was Gadla’s third wife, Nosekeni Fanny, who was daughter of Nkedama of the Right Hand House and a member of the amaMpemvu clan of Xhosa.[10]

“No one in my family had ever attended school […] On the first day of school my teacher, Miss Mdingane, gave each of us an English name. This was the custom among Africans in those days and was undoubtedly due to the British bias of our education. That day, Miss Mdingane told me that my new name was Nelson. Why this particular name I have no idea.”

— Mandela, 1994[11]

Later stating that his early life was dominated by “custom, ritual and taboo”,[12] Mandela grew up with two sisters in his mother’skraal in the village of Qunu, where he tended herds as a cattle-boy, spending much time outside with other boys.[13] Both his parents were illiterate, but being a devout Christian, his mother sent him to a local Methodist school when he was about seven. Baptised a Methodist, Mandela was given the English forename of “Nelson” by his teacher.[14] When Mandela was about nine, his father came to stay at Qunu, where he died of an undiagnosed ailment which Mandela believed to be lung disease.[15] Feeling “cut adrift”, he later said that he inherited his father’s “proud rebelliousness” and “stubborn sense of fairness”.[16]

His mother took Mandela to the “Great Place” palace at Mqhekezweni, where he was entrusted under the guardianship of Themburegent, Chief Jongintaba Dalindyebo. Although he did not see his mother again for many years, Mandela felt that Jongintaba and his wife Noengland treated him as their own child, raising him alongside their son Justice and daughter Nomafu.[17] As Mandela attended church services every Sunday with his guardians, Christianity became a significant part of his life.[18] He attended aMethodist mission school located next to the palace, studying English, Xhosa, history and geography.[19] He developed a love of African history, listening to the tales told by elderly visitors to the palace, and became influenced by the anti-imperialist rhetoric of Chief Joyi.[20] At the time he nevertheless considered the European colonialists as benefactors, not oppressors.[21] Aged 16, he, Justice and several other boys travelled to Tyhalarha to undergo the circumcision ritual that symbolically marked their transition from boys to men; the rite over, he was given the name Dalibunga.[22]

Clarkebury, Healdtown, and Fort Hare: 1936–1940

Mandela c. 1937

Intending to gain skills needed to become a privy councillor for the Thembu royal house, Mandela began his secondary education at Clarkebury Boarding Institute in Engcobo, a Western-style institution that was the largest school for black Africans in Thembuland.[23] Made to socialise with other students on an equal basis, he claimed that he lost his “stuck up” attitude, becoming best friends with a girl for the first time; he began playing sports and developed his lifelong love of gardening.[24] Completing his Junior Certificate in two years,[25] in 1937 he moved to Healdtown, the Methodist college in Fort Beaufort attended by most Thembu royalty, including Justice.[26] The headmaster emphasised the superiority of English culture and government, but Mandela became increasingly interested in native African culture, making his first non-Xhosa friend, a Sotho language-speaker, and coming under the influence of one of his favourite teachers, a Xhosa who broke taboo by marrying a Sotho.[27] Spending much of his spare time long-distance running and boxing, in his second year Mandela became a prefect.[28]

With Jongintaba’s backing, Mandela began work on a Bachelor of Arts (BA) degree at the University of Fort Hare, an elite black institution inAlice, Eastern Cape, with around 150 students. There he studied English, anthropology, politics, native administration, and Roman Dutch law in his first year, desiring to become an interpreter or clerk in the Native Affairs Department.[29] Mandela stayed in the Wesley House dormitory, befriending his own kinsman, K.D. Matanzima, as well as Oliver Tambo, who became a close friend and comrade for decades to come.[30]Continuing his interest in sport, Mandela took up ballroom dancing,[31] performed in a drama society play about Abraham Lincoln,[32] and gave Bible classes in the local community as part of the Students Christian Association.[33] Although having friends connected to the African National Congress (ANC) and the anti-imperialist movement who wanted an independent South Africa, Mandela avoided any involvement,[34] and became a vocal supporter of the British war effort when the Second World War broke out.[35] Helping found a first-year students’ house committee which challenged the dominance of the second-years,[36] at the end of his first year he became involved in a Students’ Representative Council (SRC) boycott against the quality of food, for which he was temporarily suspended from the university; he left without receiving a degree.[37]

Arriving in Johannesburg: 1941–1943

Returning to Mqhekezweni in December 1940, Mandela found that Jongintaba had arranged marriages for him and Justice; dismayed, they fled to Johannesburg via Queenstown, arriving in April 1941.[38] Mandela found work as a night watchman at Crown Mines, his “first sight of South African capitalism in action”, but was fired when the induna (headman) discovered he was a runaway.[39] Staying with a cousin in George Goch Township, Mandela was introduced to the realtor and ANC activist Walter Sisulu, who secured him a job as an articled clerk at law firm Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman. The company was run by a liberal Jew, Lazar Sidelsky, who was sympathetic to the ANC’s cause.[40] At the firm, Mandela befriended Gaur Redebe, a Xhosa member of the ANC and Communist Party, as well as Nat Bregman, a Jewish communist who became his first white friend.[41]Attending communist talks and parties, Mandela was impressed that EuropeansAfricansIndians and Coloureds were mixing as equals. He stated later that he did not join the Party because its atheism conflicted with his Christian faith, and because he saw the South African struggle as being racially based rather than class warfare.[42] Becoming increasingly politicised, in August 1943 Mandela marched in support of a successful bus boycott to reverse fare rises.[43] Continuing his higher education, Mandela signed up to aUniversity of South Africa correspondence course, working on his bachelor’s degree at night.[44]

Earning a small wage, Mandela rented a room in the house of the Xhoma family in the Alexandra township; although rife with poverty, crime and pollution, Alexandra always remained “a treasured place” for him.[45] Although embarrassed by his poverty, he briefly courted a Swazi woman before unsuccessfully courting his landlord’s daughter.[46] In order to save money and be closer to downtown Johannesburg, Mandela moved into the compound of the Witwatersrand Native Labour Association, living among miners of various tribes; as the compound was a “way station for visiting chiefs”, he once met the Queen Regent of Basutoland.[47] In late 1941, Jongintaba visited, forgiving Mandela for running away. On returning to Thembuland, the regent died in winter 1942; Mandela and Justice arrived a day late for the funeral.[48] After passing his BA exams in early 1943, Mandela returned to Johannesburg to follow a political path as a lawyer rather than become a privy councillor in Thembuland.[49] He later stated that he experienced no epiphany, but that he “simply found myself doing so, and could not do otherwise.”[50]

Revolutionary activity

Law studies and the ANC Youth League: 1943–1949

Beginning law studies at the University of Witwatersrand, Mandela was the only native African student, and though facing racism, he befriended liberal and communist European, Jewish, and Indian students, among them Joe SlovoHarry Schwarz and Ruth First.[51] Joining the ANC, Mandela was increasingly influenced by Sisulu, spending much time with other activists at Sisulu’s Orlando house, including old friend Oliver Tambo.[52] In 1943, Mandela met Anton Lembede, an African nationalist virulently opposed to a racially united front against colonialism and imperialism or to an alliance with the communists.[53] Despite his friendships with non-blacks and communists, Mandela supported Lembede’s views, believing that black Africans should be entirely independent in their struggle for political self-determination.[54] Deciding on the need for a youth wing to mass mobilise Africans in opposition to their subjugation, Mandela was among a delegation that approached ANC President Alfred Bitini Xuma on the subject at his home in Sophiatown; the African National Congress Youth League (ANCYL) was founded on Easter Sunday 1944 in the Bantu Men’s Social Centre in Eloff Street, with Lembede as President and Mandela as a member of the executive committee.[55]

Mandela and Evelyn in 1944

At Sisulu’s house, Mandela met Evelyn Mase, an ANC activist from EngcoboTranskei, who was training at the time to become a nurse. Married on 5 October 1944, after initially living with her relatives, they rented House no. 8115 in Orlando from early 1946.[56] Their first child, Madiba “Thembi” Thembekile, was born in February 1945,[57] and a daughter named Makaziwe was born in 1947, dying nine months later of meningitis.[58] Mandela enjoyed home life, welcoming his mother and sister Leabie to stay with him.[59] In early 1947, his three years of articles ended at Witkin, Sidelsky and Eidelman, and he decided to become a full-time student, subsisting on loans from the Bantu Welfare Trust.[60]

In July 1947, Mandela rushed Lembede to hospital, where he died; he was succeeded as ANCYL president by the more moderate Peter Mda, who agreed to co-operate with communists and non-blacks, appointing Mandela ANCYL secretary.[61] Mandela disagreed with Mda’s approach, in December 1947 supporting an unsuccessful measure to expel communists from the ANCYL, considering their ideology un-African.[62] In 1947, Mandela was elected to the executive committee of the Transvaal ANC, serving under regional president C.S. Ramohanoe. When Ramohanoe acted against the wishes of the Transvaal Executive Committee by co-operating with Indians and communists, Mandela was one of those who forced his resignation.[63]

In the South African general election, 1948, in which only whites were permitted to vote, the Afrikaner-dominated Herenigde Nasionale Party under Daniel François Malan took power, soon uniting with the Afrikaner Party to form the National Party. Openly racialist, the party codified and expanded racial segregation with the new apartheid legislation.[64] Gaining increasing influence in the ANC, Mandela and his cadres began advocating direct action against apartheid, such as boycotts and strikes, influenced by the tactics of South Africa’s Indian community. Xuma did not support these measures and was removed from the presidency in a vote of no confidence, replaced by James Moroka and a more militant cabinet containing Sisulu, Mda, Tambo and Godfrey Pitje; Mandela later related that “We had now guided the ANC to a more radical and revolutionary path.”[65] Having devoted his time to politics, Mandela failed his final year at Witwatersrand three times; he was ultimately denied his degree in December 1949.[66]

Defiance Campaign and Transvaal ANC Presidency: 1950–1954

Mandela took Xuma’s place on the ANC National Executive in March 1950.[67] That month, the Defend Free Speech Convention was held in Johannesburg, bringing together African, Indian and communist activists to call an anti-apartheid general strike. Mandela opposed the strike because it was not ANC-led, but a majority of black workers took part, resulting in increased police repression and the introduction of the Suppression of Communism Act, 1950, affecting the actions of all protest groups.[68] In 1950, Mandela was elected national president of the ANCYL; at the ANC national conference of December 1951, he continued arguing against a racially united front, but was outvoted.[69] Thenceforth, he altered his entire perspective, embracing such an approach; influenced by friends like Moses Kotane and by the Soviet Union‘s support for wars of independence, Mandela’s mistrust of communism also broke down. He became influenced by the texts of Karl MarxFriedrich EngelsVladimir LeninJoseph Stalin and Mao Zedong, and embraceddialectical materialism.[70] In April 1952, Mandela began work at the H.M. Basner law firm,[71] though his increasing commitment to work and activism meant he spent less time with his family.[72]

In 1952, the ANC began preparation for a joint Defiance Campaign against apartheid with Indian and communist groups, founding a National Voluntary Board to recruit volunteers. Deciding on a path of nonviolent resistance influenced by Mahatma Gandhi, some considered it the ethical option, but Mandela instead considered it pragmatic.[73] At a Durban rally on 22 June, Mandela addressed an assembled crowd of 10,000, initiating the campaign protests, for which he was arrested and briefly interned in Marshall Square prison.[74] With further protests, the ANC’s membership grew from 20,000 to 100,000; the government responded with mass arrests, introducing the Public Safety Act, 1953 to permit martial law.[75] In May, authorities banned Transvaal ANU President J. B. Marks from making public appearances; unable to maintain his position, he recommended Mandela as his successor. Although the ultra-Africanist Bafabegiya group opposed his candidacy, Mandela was elected regional president in October.[76] On 30 July 1952, Mandela was arrested under the Suppression of Communism Act and stood trial as a part of the 21 accused – among them Moroka, Sisulu and Dadoo – in Johannesburg. Found guilty of “statutory communism”, their sentence of nine months’ hard labour was suspended for two years.[77] In December, Mandela was given a six-month ban from attending meetings or talking to more than one individual at a time, making his Transvaal ANU presidency impractical. The Defiance Campaign petered out.[78] In September 1953, Andrew Kunene read out Mandela’s “No Easy Walk to Freedom” speech at a Transvaal ANC meeting; the title was taken from a quote by Indian independence leader Jawaharlal Nehru, a seminal influence on Mandela’s thought. The speech laid out a contingency plan for a scenario in which the ANC was banned. This Mandela Plan, or M-Plan, involved dividing the organisation into acell structure with a more centralised leadership.[79]

Mandela obtained work as an attorney for the firm Terblanche and Briggish, before moving to the liberal-run Helman and Michel, passing qualification exams to become a full-fledged attorney.[80] In August 1953, Mandela and Oliver Tambo opened their own law firm, Mandela and Tambo, operating in downtown Johannesburg. The only African-run law firm in the country, it was popular with aggrieved blacks, often dealing with cases of police brutality. Disliked by the authorities, the firm was forced to relocate to a remote location after their office permit was removed under the Group Areas Act; as a result, their custom dwindled.[81] Though a second daughter, Makaziwe Phumia, was born in May 1954, Mandela’s relationship with Evelyn became strained, and she accused him of adultery. Evidence has emerged indicating that he was having affairs with ANC member Lillian Ngoyi and secretary Ruth Mompati; persistent but unproven claims assert that the latter bore Mandela a child. Disgusted by her son’s behaviour, Nosekeni returned to Transkei, and Evelyn embraced the Jehovah’s Witnesses and rejected Mandela’s obsession with politics.[82]

Congress of the People and the Treason Trial: 1955–1961

Main article: Treason Trial

“We, the people of South Africa, declare for all our country and the world to know:
That South Africa belongs to all who live in it, black and white, and that no government can justly claim authority unless it is based on the will of the people.”

— Opening words of the Freedom Charter[83]

Mandela came to the opinion that the ANC “had no alternative to armed and violent resistance” after taking part in the unsuccessful protest to prevent the demolition of the all-black Sophiatown suburb of Johannesburg in February 1955.[84] He advised Sisulu to request weaponry from the People’s Republic of China, but though supporting the anti-apartheid struggle, China’s government believed the movement insufficiently prepared for guerilla warfare.[85] With the involvement of the South African Indian Congress, the Coloured People’s Congress, the South African Congress of Trade Unions and the Congress of Democrats, the ANC planned aCongress of the People, calling on all South Africans to send in proposals for a post-apartheid era. Based on the responses, a Freedom Charter was drafted by Rusty Bernstein, calling for the creation of a democratic, non-racialist state with the nationalisationof major industry. When the charter was adopted at a June 1955 conference in Kliptown attended by 3000 delegates, police cracked down on the event, but it remained a key part of Mandela’s ideology.[86]

Following the end of a second ban in September 1955, Mandela went on a working holiday to Transkei to discuss the implications of the Bantu Authorities Act, 1951 with local tribal leaders, also visiting his mother and Noengland before proceeding to Cape Town.[87] In March 1956 he received his third ban on public appearances, restricting him to Johannesburg for five years, but he often defied it.[88] His marriage broke down as Evelyn left Mandela, taking their children to live with her brother. Initiating divorce proceedings in May 1956, she claimed that Mandela had physically abused her; he denied the allegations, and fought for custody of their children. She withdrew her petition of separation in November, but Mandela filed for divorce in January 1958; the divorce was finalised in March, with the children placed in Evelyn’s care.[89] During the divorce proceedings, he began courting and politicising a social worker, Winnie Madikizela, who he married in Bizana on 14 June 1958. She later became involved in ANC activities, spending several weeks imprisoned.[90]

The apartheid system pervaded all areas of life.

On 5 December 1956, Mandela was arrested alongside most of the ANC Executive for “high treason” against the state. Held in Johannesburg Prison amid mass protests, they underwent a preparatory examination in Drill Hall on 19 December, before being granted bail.[91] The defence’s refutation began on 9 January 1957, overseen by defence lawyer Vernon Berrangé, and continued until adjourning in September. In January 1958, judge Oswald Pirow was appointed to the case, and in February he ruled that there was “sufficient reason” for the defendants to go on trial in the Transvaal Supreme Court.[92] The formal Treason Trial began in Pretoria in August 1958, with the defendants successfully applying to have the three judges – all linked to the governing National Party – replaced. In August, one charge was dropped, and in October the prosecution withdrew its indictment, submitting a reformulated version in November which argued that the ANC leadership committed high treason by advocating violent revolution, a charge the defendants denied.[93]

In April 1959, militant Africanists dissatisfied with the ANC’s united front approach founded the Pan-African Congress (PAC); Mandela’s friend Robert Sobukwe was elected president, though Mandela thought the group “immature”.[94] Both parties campaigned for an anti-pass campaign in May 1960, in which Africans burned the passes that they were legally obliged to carry. One of the PAC-organized demonstrations was fired upon by police, resulting in the deaths of 69 protesters in the Sharpeville massacre. In solidarity, Mandela publicly burned his pass as rioting broke out across South Africa, leading the government to proclaim martial law.[95] Under the State of Emergency measures, Mandela and other activists were arrested on 30 March, imprisoned without charge in the unsanitary conditions of the Pretoria Local prison, and the ANC and PAC were banned in April.[96] This made it difficult for their lawyers to reach them, and it was agreed that the defence team for the Treason Trial should withdraw in protest. Representing themselves in court, the accused were freed from prison when the state of emergency was lifted in late August.[97] Mandela used his free time to organise an All-In African Conference near PietermaritzburgNatal, in March, at which 1,400 anti-apartheid delegates met, agreeing on a stay-at home protest to mark 31 May, the day South Africa became a republic.[98] On 29 March 1961, after a six-year trial, the judges produced a verdict of not guilty, embarrassing the government.[99]

Umkhonto we Sizwe and African tour: 1961–1962

Thatched room at Liliesleaf Farm, where Mandela hid

Mandela House in the Johannesburg township of Soweto was Mandela’s home before his 27-year imprisonment, and his home immediately after being released from prison. The property is now a national museum.

Disguising himself as a chauffeur, Mandela travelled the country incognito, organising the ANC’s new cell structure and a mass stay-at-home strike for 29 May. Referred to as the “Black Pimpernel” in the press – a reference to Emma Orczy‘s 1905 novel The Scarlet Pimpernel – the police put out a warrant for his arrest.[100] Mandela held secret meetings with reporters, and after the government failed to prevent the strike, he warned them that many anti-apartheid activists would soon resort to violence through groups like the PAC’sPoqo.[101] He believed that the ANC should form an armed group to channel some of this violence, convincing both ANC leader Albert Luthuli – who was morally opposed to violence – and allied activist groups of its necessity.[102]

Inspired by Fidel Castro‘s 26th of July Movement in the Cuban Revolution, in 1961 Mandela co-founded Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”, abbreviated MK) with Sisulu and the communist Joe Slovo. Becoming chairman of the militant group, he gained ideas from illegal literature on guerilla warfare by Mao and Che Guevara. Officially separate from the ANC, in later years MK became the group’s armed wing.[103] Most early MK members were white communists; after hiding in communist Wolfie Kodesh’s flat in Berea, Mandela moved to the communist-owned Liliesleaf Farm in Rivonia, there joined by Raymond Mhlaba, Slovo and Bernstein, who put together the MK constitution.[104] Although Mandela himself denied ever being a Communist Party member, historical research has suggested that he might have been for a short period, starting from the late 1950s or early 1960s.[105] After his death, the Communist Party and the ANC confirmed that he was a Communist Party member when he was arrested in 1962.[106][107]

Operating through a cell structure, the MK agreed to acts of sabotage to exert maximum pressure on the government with minimum casualties, bombing military installations, power plants, telephone lines and transport links at night, when civilians were not present. Mandela himself stated that they chose sabotage not only because it was the least harmful action, but also “because it did not involve loss of life [and] it offered the best hope for reconciliation among the races afterward.” He noted that “strict instructions were given to members of MK that we would countenance no loss of life”, but should these tactics fail, MK would resort to “guerilla warfare and terrorism”.[108]

Soon after ANC leader Luthuli was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the MK publicly announced its existence with 57 bombings onDingane’s Day (16 December) 1961, followed by further attacks on New Year’s Eve.[109]

The ANC agreed to send Mandela as a delegate to the February 1962 Pan-African Freedom Movement for East, Central and Southern Africa (PAFMECSA) meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.[110] Traveling there in secret, Mandela met with Emperor Haile Selassie I, and gave his speech after Selassie’s at the conference.[111] After the conference, he travelled to Cairo, Egypt, admiring the political reforms of President Gamal Abdel Nasser, and then went to Tunis, Tunisia, where President Habib Bourguiba gave him £5000 for weaponry. He proceeded to Morocco, Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Senegal, receiving funds from Liberian President William Tubman and Guinean President Ahmed Sékou Touré.[112]Leaving Africa for London, England, he met anti-apartheid activists, reporters and prominent leftist politicians.[113] Returning to Ethiopia, he began a six-month course in guerrilla warfare, but completed only two months before being recalled to South Africa.[114]

Imprisonment

Police shots of several accused in theRivonia Trial. The portrait at the top is of Mandela, the chief accused. The photograph in the lower right-hand corner is of Walter Sisulu.

Arrest and Rivonia trial: 1962–1964

Main article: Rivonia Trial

On 5 August 1962, police captured Mandela along with Cecil Williams near Howick.[115] A large number of groups have been accused of having tipped off the police about Mandela’s whereabouts including Mandela’s host in Durban GR Naidoo, white members of the South African Communist Party, and the CIA, but Mandela himself considers none of these connections to be credible and instead attributes his arrest to his own carelessness in concealing his movements.[116] Of the CIA link in particular, Mandela’s official biographer Anthony Sampson believes that “the claim cannot be substantiated.”[117] Jailed in Johannesburg’s Marshall Square prison, he was charged with inciting workers’ strikes and leaving the country without permission. Representing himself with Slovo as legal advisor, Mandela intended to use the trial to showcase “the ANC’s moral opposition to racism” while supporters demonstrated outside the court.[118] Moved to Pretoria, where Winnie could visit him, in his cell he began correspondence studies for a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) degree from theUniversity of London.[119] His hearing began on 15 October, but he disrupted proceedings by wearing a traditional kaross, refusing to call any witnesses, and turning his plea of mitigation into a political speech. Found guilty, he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment; as he left the courtroom, supporters sang Nkosi Sikelel iAfrika.[120]

“I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal which I hope to live for and to achieve. But if needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die. ”

“In a way I had never quite comprehended before, I realized the role I could play in court and the possibilities before me as a defendant. I was the symbol of justice in the court of the oppressor, the representative of the great ideals of freedom, fairness and democracy in a society that dishonoured those virtues. I realized then and there that I could carry on the fight even in the fortress of the enemy.”

— Mandela, 1994[122]

On 11 July 1963, police raided Liliesleaf Farm, arresting those they found there and uncovering paperwork documenting MK’s activities, some of which mentioned Mandela. The Rivonia Trial began at Pretoria Supreme Court on 9 October, with Mandela and his comrades charged with four counts of sabotage and conspiracy to violently overthrow the government. Their chief prosecutor wasPercy Yutar, who called for them to receive the death penalty.[123] Judge Quartus de Wet soon threw out the prosecution’s case for insufficient evidence, but Yutar reformulated the charges, presenting his new case from December until February 1964, calling 173 witnesses and bringing thousands of documents and photographs to the trial.[124]

With the exception of James Kantor, who was innocent of all charges, Mandela and the accused admitted sabotage but denied that they had ever agreed to initiate guerilla war against the government. They used the trial to highlight their political cause. At the opening of the defence’s proceedings Mandela gave a four hour long speech. That speech – which was inspired by Castro’s “History Will Absolve Me” speech – was widely reported in the press despite official censorship, and has been hailed as one of his greatest speeches.[125] The trial gained international attention, with global calls for the release of the accused from such institutions as the United Nations and World Peace Council. The University of London Union voted Mandela to its presidency, and nightly vigils for him were held in St. Paul’s Cathedral, London.[126] Deeming them to be violent communist agitators, South Africa’s government ignored all calls for clemency, and on 12 June 1964 de Wet found Mandela and two of his co-accused guilty on all four charges, sentencing them to life imprisonment rather than death.[127]

Robben Island: 1964–1982

Lime quarry on Robben Island where Mandela and other prisoners were subjected to hard labour

Mandela and his co-accused were transferred from Pretoria to the prison on Robben Island, remaining there for the next 18 years.[128] Isolated from non-political prisoners in Section B, Mandela was imprisoned in a damp concrete cell measuring 8 feet (2.4 m) by 7 feet (2.1 m), with a straw mat on which to sleep.[129] Verbally and physically harassed by several white prison wardens, the Rivonia Trial prisoners spent their days breaking rocks into gravel, until being reassigned in January 1965 to work in a lime quarry. Mandela was initially forbidden to wear sunglasses, and the glare from the lime permanently damaged his eyesight.[130] At night, he worked on his LLB degree, but newspapers were forbidden, and he was locked in solitary confinement on several occasions for possessing smuggled news clippings.[131] Classified as the lowest grade of prisoner, Class D, he was permitted one visit and one letter every six months, although all mail was heavily censored.[132]

The political prisoners took part in work and hunger strikes – the latter considered largely ineffective by Mandela – to improve prison conditions, viewing this as a microcosm of the anti-apartheid struggle.[133] ANC prisoners elected him to their four-man “High Organ” along with Sisulu, Govan Mbeki and Raymond Mhlaba, and he involved himself in a group representing all political prisoners on the island, Ulundi, through which he forged links with PAC and Yu Chi Chan Club members.[134] Initiating the “University of Robben Island”, whereby prisoners lectured on their own areas of expertise, he debated topics such as homosexuality and politics with his comrades, getting into fierce arguments on the latter with Marxists like Mbeki and Harry Gwala.[135] Though attending Christian Sunday services, Mandela studied Islam.[136] He also studied Afrikaans, hoping to build a mutual respect with the warders and convert them to his cause.[137] Various official visitors met with Mandela; most significant was the liberal parliamentary representative Helen Suzman of theProgressive Party, who championed Mandela’s cause outside prison.[138] In September 1970 he met British Labour Party MP Dennis Healey.[139] South African Minister of JusticeJimmy Kruger visited in December 1974, but he and Mandela did not get on.[140] His mother visited in 1968, dying shortly after, and his firstborn son Thembi died in a car accident the following year; Mandela was forbidden from attending either funeral.[141] His wife was rarely able to visit, being regularly imprisoned for political activity, and his daughters first visited in December 1975; Winnie got out of prison in 1977 but was forcibly settled in Brandfort, still unable to visit him.[142]

The inside of Mandela’s prison cell as it was when he was imprisoned in 1964 and his open cell window facing the prison yard on Robben Island, now a national andWorld Heritage Site. Mandela’s cell later contained more furniture, including a bed from around 1973.[143]

From 1967, prison conditions improved, with black prisoners given trousers rather than shorts, games being permitted, and food quality improving.[144] In a FIFA documentary, Mandela commented on howfootball gave hope to his fellow inmates; “the game made us feel alive and triumphant despite the situation we found ourselves in”.[145] In 1969, an escape plan for Mandela was developed by Gordon Bruce, but it was abandoned after being infiltrated by an agent of the South African Bureau of State Security (BOSS), who hoped to see Mandela shot during the escape.[146] In 1970, Commander Piet Badenhorst became commanding officer. Mandela, seeing an increase in the physical and mental abuse of prisoners, complained to visiting judges, who had Badenhorst reassigned.[147] He was replaced by Commander Willie Willemse, who developed a co-operative relationship with Mandela and was keen to improve prison standards.[148] By 1975, Mandela had become a Class A prisoner,[149] allowing greater numbers of visits and letters; he corresponded with anti-apartheid activists like Mangosuthu Buthelezi andDesmond Tutu.[150] That year, he began his autobiography, which was smuggled to London, but remained unpublished at the time; prison authorities discovered several pages, and his study privileges were stopped for four years.[151] Instead he devoted his spare time to gardening and reading until he resumed his LLB degree studies in 1980.[152]

By the late 1960s, Mandela’s fame had been eclipsed by Steve Biko and the Black Consciousness Movement (BCM). Seeing the ANC as ineffectual, the BCM called for militant action, but following the Soweto uprising of 1976, many BCM activists were imprisoned on Robben Island.[153] Mandela tried to build a relationship with these young radicals, although he was critical of their racialism and contempt for white anti-apartheid activists.[154] Renewed international interest in his plight came in July 1978, when he celebrated his 60th birthday.[155] He was awarded an honorary doctorate in Lesotho, the Jawaharlal Nehru Award for International Understanding in India in 1979, and the Freedom of the City ofGlasgow, Scotland in 1981.[156][157][158] In March 1980 the slogan “Free Mandela!” was developed by journalist Percy Qoboza, sparking an international campaign that led the UN Security Council to call for his release.[159] Despite increasing foreign pressure, the government refused, relying on powerful foreign Cold War allies in US President Ronald Reaganand UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher; both considered Mandela a communist terrorist and supported the suppression of the ANC.[160]

Pollsmoor Prison: 1982–1988

In April 1982 Mandela was transferred to Pollsmoor Prison in Tokai, Cape Town along with senior ANC leaders Walter Sisulu, Andrew Mlangeni, Ahmed Kathrada and Raymond Mhlaba; they believed that they were being isolated to remove their influence on younger activists.[161] Conditions at Pollsmoor were better than at Robben Island, although Mandela missed the camaraderie and scenery of the island.[162] Getting on well with Pollsmoor’s commanding officer, Brigadier Munro, Mandela was permitted to create a roof garden,[163]also reading voraciously and corresponding widely, now permitted 52 letters a year.[164] He was appointed patron of the multi-racial United Democratic Front (UDF), founded to combat reforms implemented by South African President P.W. Botha. Botha’s National Party government had permitted Coloured and Indian citizens to vote for their own parliaments which had control over education, health, and housing, but black Africans were excluded from the system; like Mandela, the UDF saw this as an attempt to divide the anti-apartheid movement on racial lines.[165]

Bust of Mandela erected on London’s Southbank by theGreater London Counciladministration of socialist Ken Livingstone in 1985

Violence across the country escalated, with many fearing civil war. Under pressure from an international lobby, multinational banks stopped investing in South Africa, resulting in economic stagnation. Numerous banks and Thatcher asked Botha to release Mandela – then at the height of his international fame – to defuse the volatile situation.[166] Although considering Mandela a dangerous “arch-Marxist”,[167] in February 1985 Botha offered him a release from prison on condition that he ‘”unconditionally rejected violence as a political weapon”. Mandela spurned the offer, releasing a statement through his daughter Zindzi stating “What freedom am I being offered while the organisation of the people [ANC] remains banned? Only free men can negotiate. A prisoner cannot enter into contracts.”[168]

In 1985 Mandela underwent surgery on an enlarged prostate gland, before being given new solitary quarters on the ground floor.[169] He was met by “seven eminent persons”, an international delegation sent to negotiate a settlement, but Botha’s government refused to co-operate, in June calling a state of emergency and initiating a police crackdown on unrest. The anti-apartheid resistance fought back, with the ANC committing 231 attacks in 1986 and 235 in 1987. Utilising the army and right-wing paramilitaries to combat the resistance, the government secretly funded Zulunationalist movement Inkatha to attack ANC members, furthering the violence.[170] Mandela requested talks with Botha but was denied, instead secretly meeting with Minister of Justice Kobie Coetsee in 1987, having a further 11 meetings over 3 years. Coetsee organised negotiations between Mandela and a team of four government figures starting in May 1988; the team agreed to the release of political prisoners and the legalisation of the ANC on the condition that they permanently renounce violence, break links with the Communist Party and not insist on majority rule. Mandela rejected these conditions, insisting that the ANC would only end the armed struggle when the government renounced violence.[171]

Mandela’s 70th birthday in July 1988 attracted international attention, notably with the Nelson Mandela 70th Birthday Tribute concert at London’sWembley Stadium.[172] Although presented globally as a heroic figure, he faced personal problems when ANC leaders informed him that Winnie had set herself up as head of a criminal gang, the “Mandela United Football Club”, who had been responsible for torturing and killing opponents – including children – in Soweto. Though some encouraged him to divorce her, he decided to remain loyal until she was found guilty by trial.[173]

Victor Verster Prison and release: 1988–1990

Mandela on a 1988 Sovietcommemorative stamp

Recovering from tuberculosis caused by dank conditions in his cell,[174] in December 1988 Mandela was moved to Victor Verster Prison nearPaarl. Here, he was housed in the relative comfort of a warder’s house with a personal cook, using the time to complete his LLB degree.[175]There he was permitted many visitors, such as anti-apartheid campaigner and longtime friend Harry Schwarz.[176][177] Mandela organised secret communications with exiled ANC leader Oliver Tambo.[178] In 1989, Botha suffered a stroke, retaining the state presidency but stepping down as leader of the National Party, to be replaced by the conservative F. W. de Klerk.[179] In a surprise move, Botha invited Mandela to a meeting over tea in July 1989, an invitation Mandela considered genial.[180] Botha was replaced as state president by de Klerk six weeks later; the new president believed that apartheid was unsustainable and unconditionally released all ANC prisoners except Mandela.[181] Following the fall of theBerlin Wall in November 1989, de Klerk called his cabinet together to debate legalising the ANC and freeing Mandela. Although some were deeply opposed to his plans, de Klerk met with Mandela in December to discuss the situation, a meeting both men considered friendly, before releasing Mandela unconditionally and legalising all formerly banned political parties on 2 February 1990.[182] The first photographs of Mandela were allowed to be published in South Africa for 20 years.[183]

Leaving Victor Verster on 11 February, Mandela held Winnie’s hand in front of amassed crowds and press; the event was broadcast live across the world.[184] Driven to Cape Town’s City Hall through crowds, he gave a speech declaring his commitment to peace and reconciliation with the white minority, but made it clear that the ANC’s armed struggle was not over, and would continue as “a purely defensive action against the violence of apartheid.” He expressed hope that the government would agree to negotiations, so that “there may no longer be the need for the armed struggle”, and insisted that his main focus was to bring peace to the black majority and give them the right to vote in national and local elections.[185] Staying at the home of Desmond Tutu, in the following days Mandela met with friends, activists, and press, giving a speech to 100,000 people at Johannesburg’sSoccer City.[186]

End of apartheid

Early negotiations: 1990–1991

Luthuli House in Johannesburg, which became the ANC headquarters in 1991

Mandela proceeded on an African tour, meeting supporters and politicians in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Libya and Algeria, continuing to Sweden where he was reunited with Tambo, and then London, where he appeared at the Nelson Mandela: An International Tribute for a Free South Africa concert in Wembley Stadium.[187] Encouraging foreign countries to support sanctions against the apartheid government, in France he was welcomed by President François Mitterrand, in Vatican City by Pope John Paul II, and in the United Kingdom he met Margaret Thatcher. In the United States, he met President George H.W. Bush, addressed both Houses of Congress and visited eight cities, being particularly popular among the African-American community.[188] In Cuba he met President Fidel Castro, whom he had long admired, with the two becoming friends.[189] In Asia he met President R. Venkataraman in India, President Suharto in Indonesia and Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad in Malaysia, before visiting Australia to meet Prime Minister Bob Hawke and Japan; he notably did not visit the Soviet Union, a longtime ANC supporter.[190]

In May 1990, Mandela led a multiracial ANC delegation into preliminary negotiations with a government delegation of 11 Afrikaner men. Mandela impressed them with his discussions of Afrikaner history, and the negotiations led to the Groot Schuur Minute, in which the government lifted the state of emergency. In August Mandela – recognising the ANC’s severe military disadvantage – offered a ceasefire, the Pretoria Minute, for which he was widely criticised by MK activists.[191] He spent much time trying to unify and build the ANC, appearing at a Johannesburg conference in December attended by 1600 delegates, many of whom found him more moderate than expected.[192] At the ANC’s July 1991 national conference in Durban, Mandela admitted the party’s faults and announced his aim to build a “strong and well-oiled task force” for securing majority rule. At the conference, he was elected ANC President, replacing the ailing Tambo, and a 50-strong multiracial, mixed gendered national executive was elected.[193]

Mandela was given an office in the newly purchased ANC headquarters at Shell House, central Johannesburg, and moved with Winnie to her large Soweto home.[194] Their marriage was increasingly strained as he learned of her affair with Dali Mpofu, but he supported her during her trial for kidnapping and assault. He gained funding for her defence from the International Defence and Aid Fund for Southern Africa and from Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, but in June 1991 she was found guilty and sentenced to six years in prison, reduced to two on appeal. On 13 April 1992, Mandela publicly announced his separation from Winnie. The ANC forced her to step down from the national executive for misappropriating ANC funds; Mandela moved into the mostly white Johannesburg suburb of Houghton.[195] Mandela’s reputation was further damaged by the increase in “black-on-black” violence, particularly between ANC and Inkatha supporters in KwaZulu-Natal, in which thousands died. Mandela met with Inkatha leader Buthelezi, but the ANC prevented further negotiations on the issue. Mandela recognised that there was a “third force” within the state intelligence services fuelling the “slaughter of the people” and openly blamed de Klerk – whom he increasingly distrusted – for the Sebokeng massacre.[196] In September 1991 a national peace conference was held in Johannesburg in which Mandela, Buthelezi and de Klerk signed a peace accord, though the violence continued.[197]

CODESA talks: 1991–1992

The Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) began in December 1991 at the Johannesburg World Trade Center, attended by 228 delegates from 19 political parties. Although Cyril Ramaphosa led the ANC’s delegation, Mandela remained a key figure, and after de Klerk used the closing speech to condemn the ANC’s violence, he took to the stage to denounce him as “head of an illegitimate, discredited minority regime”. Dominated by the National Party and ANC, little negotiation was achieved.[198] CODESA 2 was held in May 1992, in which de Klerk insisted that post-apartheid South Africa must use a federal system with a rotating presidency to ensure the protection of ethnic minorities; Mandela opposed this, demanding a unitary system governed by majority rule.[199] Following the Boipatong massacre of ANC activists by government-aided Inkatha militants, Mandela called off the negotiations, before attending a meeting of the Organisation of African Unity in Senegal, at which he called for a special session of the UN Security Council and proposed that a UN peacekeeping force be stationed in South Africa to prevent “state terrorism“. The UN sent special envoy Cyrus Vance to the country to aid negotiations.[200]Calling for domestic mass action, in August the ANC organised the largest-ever strike in South African history, and supporters marched on Pretoria.[201]

De Klerk and Mandela shake hands at the World Economic Forum, 1992

Following the Bisho massacre, in which 28 ANC supporters and one soldier were shot dead by the Ciskei Defence Force during a protest march, Mandela realised that mass action was leading to further violence and resumed negotiations in September. He agreed to do so on the conditions that all political prisoners be released, that Zulu traditional weapons be banned, and that Zulu hostels would be fenced off, the latter two measures to prevent further Inkatha attacks; under increasing pressure, de Klerk reluctantly agreed. The negotiations agreed that a multiracial general election would be held, resulting in a five-year coalition government of national unity and a constitutional assembly that gave the National Party continuing influence. The ANC also conceded to safeguarding the jobs of white civil servants; such concessions brought fierce internal criticism.[202] The duo agreed on an interim constitution, guaranteeing separation of powers, creating a constitutional court, and including a US-style bill of rights; it also divided the country into nine provinces, each with its own premier and civil service, a concession between de Klerk’s desire for federalism and Mandela’s for unitary government.[203]

The democratic process was threatened by the Concerned South Africans Group (COSAG), an alliance of far-right Afrikaner parties and black ethnic-secessionist groups like Inkatha; in June 1993 the white supremacist Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (AWB) attacked the Kempton Park World Trade Centre.[204] Following the murder of ANC leader Chris Hani, Mandela made a publicised speech to calm rioting, soon after appearing at a mass funeral in Soweto for Tambo, who had died from a stroke.[205] In July 1993, both Mandela and de Klerk visited the US, independently meeting President Bill Clinton and each receiving the Liberty Medal.[206] Soon after, they were jointly awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in Norway.[207] Influenced by young ANC leader Thabo Mbeki, Mandela began meeting with big business figures, and played down his support for nationalisation, fearing that he would scare away much-needed foreign investment. Although criticised by socialist ANC members, he was encouraged to embrace private enterprise by members of the Chinese and Vietnamese Communist parties at the January 1992 World Economic Forum in Switzerland.[208] Mandela also made a cameo appearance as a schoolteacher reciting one ofMalcolm X‘s speeches in the final scene of the 1992 film Malcolm X.[209]

General election: 1994

Mandela casting his vote in the1994 election

With the election set for 27 April 1994, the ANC began campaigning, opening 100 election offices and hiring advisor Stanley Greenberg. Greenberg orchestrated the foundation of People’s Forums across the country, at which Mandela could appear; though a poor public speaker, he was a popular figure with great status among black South Africans.[210] The ANC campaigned on a Reconstruction and Development Programme(RDP) to build a million houses in five years, introduce universal free education and extend access to water and electricity. The party’s slogan was “a better life for all”, although it was not explained how this development would be funded.[211] With the exception of the Weekly Mail and the New Nation, South Africa’s press opposed Mandela’s election, fearing continued ethnic strife, instead supporting the National or Democratic Party.[212]Mandela devoted much time to fundraising for the ANC, touring North America, Europe and Asia to meet wealthy donors, including former supporters of the apartheid regime.[213] He also urged a reduction in the voting age from 18 to 14; rejected by the ANC, this policy became the subject of ridicule.[214]

Concerned that COSAG would undermine the election, particularly in the wake of the Battle of Bop and Shell House Massacre – incidents of violence involving the AWB and Inkatha, respectively – Mandela met with Afrikaner politicians and generals, including P.W. Botha, Pik Botha andConstand Viljoen, persuading many to work within the democratic system, and with de Klerk convinced Inkatha’s Buthelezi to enter the elections rather than launch a war of secession.[215] As leaders of the two major parties, de Klerk and Mandela appeared on a televised debate; although de Klerk was widely considered the better speaker at the event, Mandela’s offer to shake his hand surprised him, leading some commentators to consider it a victory for Mandela.[216] The election went ahead with little violence, although an AWB cell killed 20 with car bombs. As widely expected, the ANC won a sweeping victory, taking 62 percent of the vote, just short of the two-thirds majority needed to unilaterally change the constitution. The ANC was also victorious in 7 provinces, with Inkatha and the National Party each taking another.[217] Mandela voted at theOhlange High School in Durban, and though the ANC’s victory assured his election as President, he publicly accepted that the election had been marred by instances of fraud and sabotage.[218]

Presidency of South Africa: 1994–1999

The newly elected National Assembly’s first act was to formally elect Mandela as South Africa’s first black chief executive. His inauguration took place in Pretoria on 10 May 1994, televised to a billion viewers globally. The event was attended by 4000 guests, including world leaders from disparate backgrounds.[219] Mandela headed a Government of National Unity dominated by the ANC – which alone had no experience of governance – but containing representatives from the National Party and Inkatha. Under the Interim Constitution, Inkatha and the NP were entitled to seats in the government by virtue of winning at least 20 seats. In keeping with earlier agreements, de Klerk became first Deputy President, and Thabo Mbeki was selected as second.[220] Although Mbeki had not been his first choice for the job, Mandela grew to rely heavily on him throughout his presidency, allowing him to organise policy details.[221] Moving into the presidential office at Tuynhuys in Cape Town, Mandela allowed de Klerk to retain the presidential residence in the Groote Schuur estate, instead settling into the nearby Westbrooke manor, which he renamed “Genadendal“, meaning “Valley of Mercy” in Afrikaans.[222] Retaining his Houghton home, he also had a house built in his home village of Qunu, which he visited regularly, walking around the area, meeting with locals, and judging tribal disputes.[223]

Mandela moved into the presidential office at Tuynhuys, Cape Town.

Aged 76, he faced various ailments, and although exhibiting continued energy, he felt isolated and lonely.[224] He often entertained celebrities, such as Michael JacksonWhoopi Goldberg, and the Spice Girls, and befriended ultra-rich businessmen, like Harry Oppenheimer of Anglo-American, as well as Queen Elizabeth II on her March 1995 state visit to South Africa, resulting in strong criticism from ANC anti-capitalists.[225] Despite his opulent surroundings, Mandela lived simply, donating a third of his 552,000 rand annual income to the Nelson Mandela Children’s Fund, which he had founded in 1995.[226] Although speaking out in favour of freedom of the press and befriending many journalists, Mandela was critical of much of the country’s media, noting that it was overwhelmingly owned and run by middle-class whites and believing that it focused too much on scaremongering around crime.[227] Changing clothes several times a day, after assuming the presidency, one of Mandela’s trademarks was his use of Batik shirts, known as “Madiba shirts“, even on formal occasions.[228]

In December 1994, Mandela’s autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom, was finally published.[229] In late 1994 he attended the 49th conference of the ANC in Bloemfontein, at which a more militant National Executive was elected, among them Winnie Mandela; although she expressed an interest in reconciling, Nelson initiated divorce proceedings in August 1995.[230] By 1995 he had entered into a relationship with Graça Machel, a Mozambican political activist 27 years his junior who was the widow of former president Samora Machel. They had first met in July 1990, when she was still in mourning, but their friendship grew into a partnership, with Machel accompanying him on many of his foreign visits. She turned down Mandela’s first marriage proposal, wanting to retain some independence and dividing her time between Mozambique and Johannesburg.[231]

National reconciliation

Presiding over the transition from apartheid minority rule to a multicultural democracy, Mandela saw national reconciliation as the primary task of his presidency.[232] Having seen other post-colonial African economies damaged by the departure of white elites, Mandela worked to reassure South Africa’s white population that they were protected and represented in “the Rainbow Nation“.[233] Mandela attempted to create the broadest possible coalition in his cabinet, with de Klerk as first Deputy President. Other National Party officials became ministers for Agriculture, Energy, Environment, and Minerals and Energy, and Buthelezi was named Minister for Home Affairs.[234] The other cabinet positions were taken by ANC members, many of whom – like Joe ModiseAlfred Nzo, Joe Slovo, Mac Maharaj and Dullah Omar – had long been comrades, although others, such as Tito Mboweni and Jeff Radebe, were much younger.[235] Mandela’s relationship with de Klerk was strained; Mandela thought that de Klerk was intentionally provocative, and de Klerk felt that he was being intentionally humiliated by the president. In January 1995, Mandela heavily chastised him for awarding amnesty to 3,500 police just before the election, and later criticised him for defending former Minister of Defence Magnus Malan when the latter was charged with murder.[236]

Mandela personally met with senior figures of the apartheid regime, including Hendrik Verwoerd‘s widow Betsie Schoombie and the lawyer Percy Yutar; emphasising personal forgiveness and reconciliation, he announced that “courageous people do not fear forgiving, for the sake of peace.”[237] He encouraged black South Africans to get behind the previously hated national rugby team, the Springboks, as South Africa hosted the 1995 Rugby World Cup. After the Springboks won an epic final over New Zealand, Mandela presented the trophy to captain Francois Pienaar, an Afrikaner, wearing a Springbok shirt with Pienaar’s own number 6 on the back. This was widely seen as a major step in the reconciliation of white and black South Africans; as de Klerk later put it, “Mandela won the hearts of millions of white rugby fans.”[238] Mandela’s efforts at reconciliation assuaged the fears of whites, but also drew criticism from more militant blacks. His estranged wife, Winnie, accused the ANC of being more interested in appeasing whites than in helping blacks.[239]

More controversially, Mandela oversaw the formation of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to investigate crimes committed under apartheid by both the government and the ANC, appointing Desmond Tutu as its chair. To prevent the creation of martyrs, the Commission granted individual amnesties in exchange for testimony of crimes committed during the apartheid era. Dedicated in February 1996, it held two years of hearings detailing rapes, torture, bombings, and assassinations, before issuing its final report in October 1998. Both de Klerk and Mbeki appealed to have parts of the report suppressed, though only de Klerk’s appeal was successful.[240] Mandela praised the Commission’s work, stating that it “had helped us move away from the past to concentrate on the present and the future”.[241]

Domestic programmes

Mandela on a visit to Brazil in 1998

Mandela’s administration inherited a country with a huge disparity in wealth and services between white and black communities. Of a population of 40 million, around 23 million lacked electricity or adequate sanitation, 12 million lacked clean water supplies, with 2 million children not in school and a third of the population illiterate. There was 33% unemployment, and just under half of the population lived below the poverty line.[242]Government financial reserves were nearly depleted, with a fifth of the national budget being spent on debt repayment, meaning that the extent of the promised Reconstruction and Development Programme (RDP) was scaled back, with none of the proposed nationalisation or job creation.[243]Instead, the government adopted liberal economic policies designed to promote foreign investment, adhering to the “Washington consensus” advocated by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.[244]

Under Mandela’s presidency, welfare spending increased by 13% in 1996/97, 13% in 1997/98, and 7% in 1998/99.[245] The government introduced parity in grants for communities, including disability grants, child maintenance grants, and old-age pensions, which had previously been set at different levels for South Africa’s different racial groups.[245] In 1994, free healthcare was introduced for children under six and pregnant women, a provision extended to all those using primary level public sector health care services in 1996.[246] By the 1999 election, the ANC could boast that due to their policies, 3 million people were connected to telephone lines, 1.5 million children were brought into the education system, 500 clinics were upgraded or constructed, 2 million people were connected to the electricity grid, water access was extended to 3 million people, and 750,000 houses were constructed, housing nearly 3 million people.[247]

The Land Restitution Act of 1994 enabled people who had lost their property as a result of the Natives Land Act, 1913 to claim back their land, leading to the settlement of tens of thousands of land claims.[248] The Land Reform Act 3 of 1996 safeguarded the rights of labour tenants who live and grow crops or graze livestock on farms. This legislation ensured that such tenants could not be evicted without a court order or if they were over the age of sixty-five.[249] The Skills Development Act of 1998 provided for the establishment of mechanisms to finance and promote skills development at the workplace.[250]The Labour Relations Act of 1995 promoted workplace democracy, orderly collective bargaining, and the effective resolution of labour disputes.[251] The Basic Conditions of Employment Act of 1997 improved enforcement mechanisms while extending a “floor” of rights to all workers;[251] the Employment Equity Act of 1998 was passed to put an end to unfair discrimination and ensure the implementation of affirmative action in the workplace.[251]

Many domestic problems remained. Critics like Edwin Cameron accused Mandela’s government of doing little to stem the HIV/AIDS pandemic in the country; by 1999, 10% of South Africa’s population were HIV positive. Mandela later admitted that he had personally neglected the issue, leaving it for Mbeki to deal with.[252] Mandela also received criticism for failing to sufficiently combat crime, South Africa having one of the world’s highest crime rates; this was a key reason cited by the 750,000 whites who emigrated in the late 1990s.[253] Mandela’s administration was mired in corruption scandals, with Mandela being perceived as “soft” on corruption and greed.[254]

Foreign affairs

Mandela with US President Bill Clinton. Despite publicly criticising him on several occasions, Mandela liked Clinton, and personally supported him during his impeachment proceedings.[255]

Following the South African example, Mandela encouraged other nations to resolve conflicts through diplomacy and reconciliation.[256] He echoed Mbeki’s calls for an “African Renaissance“, and was greatly concerned with issues on the continent; he took a soft diplomatic approach to removing Sani Abacha‘s military junta in Nigeria but later became a leading figure in calling for sanctions when Abacha’s regime increased human rights violations.[257] In 1996 he was appointed Chairman of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and initiated unsuccessful negotiations to end the First Congo War in Zaire.[258] In South Africa’s first post-apartheid military operation, Mandela ordered troops into Lesotho in September 1998 to protect the government of Prime Minister Pakalitha Mosisili after a disputed election prompted opposition uprisings.[259]

In September 1998, Mandela was appointed Secretary-General of the Non-Aligned Movement, who held their annual conference in Durban. He used the event to criticise the “narrow, chauvinistic interests” of the Israeli government in stalling negotiations to end theIsraeli-Palestinian conflict and urged India and Pakistan to negotiate to end the Kashmir conflict, for which he was criticised by both Israel and India.[260] Inspired by the region’s economic boom, Mandela sought greater economic relations with East Asia, in particular with Malaysia, although this was scuppered by the 1997 Asian financial crisis.[261] He attracted controversy for his close relationship with Indonesian President Suharto, whose regime was responsible for mass human rights abuses, although privately urged him to withdraw from the occupation of East Timor.[262]

Mandela faced similar criticism from the West for his personal friendships with Fidel Castro and Muammar Gaddafi. Castro visited in 1998, to widespread popular acclaim, and Mandela met Gaddafi in Libya to award him the Order of Good Hope.[263] When Western governments and media criticised these visits, Mandela lambasted the criticisms as having racist undertones.[264] Mandela hoped to resolve the long-running dispute between Libya and the US and Britain over bringing to trial the two Libyans, Abdelbaset al-Megrahi andLamin Khalifah Fhimah, who were indicted in November 1991 and accused of sabotaging Pan Am Flight 103. Mandela proposed that they be tried in a third country, which was agreed to by all parties; governed by Scots law, the trial was held at Camp Zeist in the Netherlands in April 1999, and found one of the two men guilty.[265]

Withdrawing from politics

The new Constitution of South Africa was agreed upon by parliament in May 1996, enshrining a series of institutions to check political and administrative authority within a constitutional democracy.[266] De Klerk opposed the implementation of this constitution, withdrawing from the coalition government in protest.[267] The ANC took over the cabinet positions formerly held by the National Party, with Mbeki becoming sole Deputy President.[268] When both Mandela and Mbeki were out of the country in one occasion, Buthelezi was appointed “Acting President”, marking an improvement in his relationship with Mandela.[269]

Mandela stepped down as ANC President at the December 1997 conference, and although hoping that Ramaphosa would replace him, the ANC elected Mbeki to the position; Mandela admitted that by then, Mbeki had become “de facto President of the country”. Replacing Mbeki as Deputy President, Mandela and the Executive supported the candidacy of Jacob Zuma, a Zulu who had been imprisoned on Robben Island, but he was challenged by Winnie, whose populist rhetoric had gained her a strong following within the party; Zuma defeated her in a landslide victory vote at the election.[270]

Mandela’s relationship with Machel had intensified; in February 1998 he publicly stated that “I’m in love with a remarkable lady”, and under pressure from his friend Desmond Tutu, who urged him to set an example for young people, he set a wedding for his 80th birthday, in July.[271] The following day he held a grand party with many foreign dignitaries.[272] The 1996 constitution limited the president to two consecutive five-year terms. Mandela did not attempt to amend the document to remove the two-term limit; indeed, he had never planned on standing for a second term in office. He gave his farewell speech on 29 March 1999, after which he retired.[273]

Retirement

Continued activism and philanthropy: 1999–2004

Mandela visiting the London School of Economics in 2000

Retiring in June 1999, Mandela sought a quiet family life, to be divided between Johannesburg and Qunu. He set about authoring a sequel to his first autobiography, to be titled The Presidential Years, but it was abandoned before publication.[274] Finding such seclusion difficult, he reverted to a busy public life with a daily programme of tasks, meeting with world leaders and celebrities, and when in Johannesburg worked with the Nelson Mandela Foundation, founded in 1999 to focus on combating HIV/AIDS, rural development and school construction.[275] Although he had been heavily criticised for failing to do enough to fight the pandemic during his presidency, he devoted much of his time to the issue following his retirement, describing it as “a war” that had killed more than “all previous wars”, and urged Mbeki’s government to ensure that HIV+ South Africans had access to retrovirals.[276] In 2000, the Nelson Mandela Invitationalcharity golf tournament was founded, hosted by Gary Player.[277] Mandela was successfully treated for prostate cancer in July 2001.[278]

In 2002, Mandela inaugurated the Nelson Mandela Annual Lecture, and in 2003 the Mandela Rhodes Foundation was created at Rhodes HouseUniversity of Oxford, to provide postgraduate scholarships to African students. These projects were followed by the Nelson Mandela Centre of Memory and the 46664 campaign against HIV/AIDS.[279] He gave the closing address at the XIII International AIDS Conference in Durban in 2000,[280] and in 2004, spoke at the XV International AIDS Conference in Bangkok, Thailand.[281]

Publicly, Mandela became more vocal in criticising Western powers. He strongly opposed the 1999 NATO intervention in Kosovo and called it an attempt by the world’s powerful nations to police the entire world.[282] In 2003 he spoke out against the plans for the US and UK to launch the War in Iraq, describing it as “a tragedy” and lambasting US PresidentGeorge W. Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair for undermining the UN. “All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil,”.[283] He attacked the US more generally, asserting that it had committed more “unspeakable atrocities” across the world than any other nation, citing the atomic bombing of Japan; this attracted international controversy, although he later reconciled his relationship with Blair.[284] Retaining an interest in Libyan-UK relations, he visited Megrahi in Barlinnie prison and spoke out against the conditions of his treatment, referring to them as “psychological persecution”.[285]

“Retiring from retirement”, illness: 2004–2013

Nelson Mandela and President George W. Bush in the Oval Office, May 2005

In June 2004, aged 85 and amid failing health, Mandela announced that he was “retiring from retirement” and retreating from public life, remarking “Don’t call me, I will call you.”[286] Although continuing to meet with close friends and family, the Foundation discouraged invitations for him to appear at public events and denied most interview requests.[287]

He retained some involvement in international affairs. In 2005, he founded the Nelson Mandela Legacy Trust,[288] travelling to the U.S., to speak before the Brookings Institute and the NAACP on the need for economic assistance to Africa.[288][289] He spoke with U.S. SenatorHillary Clinton and President George W. Bush and first met then-U.S. Senator Barack Obama.[289] Mandela also encouraged Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe to resign over growing human rights abuses in the country. When this proved ineffective, he spoke out publicly against Mugabe in 2007, asking him to step down “with residual respect and a modicum of dignity.”[290] That year, Mandela, Machel, and Desmond Tutu convened a group of world leaders in Johannesburg to contribute their wisdom and independent leadership to some of the world’s toughest problems. Mandela announced the formation of this new group, The Elders, in a speech delivered on his 89th birthday.[291]

Mandela’s 90th birthday was marked across the country on 18 July 2008, with the main celebrations held at Qunu,[292] and a concert in his honour in Hyde Park, London.[293] In a speech marking the event, Mandela called for the rich to help the poor across the world.[292] Throughout Mbeki’s presidency, Mandela continued to support the ANC, although usually overshadowed Mbeki at any public events that the two attended. Mandela was more at ease with Mbeki’s successor Jacob Zuma, although the Nelson Mandela Foundation were upset when his grandson, Mandla Mandela, flew him out to the Eastern Cape to attend a pro-Zuma rally in the midst of a storm in 2009.[294]

In 2004, Mandela had successfully campaigned for South Africa to host the 2010 FIFA World Cup, declaring that there would be “few better gifts for us in the year” marking a decade since the fall of apartheid. Mandela emotionally raised the FIFA World Cup Trophy after South Africa was awarded host status.[295] Despite maintaining a low profile during the event due to ill-health, Mandela made his final public appearance during the World Cup closing ceremony, where he received a “rapturous reception”.[296][297] Between 2005 and 2013, Mandela, and later his family, were embroiled in a series of legal disputes regarding money held in family trusts for the benefit of his descendants.[298] In mid-2013, as Mandela was hospitalised for a lung infection in Pretoria, his descendants were involved in intra-family legal dispute relating to the burial place of Mandela’s children, and ultimately Mandela himself.[299][300][301]

Senator Barack Obama meets for the first time with Nelson Mandela, 17 May 2005

In February 2011, he was briefly hospitalised with a respiratory infection, attracting international attention,[302] before being re-hospitalised for a lung infection and gallstone removal in December 2012.[303] After a successful medical procedure in early March 2013,[304] his lung infection recurred, and he was briefly hospitalised in Pretoria.[305] On 8 June 2013, his lung infection worsened, and he was rehospitalised in Pretoria in a serious condition.[306] After four days, it was reported that he had stabilised and remained in a “serious, but stable condition”.[307] En route to the hospital, his ambulance broke down and was stranded on the roadside for 40 minutes. The government was criticised for the incident, but Zuma countered that throughout, Mandela was given “expert medical care.”[308]

On 22 June 2013, CBS News stated that he had not opened his eyes in days and was unresponsive, and the family was discussing how much medical intervention should be given.[309] Former bodyguard Shaun van Heerden, described by CBS News as “Mandela’s constant companion for the last 12 years”, had publicly asked the family to “set him free” a week prior.[310] On 23 June 2013, Zuma announced that Mandela’s condition had become “critical“.[311][312][313] Zuma, accompanied by the Deputy President of the ANC, Cyril Ramaphosa, met Mandela’s wife Graça Machel at the hospital in Pretoria and discussed his condition.[314] On 25 June Cape Town Archbishop Thabo Makgoba visited Mandela at the hospital and prayed with Graça Machel Mandela “at this hard time of watching and waiting”.[315] The next day, Zuma visited Mandela in the hospital and canceled a visit scheduled for the next day to Mozambique.[316] A relative of Mandela told The Daily Telegraph newspaper he was onlife support.[317]

On 4 July, it was reported that David Smith, a lawyer acting on behalf of Mandela family members, claimed in court on 26 June that Mandela was in a permanent vegetative state and life support should be withdrawn.[318][319][320] The South African Presidency stated that the doctors treating Mandela denied that he was in a vegetative state.[321][322] On 10 July, Zuma’s office announced that Mandela remained in critical but stable condition, and was responding to treatment.[323]

On 1 September 2013, Mandela was discharged from hospital[324] although his condition remained unstable.[325]

Death and funeral

Flowers laid outside Drakenstein Correctional Centre

Mandela died of a lung infection on 5 December 2013 at around 20:50 local time (UTC+2) at his home in HoughtonJohannesburg, surrounded by his family. He was 95.[326] His death was announced by President Jacob Zuma.[326][327]

On 6 December 2013, President Zuma announced a national mourning period of ten days, with the main event held at the FNB Stadiumin Johannesburg on 10 December 2013. He declared 8 December 2013 a national day of prayer and reflection: “We call upon all our people to gather in halls, churches, mosques, temples, synagogues and in their homes to pray and hold prayer services and meditation reflecting on the life of Madiba and his contribution to our country and the world.” Mandela’s body will lie in state from 11–13 December at the Union Buildings in Pretoria and a state funeral will be held on 15 December 2013 in Qunu, South Africa.[328][329]

Political ideology

“Free Mandela” protest in Berlin, 1986

Mandela was an African nationalist, an ideological position he held since joining the ANC,[330] also being “a democrat, and a socialist”.[331] Although he presented himself in an autocratic manner in several speeches, Mandela was a devout believer in democracy and abided by majority decisions even when deeply disagreeing with them.[332] He held a conviction that “inclusivity, accountability and freedom of speech” were the fundamentals of democracy,[333] and was driven by a belief in natural and human rights.[334] This belief drove him to not only pursue racial equality but also to promote gay rights as part of the post-apartheid reforms.[335]

democratic socialist, Mandela was “openly opposed to capitalism, private land-ownership and the power of big money”.[336] Influenced by Marxism, during the revolution Mandela advocated scientific socialism,[337] although he denied being a communist during the Treason Trial.[338] Biographer David James Smith thought this untrue, stating that Mandela “embraced communism and communists” in the late 1950s and early 1960s, though was a “fellow traveller” rather than a party member.[339] In the 1955 Freedom Charter, which Mandela had helped create, it called for the nationalisation of banks, gold mines, and land, believing it necessary to ensure equal distribution of wealth.[340] Despite these beliefs, Mandela nationalised nothing during his presidency, fearing that this would scare away foreign investors. This decision was in part influenced by the fall of the socialist states in the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc during the early 1990s.[341]

Personal life

Mandela was a private person who often concealed his emotions and confided in very few people.[342] Privately, he lived an austere life, refusing to drink alcohol or smoke, and even as President made his own bed,[343] although was also renowned for his mischievous sense of humour.[344] He was known for being both stubborn and loyal,[345] and at times exhibited a quick temper.[343] He was typically friendly and welcoming, and appeared relaxed in conversation with everyone, including his opponents.[346] Constantly polite and courteous, he was attentive to everyone, irrespective of their age or status, and often talked to children or servants.[347] In later life he always looked for the best in people, even defending political opponents to his allies, who sometimes thought him too trusting of others.[348] He was highly image conscious, and throughout his life always sought out fine quality clothes, with many commentators believing that he carried himself in a regal manner.[349] His official biographer Anthony Sampson commented that he was a “master of imagery and performance”, excelling at presenting himself well in press photographs and producing soundbites.[350] In describing his life, Mandela stated that “I was not a messiah, but an ordinary man who had become a leader because of extraordinary circumstances.”[351]

Mandela House museum, Soweto

Mandela was married three times, fathered six children, had 17 grandchildren,[352] and many great-grandchildren.[353] He could be stern and demanding of his children, although he was more affectionate with his grandchildren.[354] His first marriage was to Evelyn Ntoko Mase in October 1944;[56] they divorced after 13 years in 1957 under the multiple strains of his adultery and constant absences, devotion to revolutionary agitation, and the fact that she was a member of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, a religion requiring political neutrality.[89] The couple had two sons whom Mandela survived, Madiba “Thembi” Thembekile (1945–1969) and Makgatho Mandela (1950–2005); his first son died in a car crash, and his second son died of AIDS. The couple had two daughters, both named Makaziwe Mandela (born 1947 and 1954); the first died at the age of nine months, the second, known as “Maki“, survived Mandela.[355] Makgatho’s son, Mandla Mandela, became chief of the Mvezo tribal council in 2007.[356]

Mandela’s second wife, Winnie Madikizela-Mandela, also came from the Transkei area, although they, too, met in Johannesburg, where she was the city’s first black social worker.[357] They had two daughters, Zenani (Zeni), born 4 February 1958, and Zindziswa (Zindzi) Mandela-Hlongwane, born 1960.[357] Zindzi was only 18 months old when her father was sent to Robben island. Later, Winnie was deeply torn by family discord which mirrored the country’s political strife; separation (April 1992) and divorce (March 1996), fuelled by political estrangement.[358] Mandela’s third wife was Graça Machel (née Simbine), whom he married on his 80th birthday in 1998.[359]

Influence and legacy

By the time of his death, Mandela had come to be widely considered “the father of the nation” within South Africa,[360] and “the founding father of democracy”,[361] being seen as “the national liberator, the saviour, its Washington and Lincoln rolled into one”.[362] Mandela’s biographer Anthony Sampson commented that even during his life, a myth had developed around him that turned him into “a secular saint” and which was “so powerful that it blurs the realities.”[363]Within a decade after the end of his Presidency, Mandela’s era was being widely thought of as “a golden age of hope and harmony”.[351] Across the world, Mandela earned international acclaim for his activism in overcoming apartheid and fostering racial reconciliation,[343] coming to be viewed as “a moral authority” with a great “concern for truth”.[364]

Throughout his life, Mandela had also faced criticism. Margaret Thatcher attracted international attention for describing the ANC as “a typical terrorist organisation” in 1987,;[365]she later called on Botha to release Mandela.[366] Mandela has also been criticised for his friendship with political leaders such as Fidel CastroMuammar GaddafiAkbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and Suharto as well as his refusal to condemn their various human rights violations.[367][368]

Orders, decorations, and monuments

Nelson Mandela graffiti byThierry Ehrmann in the Abode of Chaos museum, France

In 2004, Johannesburg granted Mandela the freedom of the city,[369] and the Sandton Square shopping centre was renamed Nelson Mandela Square, after a Mandela statue was installed there.[370] In 2008, another Mandela statue was unveiled at Groot Drakenstein Correctional Centre, formerly Victor Verster Prison, near Cape Town, standing on the spot where Mandela was released from the prison.[371]

He has also received international acclaim. In 1993, he received the joint Nobel Peace Prize with de Klerk.[372] In November 2009, theUnited Nations General Assembly proclaimed Mandela’s birthday, 18 July, as “Mandela Day“, marking his contribution to the anti-apartheid struggle. It called on individuals to donate 67 minutes to doing something for others, commemorating the 67 years that Mandela had been a part of the movement.[373]

Awarded the US Presidential Medal of Freedom,[374] and the Order of Canada,[375] he was the first living person to be made an honorary Canadian citizen.[376] The last recipient of the Soviet Union’s Lenin Peace Prize from the Soviet Union,[377] and first recipient of the Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights,[378] in 1990 he received the Bharat Ratna Award from the government of India,[379] and in 1992 received Pakistan’s Nishan-e-Pakistan.[380] In 1992 he was awarded the Atatürk Peace Award by Turkey. He refused the award, citing human rights violations committed by Turkey at the time,[381] but later accepted the award in 1999.[377] Elizabeth II awarded him the Bailiff Grand Cross of the Order of St. John and the Order of Merit.[382]

Tributes by musicians

Many artists have dedicated songs to Mandela. One of the most popular was from The Special AKA who recorded the song “Free Nelson Mandela” in 1983, which Elvis Costello also recorded and had a hit with. Stevie Wonder dedicated his 1985 Oscar for the song “I Just Called to Say I Love You” to Mandela, resulting in his music being banned by the South African Broadcasting Corporation.[383] In 1985, Youssou N’Dour‘s album Nelson Mandela was the Senegalese artist’s first US release. Other artists who released songs or videos honouring Mandela includeJohnny Clegg,[384] Hugh Masekela,[385] Brenda Fassie,[386] Beyond,[387] Nickelback,[388] Raffi,[389] and Ampie du Preez and AB de Villiers.[390]South African songstress Zahara, who happens to be an ambassador of the Nelson Mandela Children’s Hospital, released Nelson Mandela, an extended play that pays tribute to Mandela whilst celebrating his lifetime accomplishments. The EP’s lead single titled “Nelson Mandela” was released at a time when Mandela was critically ill but stable at the Medi-Clinic Heart Hospital in Pretoria.[391][392]

Cinema and television

Mandela has been depicted in cinema and television on multiple occasions. He was portrayed by Danny Glover in the 1987 HBO telefilmMandela.[393] The 1997 film Mandela and de Klerk starred Sidney Poitier as Mandela,[394] and Dennis Haysbert played him in Goodbye Bafana(2007).[395] In the 2009 BBC telefilm Mrs Mandela, Mandela was portrayed by David Harewood,[396] and Morgan Freeman portrayed him inInvictus (2009).[397] Terrence Howard portrayed him in the 2011 film Winnie Mandela.[398] He is portrayed by Idris Elba in the 2013 film Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.[399]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Mandela

African National Congress

The African National Congress (ANC) is the Republic of South Africa’s governing political party, supported by its Tripartite Alliancewith the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and the South African Communist Party (SACP), since the establishment of non-racial democracy in April 1994. It defines itself as a “disciplined force of the left”.[2] Members founded the organisation as theSouth African Native National Congress (SANNC) on 8 January 1912 at the Waaihoek Wesleyan Church in Bloemfontein to increase the rights of the black South African population. John Dube, its first president, and poet and author Sol Plaatje were among its founding members. The organisation became the ANC in 1923 and formed a military wing, the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) in 1961.

It has been the ruling party of post-apartheid South Africa on the national level since 1994. It increased its majority in the 1999 elections, and further increased it in 2004, with 69.7% of the votes. In 2009 its share of the vote reduced slightly, but it remained the dominant party with 65.9% of the votes.

History


The founding of the SANNC was in direct response to injustice against black South Africans at the hands of the government then in power. It can be said that the SANNC had its origins in a pronouncement by 
Pixley ka Isaka Seme who said in 1911, “Forget all the past differences among Africans and unite in one national organisation.” The SANNC was founded the following year on 8 January 1912.[3]

The government of the newly formed Union of South Africa began a systematic oppression of black people in South Africa. The Land Act was promulgated in 1913 forcing many non-whites from their farms into the cities and towns to work, and to restrict their movement within South Africa.

By 1919, the SANNC was leading a campaign against passes (an ID which non-whites had to posses). However, it then became dormant in the mid-1920s. During that time, black people were also represented by the ICU and the previously white-only Communist party. In 1923, the organisation became the African National Congress, and in 1929 the ANC supported a militant mineworkers’ strike.

By 1927, J.T. Gumede (president of the ANC) proposed co-operation with the Communists in a bid to revitalise the organisation, but he was voted out of power in the 1930s. This led to the ANC becoming largely ineffectual and inactive, until the mid-1940s when the ANC was remodelled as a mass movement.

The ANC responded militarily to attacks on the rights of black South Africans, as well as calling for strikes, boycotts, and defiance. This led to a later Defiance Campaign in the 1950s, a mass movement of resistance to apartheid. The government tried to stop the ANC by banning party leaders and enacting new laws to stop the ANC, however these measures ultimately proved to be ineffective.

In 1955, the Congress of the People officially adopted the Freedom Charter, stating the core principles of the South African Congress Alliance, which consisted of the African National Congress and its allies the South African Communist Party (SACP), the South African Indian Congress, the South African Congress of Democrats (COD) and the Coloured People’s Congress.[4] The government claimed that this was a communist document, and consequently leaders of the ANC and Congress were arrested. 1960 saw the Sharpeville massacre, in which 69 people were killed when police opened fire on anti-apartheid protesters.

Whites eventually joined the fight against apartheid, leading many Black nationalists to break away from the ANC.

During apartheid there was violence between the ANC and the Inkatha Freedom Party. For example between 1985 and 1989, 5,000 civilians were killed in fighting between the two parties.[5] Massacres by each of the other’s supporters included the Shell House massacre and the Boipatong massacre.

The ANC and its members were officially removed from the United States terrorism watch list in 2008.[6]

Umkhonto we Sizwe

Umkhonto we Sizwe (or MK), translated “Spear of the Nation”, was the military wing of the ANC. Partly in response to the Sharpeville massacre of 1960, individual members of the ANC found it necessary to consider violence to combat what passive protest had failed to quell. There was a significant portion of the ANC who therefore turned to violence to achieve their goals. A significant portion of ANC leadership agreed that this violence was needed to combat increasing backlash from the government. Some ANC members were upset by the actions of the MK, and refused to accept violence as necessary for the ending of apartheid, but these individuals became a minority as the militant leaders such asNelson Mandela gained significant popularity. Many consider their actions to be criminal, but the MK deemed the means justified by the end goal of ending apartheid. The MK committed terrorist acts to achieve their aims, and MK was responsible for the deaths of both civilians and members of the military. Acts of terrorism committed by the MK include the Church Street bombing and the Magoo’s Bar bombing. In co-operation with the South African Communist Party, MK was founded in 1961.[7]

Ideology

The ANC deems itself a force of national liberation in the post-apartheid era; it officially defines its agenda as the National Democratic Revolution. The ANC is a member of theSocialist International.[1] It also sets forth the redressing of socio-economic differences stemming from colonial- and apartheid-era policies as a central focus of ANC policy.

The National Democratic Revolution (NDR) is described as a process through which the National Democratic Society (NDS) is achieved; a society in which people are intellectually, socially, economically and politically empowered. The drivers of the NDR are also called the motive forces and are defined as the elements within society that gain from the success of the NDR. Using contour plots or concentric circles the centre represents the elements in society that gain the most out of the success of the NDR. Moving away from the centre results in the reduction of the gains that those elements derive. It is generally believed that the force that occupies the centre of those concentric circles in countries with low unemployment is the working class while in countries with higher levels of unemployment it is the unemployed. Some of the many theoreticians that have written about the NDR include Joe SlovoJoel Netshitenzhe and Tshilidzi Marwala.[8][9][10]

In 2004, the ANC declared itself to be a social democratic party.[11]

Tripartite Alliance

The ANC holds a historic alliance with the South African Communist Party (SACP) and Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), known as the Tripartite Alliance. The SACP and COSATU have not contested any election in South Africa, but field candidates through the ANC, hold senior positions in the ANC, and influence party policy and dialogue. During Mbeki’s presidency, the government took a more pro-capitalist stance, often running counter to the demands of the SACP and COSATU.[12][13][14][15]

2008 schism

Following Zuma’s accession to the ANC leadership in 2007 and Mbeki’s resignation as president in 2008, the Mbeki faction of former ministers led by Mosiuoa Lekota split away from the ANC to form the Congress of the People.

ANC flag

The ANC flag is composed of three stripes – black, green and gold.[16] Black symbolises the native people of South Africa, green represents the land and gold represents the mineral and other natural wealth of South Africa. This flag was also the battle flag of the Umkhonto we Sizwe. The official party flag also has the emblem of the party incorporated onto the flag.

Party list

Politicians in the party win a place in parliament by being on the Party List, which is drawn up before the elections and enumerates, in order, the party’s preferred MPs. The number of seats allocated is proportional to the popular national vote, and this determines the cut-off point.

The ANC has also gained members through the controversial floor crossing process.

Although most South African parties announced their candidate list for provincial premierships in the 2009 election, the ANC did not, as it is not required for parties to do so.[17]

Election results

Proportion of votes cast for the ANC in the 2009 election, by ward.

  0–20%
  20–40%
  40–60%
  60–80%
  80–100%

Parliament[edit]

National Assembly
Election year # of
overall votes
 % of
overall vote
# of
overall seats won
+/– Government
1994 12,237,655 62.65
252 / 400
in coalition
1999 10,601,330 66.35
266 / 400
Increase 14 in coalition
2004 10,880,915 69.69
279 / 400
Increase 13 in coalition
2009 11,650,748 65.90
264 / 400
Decrease 15 in coalition
Senate / NCOP
Election year # of
overall seats won
+/–
1994
60 / 90
1999
63 / 90
Increase 3
2004
65 / 90
Increase 2
2009
62 / 90
Decrease 3

Municipal elections[edit]

Election Votes %
2011 16,548,826 62%
2006 17,466,948 66.3%
2000 59.4
1995-96 5,033,855 58%

Role of the ANC in resolving the conflict

The ANC represented the main opposition to the government during apartheid and therefore they played a major role in resolving the conflict through participating in the peacemaking and peace-building processes. Initially intelligence agents of the National Party met in secret with ANC leaders, including Nelson Mandela, to judge whether conflict resolution was possible.[18] Discussions and negotiations took place leading to the eventual unbanning of the ANC and other opposing political parties by then President de Klerkon 2 February 1990. These initial meetings were the first crucial steps towards resolution.

The next official step towards rebuilding South Africa was the Groote Schuur Minute where the government and the ANC agreed on a common commitment towards the resolution of the existing climate of violence and intimidation, as well as a commitment to stability and to a peaceful process of negotiations. The ANC negotiated the release of political prisoners and the indemnity from prosecution for returning exiles and moreover channels of communication were established between the Government and the ANC.

Later the Pretoria Minute represented another step towards resolution where agreements at Groote Schuur were reconsolidated and steps towards setting up an interim government and drafting a new constitution were established as well as suspension of the military wing of the ANC – the Umkhonto we Sizwe. This step helped end much of the violence within South Africa. Another agreement that came out of the Pretoria Minute was that both parties would try and raise awareness that a new way of governance was being created for South Africa, and that further violence would only hinder this process. However violence still continued in Kwazulu-Natal, which violated the trust between Mandela and de Klerk. Moreover, internal disputes in the ANC prolonged the war as consensus on peace was not reached.[19]

The next significant steps towards resolution were the Repeal of the Population Registration Act, the repeal of the Group Areas and the Native Land Acts and a catch-all Abolition of Racially Based Land Measures Act was passed.[19] These measures ensured no one could claim, or be deprived of, any land rights on the basis of race.

In December 1991 the Convention for a Democratic South Africa (CODESA) was held with the aim of establishing an interim government. However a few months later in June 1992 the Boipatong massacre occurred and all negotiations crumbled as the ANC pulled out. After this negotiations proceeded between two agents, Cyril Ramaphosa of the ANC, andRoelf Meyer of the National Party. In over 40 meetings the two men discussed and negotiated over many issues including the nature of the future political system, the fate of over 40,000 government employees and if/how the country would be divided. The result of these negotiations was an interim constitution that meant the transition from apartheid to democracy was a constitutional continuation and that the rule of law and state sovereignty remained intact during the transition, which was vital for stability within the country. A date was set for the first democratic elections on 27 April 1994.[19] The ANC won 62.5% of the votes and has been in power ever since.[20]

Criticism

Recentism.svg
This section may be slanted towards recent events. Please try to keep recent events in historical perspective. (June 2013)

Controversy over corrupt members

For more details on the arms deal, see South African Arms Deal.

The most prominent corruption case involving the ANC relates to a series of bribes paid to companies involved in the ongoing R55 billion Arms Deal saga, which resulted in a long term jail sentence to former Deputy President Jacob Zuma‘s legal adviser Schabir Shaik. Schabir Shaik was released after about two years on the basis that he was terminally ill. Zuma, now the State president, was charged with fraud, bribery and corruption in the Arms Deal, but the charges were subsequently withdrawn by the National Prosecuting Authority of South Africa due to their delay in prosecution.[21] The ANC has also been criticised for its subsequent abolition of the Scorpions, the multidisciplinary agency that investigated and prosecuted organised crime and corruption, and was heavily involved in the investigation into Zuma and Shaik.

Tony Yengeni, in his then position as chief whip of the ANC and also head of the Parliaments defence committee has recently been named as being involved in a R6 million bribe with the German company ThyssenKrupp over the purchase of four corvettes for the SANDF. German detectives raided the offices of the German company and found documentation linking Yengeni to the bribe

Other recent corruption issues include the sexual misconduct and criminal charges of Beaufort West municipal manager Truman Prince,[22] and the Oilgate scandal, in which millions of Rand in funds from a state-owned company were allegedly funnelled into ANC coffers.[23]

The ANC has also been accused of using government and civil society to fight its political battles against opposition parties such as the Democratic Alliance. The result has been a number of complaints and allegations that none of the political parties truly represent the interests of the poor.[24][25] This has resulted in the “No Land! No House! No Vote!” Campaign which becomes very prominent each time the country holds elections.[26][27]

Controversy over wasteful expenditure[edit]

The ANC spent over R1 billion of taxpayers’ money on luxury vehicles, expensive hotels, banquets, advertising and other “wasteful expenditure” between August 2009 and April 2010.[28][29][30] The main thrust behind this reporting is the official opposition in the country, the Democratic Alliance (DA), which kept a tally of the expenditure called “The Wasteful Expenditure Monitor”.[31]

According to the DA,[32] this money could have:

  • Built 18,574 new RDP houses
  • Funded 7775 teachers for a year

The ANC Northen Cape premier, Sylvia Lucas, in her first 10 weeks in office, spent R53,159.00 of taxpayers money on “fast food” in two and a half months at outlets such as Spur,NandosKFC and Wimpy.

Condemnation over Secrecy Bill[edit]

In late 2011 the ANC was heavily criticised over the passage of the Protection of State Information Bill, which opponents claimed would improperly restrict the freedom of the press.[33] Opposition to the bill included otherwise ANC-aligned groups such as COSATU. Notably, Nelson Mandela and other Nobel laureates Nadine Gordimer, ArchbishopDesmond Tutu, and F. W. de Klerk have expressed disappointment with the bill for not meeting standards of constitutionality and aspirations for freedom of information and expression.[34]

Role in the Marikana Massacre[edit]

Further information: Marikana miners’ strike

The ANC have been criticised for its role in failing to prevent the 16 August 2012 massacre of Lonmin miners at Marikana in the North West. Some allege that Police Commissioner Riah Phiyega and Police Minister Nathi Mthethwa, a close confidant of Jacob Zuma, may have given the go ahead for the police action against the miners on that day.[35]

Commissioner Phiyega of the ANC came under further criticism as being insensitive and uncaring when she was caught smiling and laughing during the Farlam Commission’s video playback of the ‘massacre’.[36] Archbishop Desmond Tutu has announced that he no longer can bring himself to exercise a vote for the ANC as it is no longer the party that he and Nelson Mandela fought for, and that the party has now lost its way, and is in danger of becoming a corrupt entity in power.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_National_Congress

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

Inventory Increases of 1.7% Pumps Up Real GDP in 3 Quarter 2013 to 3.6% — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

gdp_large

Breaking views: U.S. growth mirage

Fall of the dollar 2014 – America Economy Will Soon Collapse! – Peter Schiff

Peter Schiff – Whatever the Fed Does, Gold Will Rally! US Economy Already Ruined!

Peter Schiff was Right – The party is over, Ben Stein thinks the earnings are huge

Peter Schiff: US lost ability to produce, can’t live without debt

 

EMBARGOED UNTIL RELEASE AT 8:30 A.M. EST, THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2013
BEA 13-57

* See the navigation bar at the right side of the news release text for links to data tables,
contact personnel and their telephone numbers, and supplementary materials.

Lisa S. Mataloni: (202) 606-5304 (GDP) gdpniwd@bea.gov
Howard Krakower: (202) 606-5564 (Profits) cpniwd@bea.gov
Recorded message: (202) 606-5306
Jeannine Aversa: (202) 606-2649 (News Media)
National Income and Product Accounts
Gross Domestic Product, 3rd quarter 2013 (second estimate);
Corporate Profits, 3rd quarter 2013 (preliminary estimate)
      Real gross domestic product -- the output of goods and services produced by labor and property
located in the United States -- increased at an annual rate of 3.6 percent in the third quarter of 2013 (that
is, from the second quarter to the third quarter), according to the "second" estimate released by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis.  In the second quarter, real GDP increased 2.5 percent.

      The GDP estimate released today is based on more complete source data than were available for
the "advance" estimate issued last month.  In the advance estimate, the increase in real GDP was 2.8
percent (see "Revisions" on page 3). With this second estimate for the third quarter, the increase in
private inventory investment was larger than previously estimated.

      The increase in real GDP in the third quarter primarily reflected positive contributions from
private inventory investment, personal consumption expenditures (PCE), exports, nonresidential fixed
investment, residential fixed investment, and state and local government spending that were partly offset
by a negative contribution from federal government spending. Imports, which are a subtraction in the
calculation of GDP, increased.

      The acceleration in real GDP growth in the third quarter primarily reflected an acceleration in
private inventory investment, a deceleration in imports, and an acceleration in state and local
government spending that were partly offset by decelerations in exports, in PCE, and in nonresidential
fixed investment.

_________
FOOTNOTE.  Quarterly estimates are expressed at seasonally adjusted annual rates, unless otherwise
specified.  Quarter-to-quarter dollar changes are differences between these published estimates.  Percent
changes are calculated from unrounded data and are annualized.  "Real" estimates are in chained (2009)
dollars.  Price indexes are chain-type measures.

      This news release is available on BEA’s Web site along with the Technical Note and Highlights related
to this release.  For information on revisions, see "Revisions to GDP, GDI, and Their Major Components".
_________

     The price index for gross domestic purchases, which measures prices paid by U.S. residents,
increased 1.8 percent in the third quarter, the same increase as in the advance estimate; this index
increased 0.2 percent in the second quarter.  Excluding food and energy prices, the price index for gross
domestic purchases increased 1.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 0.8 percent
in the second.

      Real personal consumption expenditures increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of 1.8 percent in the second.  Durable goods increased 7.7 percent, compared with an
increase of 6.2 percent.  Nondurable goods increased 2.4 percent, compared with an increase of 1.6
percent.  Services was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter, services increased 1.2
percent.

      Real nonresidential fixed investment increased 3.5 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 4.7 percent in the second.  Nonresidential structures increased 13.8 percent, compared with
an increase of 17.6 percent.  Equipment was unchanged in the third quarter; in the second quarter,
equipment increased 3.3 percent.  Intellectual property products increased 1.7 percent, in contrast to a
decrease of 1.5 percent.  Real residential fixed investment increased 13.0 percent, compared with an
increase of 14.2 percent.

      Real exports of goods and services increased 3.7 percent in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of 8.0 percent in the second.  Real imports of goods and services increased 2.7 percent,
compared with an increase of 6.9 percent.

      Real federal government consumption expenditures and gross investment decreased 1.4 percent
in the third quarter, compared with a decrease of 1.6 percent in the second.  National defense decreased
0.3 percent, compared with a decrease of 0.6 percent.  Nondefense decreased 3.1 percent, the same
decrease as in the second quarter.  Real state and local government consumption expenditures and gross
investment increased 1.7 percent, compared with an increase of 0.4 percent.

      The change in real private inventories added 1.68 percentage points to the third-quarter change in
real GDP, after adding 0.41 percentage point to the second-quarter change.  Private businesses increased
inventories $116.5 billion in the third quarter, following increases of $56.6 billion in the second quarter
and $42.2 billion in the first.

      Real final sales of domestic product -- GDP less change in private inventories -- increased 1.9
percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.1 percent in the second.

Gross domestic purchases

      Real gross domestic purchases -- purchases by U.S. residents of goods and services wherever
produced -- increased 3.4 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.5 percent in the
second.

Gross national product

      Real gross national product -- the goods and services produced by the labor and property
supplied by U.S. residents -- increased 3.9 percent in the third quarter, compared with an increase of 2.7
percent in the second.  GNP includes, and GDP excludes, net receipts of income from the rest of the
world, which increased $13.7 billion in the third quarter after increasing $7.7 billion in the second; in the
third quarter, receipts increased $1.7 billion, and payments decreased $12.1billion.

Current-dollar GDP

      Current-dollar GDP -- the market value of the nation's output of goods and services -- increased
5.6 percent, or $229.8 billion, in the third quarter to a level of $16,890.8 billion.  In the second quarter,
current-dollar GDP increased 3.1 percent, or $125.7 billion.

Gross domestic income

      Real gross domestic income (GDI), which measures the output of the economy as the costs
incurred and the incomes earned in the production of GDP, increased 1.4 percent in the third quarter,
compared with an increase of 3.2 percent (revised) in the second.  For a given quarter, the estimates of
GDP and GDI may differ for a variety of reasons, including the incorporation of largely independent
source data.  However, over longer time spans, the estimates of GDP and GDI tend to follow similar
patterns of change.

Revisions

      The upward revision to the percent change in real GDP primarily reflected upward revisions to
private inventory investment and to nonresidential fixed investment that were partly offset by an upward
revision to imports and a downward revision to exports.

                                                                     Advance Estimate             Second Estimate
                                                                       (Percent change from preceding quarter)

Real GDP................................................                    2.8                        3.6
Current-dollar GDP......................................                    4.8                        5.6
Gross domestic purchases price index....................                    1.8                        1.8

                                            Corporate Profits

      Profits from current production (corporate profits with inventory valuation adjustment (IVA) and
capital consumption adjustment (CCAdj)) increased $38.3 billion in the third quarter, compared with an
increase of $66.8 billion in the second.  Taxes on corporate income decreased $4.8 billion, in contrast to
an increase of $10.0 billion.  Profits after tax with IVA and CCAdj increased $43.0 billion, compared
with an increase of $56.9 billion.

      Dividends decreased $179.7 billion in the third quarter, in contrast to an increase of $273.5
billion in the second.  The large third-quarter decrease primarily reflected dividends paid by Fannie Mae
to the federal government in the second quarter.  Undistributed profits increased $222.8 billion, in
contrast to a decrease of $216.6 billion.  Net cash flow with IVA -- the internal funds available to
corporations for investment -- increased $234.5 billion, in contrast to a decrease of $205.3 billion.

_________
BOX.  Profits from current production reflect the depreciation of
fixed assets valued at current cost using consistent depreciation profiles.
These profiles are based on used-asset prices and do not depend on the
depreciation-accounting practices used for federal income tax returns.  The IVA and CCAdj are
adjustments that convert inventory withdrawals and depreciation of fixed assets reported on a tax-return,
historical-cost basis to the current-cost economic measures used in the national income and product
accounts.
_________

Corporate profits by industry

      Domestic profits of financial corporations increased $8.6 billion in the third quarter, compared to
an increase of $24.5 billion in the second.  Domestic profits of nonfinancial corporations increased $13.0
billion, compared to an increase of $37.8 billion.

      The rest-of-the-world component of profits increased $16.7 billion in the third quarter, compared
with an increase of $4.6 billion in the second.  This measure is calculated as the difference between
receipts from rest of the world and payments to rest of the world.

Gross value added of nonfinancial domestic corporate business

      In the third quarter, real gross value added of nonfinancial corporations increased, and profits per
unit of real value added increased.  The increase in unit profits reflected an increase in unit prices that
was partly offset by increases in both unit labor costs and nonlabor costs incurred by corporations.

                                     *          *          *

BEA's national, international, regional, and industry estimates; the Survey of Current Business;
and BEA news releases are available without charge on BEA's Web site at www.bea.gov.  By visiting
the site, you can also subscribe to receive free e-mail summaries of BEA releases and announcements.

                                     *          *          *

                         Next release -- December 20, 2013, at 8:30 A.M. EST for:
                       Gross Domestic Product:  Third Quarter 2013 (Third Estimate)
                          Corporate Profits:  Third Quarter (Revised Estimate)

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

Obama Poll Numbers Plummet As Obama Reverts To Class Warfare Learned From Communist Mentor Frank Marshall Davis — Obama’s Unbroken Record of Failure — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Lou Dobbs: President’s Economic Policies A Threat To The American Dream

Fox’s Hasselbeck Knocks Obama’s ‘Class Warfare’ Speech: ‘He Is the System’ He Criticizes

Jon Lovitz Destroys Obama’s Class Warfare

Obama Calls for Class Warfare in State of the Union

Facts and fallacies with Thomas Sowell: Chapter 4 of 5

Adam Carolla on class warfare, hard work, and Obama’s speech

Obama vs Sowell on Household Income

Obama Class Warfare.

Obama’s Class Warfare is “Not Solving the Problem”

Obama outed as a lying Class Warfare Racist

Class Warfare: Obama’s Reckless 2012 Strategy to Defeat the GOP

The Untold Story of Barack Obama’s Mentor

Glenn Beck Shows Next Book Paul Kengor “THE COMMUNIST” Frank Marshall Davis Barack Obama’s Mentor

Obama’s Mentor: Frank Marshall Davis—The Communist—Book: Mark Levin

OBAMA’s REAL FATHER is Frank Marshall Davis !!!

Obama’s Influences – Frank Marshall Davis

Obama returns to class warfare as poll numbers plunge

By Ben Wolfgang

Turning his attention yet again to the economy, President Obama on Wednesday zeroed in on the “defining challenge” of this generation — growing income inequality between the richest 1 percent and the rest of America.

But the president didn’t unveil any grand proposals to tackle the problem; instead, he repeated a laundry list of initiatives centered on many familiar themes: economic growth through government investment; job training and education reform; stronger protections for labor unions and paycheck fairness legislation; a hike to the minimum wage; and a revamped approach to how Americans save for retirement in private accounts and in government programs such as Social Security.

Although his speech was short on specific ideas, it was big on ambition. The president talked in broad terms about how the greatest nation on earth must not allow the middle class to stagnate and the poor to get poorer as rich Americans’ net worth grows.

“I believe this is the defining challenge of our time — making sure our economy works for every working American. That’s why I ran for president,” Mr. Obama said at an event in Southeast Washington hosted by the left-leaning Center for American Progress. “It drives everything I do in this office. I know I’ve raised this issue before and some will ask why I raise the issue again right now. I do it because the outcomes of the debates we’re having right now, whether it’s health care, or the budget, or reforming our housing and financial systems, all of these things will have real practical implications for every American. I am convinced the decisions we make on these issues over the next few years will determine whether our children grow up in an America where opportunity is real.”

Pointing out widening income disparities is not new for Mr. Obama, who spoke of the issue often during both of his presidential campaigns. Indeed, it has become a focal point of politics in the U.S. and led some leaders such as former Sen. John Edwards, North Carolina Democrat, to declare there are “two Americas” — one for the rich and another for everyone else.

The question isn’t whether income inequality should be addressed, analysts say, but how the problem should be approached. On that front, they say, Mr. Obama simply is offering more of the same.

“What I heard was the same old, very broad brush strokes: We need to help the middle class, we need to raise the minimum wage and we need to do more infrastructure projects. More spending,” said Lance Roberts, CEO of STA Wealth Management who has more than 25 years of experience in private banking, investment management and venture capital.

“Let’s throw money at it,” Mr. Roberts said of the administration’s approach to income disparities and a generally poor economy. “If it doesn’t work, it’s because we didn’t throw enough money at it. We’ve done five years of this.”

In those five years, income inequality has hit a record level, according to a September report from the University of California, Berkeley. The study shows that income gaps continue to grow despite the administration’s intentions.

From 2009 to 2012, the top 1 percent of incomes in the U.S. grew by more than 31 percent, while the bottom 99 percent went up by 0.4 percent. During the same period, the top 1 percent of earners captured 95 percent of all income gains.

In 2012, as Mr. Obama neared the end of his first term that imposed massive government investment through his stimulus package, the top 1 percent of American incomes rose by nearly 20 percent while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew by just 1 percent, according to the Berkeley report.

Republicans seized on the president’s remarks and framed them against the backdrop of such grim income statistics.

“The American dream is certainly more in doubt than in decades, but after more than five years in office, the president has no one to blame but himself,” said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.

The president’s approach is “more stimulus, more government programs and more government intervention into the job-creating private sector,” Mr. Buck said. “By now, and by the president’s own admission, it should be clear that is not the solution.”

Income inequality usually is framed in purely economic terms, but the president cast it in a broader light and said it poses a fundamental threat to American democracy.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/4/obama-growing-income-inequality-defining-challenge/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS#ixzz2md8MPaIv
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

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

Results Matter — Millennials Wakeup — No Longer Clueless — Dump Obama and Obamacare — Call for Recall — Videos

Posted on December 5, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Economics, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, IRS, Language, Law, liberty, Links, Literacy, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Public Sector, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Tax Policy, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , |

Millennials Aren’t Too Hot On Obamacare, Obama: Harvard Poll

Obama approval ratings wane as millennials grow wary of ACA

Millenials Abandon Obama & Obamacare In Harvard Poll – Lou Dobbs

deatbeat_millenials

Harvard Institute of Politics

 http://www.iop.harvard.edu/

National Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

 

Millennials Abandon Obama and Obamacare

A majority of America’s youngest adults would vote to recall the president.

By 

Young Americans are turning against Barack Obama and Obamacare, according to a new survey of millennials, people between the ages of 18 and 29 who are vital to the fortunes of the president and his signature health care law.

The most startling finding of Harvard University’s Institute of Politics: A majority of Americans under age 25–the youngest millennials–would favor throwing Obama out of office.

The survey, part of a unique 13-year study of the attitudes of young adults, finds that America’s rising generation is worried about its future, disillusioned with the U.S. political system, strongly opposed to the government’s domestic surveillance apparatus, and drifting away from both major parties. “Young Americans hold the president, Congress and the federal government in less esteem almost by the day, and the level of engagement they are having in politics are also on the decline,” reads the IOP’s analysis of its poll. “Millennials are losing touch with government and its programs because they believe government is losing touch with them.”

The results blow a gaping hole in the belief among many Democrats that Obama’s two elections signaled a durable grip on the youth vote.

Indeed, millennials are not so hot on their president.

Obama’s approval rating among young Americans is just 41 percent, down 11 points from a year ago, and now tracking with all adults. While 55 percent said they voted for Obama in 2012, only 46 percent said they would do so again.

When asked if they would want to recall various elected officials, 45 percent of millennials said they would oust their member of Congress; 52 percent replied “all members of Congress” should go; and 47 percent said they would recall Obama. The recall-Obama figure was even higher among the youngest millennials, ages 18 to 24, at 52 percent.

While there is no provision for a public recall of U.S. presidents, the poll question revealed just how far Obama has fallen in the eyes of young Americans.

IOP director Trey Grayson called the results a “sea change” attributable to the generation’s outsized and unmet expectations for Obama, as well as their concerns about the economy, Obamacare and government surveillance.

The survey of 2,089 young adults, conducted Oct. 30 through Nov. 11, spells trouble for the Affordable Care Act. The fragile economics underpinning the law hinge on the willingness of healthy, young Americans to forgo penalties and buy health insurance.

According to the poll, 57 percent of millennials disapprove of Obamacare, with 40 percent saying it will worsen their quality of care and a majority believing it will drive up costs. Only 18 percent say Obamacare will improve their care. Among 18-to-29-year-olds currently without health insurance, less than one-third say they’re likely to enroll in the Obamacare exchanges.

More than two-thirds of millennials said they heard about the ACA through the media. That’s a bad omen for Obamacare, given the intensive coverage of the law’s botched rollout. Just one of every four young Americans said they discussed the law with a friend or through social media. Harvard’s John Della Volpe, who conducted the poll, said the president has done a poor job explaining the ACA to young Americans.

Republican and Democratic leaders should find little solace in the results. The survey said that 33 percent of young Americans consider themselves Democrats and 24 percent identify with the GOP. The largest and growing segment is among independents, 41 percent of the total.

Democrats’ advantage among young voters is fading. Among the oldest millennials (ages 25 to 29), Democrats hold a 16-point lead over the GOP: 38 percent say they’re Democrats, and 22 percent call themselves Republicans. Among the youngest of this rising generation (ages 18 to 24), the gap is just 6 points, 31 percent for Democrats and 25 percent for Republicans.

Approval ratings of Congress have declined steeply in the past few years, with congressional Democrats now at 35 percent and congressional Republicans at just 19 percent.

Young blacks say they are much less likely to vote in the 2014 midterm election than they were in November 2009, signaling a worrisome level of engagement among a key Democratic constituency.

In addition to health care, domestic spying is an issue that puts Obama on the wrong side of the rising generation. While split on whether Edward Snowden is a “patriot” or a “traitor” for revealing Obama’s surveillance programs, strong majorities of 18-to-29-year-olds oppose the government collecting information from social networks, Web-browsing histories, email, GPS locations, telephone calls, and text messages.

College loans are a big issue with young Americans, too. Nearly six of 10 called student debt a major problem, and another 22 percent called it a minor one. Seventy percent said their financial situation played into their decision whether to attend college.

Respondents were given a list of options for shrinking the nation’s debt. Majorities favored suggestions to tax the rich, cut foreign economic aid in half, slash the nuclear-warhead arsenal, and reduce food stamps.

The results conform with a story I did this summer with the help of the IOP (“The Outsiders: How Can Millennials Change Washington If They Hate It?”), arguing that while Millennials are deeply committed to public service they don’t see government as an efficient way to improve their lives or their communities.

The IOP report issued today said: “This is not to say that young Americans are rejecting politics, the role of government and the promise of America more generally. They are sending a message to those in power that for them to re-engage in government and politics, the political process must be open, collaborative and have the opportunity for impact — and not one that simply perpetuates well-worn single issue agendas.”

The survey was conducted online. The National Journal generally refrains from covering online-only polls but has made past exceptions. In this case, Harvard’s IOP survey uniquely focuses on millennials with accumulated data set and a credible polling operation.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/millennials-abandon-obama-and-obamacare-20131204

 

 

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

Eli The Computer Guy — Websites — Videos

Posted on December 4, 2013. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Computers, Economics, Education, Employment, Investments, Language, liberty, Life, Links, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Politics, Programming, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Eli-Etherton

Data_Recovery_Devices

Hacking_to_Acquire_Passwords_from_HTML_Forms_Password_Boxes

The Business of Web Design

Introduction to Web Marketing

Introduction to HTML Programming

Introduction to Website Administration

Monitize Your Website

Building Websites and Content Management Systems – August 24 2012

Introduction to Blogging

Understanding the Basics of WordPress and How to Use It…

PHP Programming Part 1: Introduction to PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 2: PHP Syntax and Errors

PHP Programming Part 3: Comments and INCLUDE in PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 4: Variables in Print in PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 5: HTML Forms and PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 6: Printing to Files with PHP

PHP Programming Part 7: Sending Email with PHP

PHP Programming Part 8: Basic Math and Numbers in PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 9: If Else Statements in PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 10 – Loops in PHP Programming

PHP Programming Part 11: Redirecting Web Pages with Header Function in PHP

 

Introduction to MySQL for Website Administrators

 

 

How to Become an IT Professional

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

David Kennedy — White Hat Hacker — HealthCare.gov Website Not Secure — Danger of Identity Theft — Videos

Posted on December 4, 2013. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Crime, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, External Hard Drives, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medicine, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Press, Rants, Raves, Resources, Systems, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obamacare_HealthCare_gov_Screen-Shot-2013-10-29-at-8.03.59-AMKathleen Sebelius

Henry Chao, David PownerhealthcaregovObamacare_plan_premium_comparisons

Improved ObamaCare Site Still A Hacker’s Dream

Hacker: No security ever built into Obamacare website healthcare gov

Personal data security on Obamacare site

Experts Recommend Shutting Down Obamacare Website Hackers Dream The Real Story

Hack Attack! Can Hackers Hijack The Healthcare gov Website Judge Jeanine Pirro

11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. I

11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. 2

[11-13-13 “ObamaCare Implementation: The Rollout of HealthCare.gov” Pt. 3

Congressional Hearing On The Failed Implementation Of The ObamaCare Healthcare.gov Website

Background Articles and Videos

How to Become an IT Professional

Introduction to Hacking

Hacking DNS

OpenDNS for Network Security

The Future of Security: Ethical Hacking, Big Data and the Crowd – Welcome and Opening Remarks

The Future of Security: Ethical Hacking, Big Data and the Crowd – Panel One

The Future of Security: Ethical Hacking, Big Data and the Crowd – Panel Two

The Future of Security: Ethical Hacking, Big Data and the Crowd – Panel Two Discussion

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACxDIF1CP4

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

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization — The Quigley Formula — New World Order — World Government — Council of Foreign Relations — Videos

Posted on December 3, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

Carroll_Quigley

Tragedyhopecarroll_quigley_tragedy_n_hope

anglo_american_establishment

carroll-quigley

The Quigley Formula – G. Edward Griffin lecture

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 1/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 2/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 3/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 4/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 5/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 6/7

Carroll Quigley on Western Civilization 7/7

Carroll Quigley on Tragedy And Hope

Rare Carroll Quigley interview – 1974 (Full Interview)

Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authored a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states: “There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

“The powers of financial capitalism had another far reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements, arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences…”

“The apex of the system was the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the worlds’ cent