Babies

Training For Mexicans On How To Cross The U.S. Mexican Border To Enter The United States Illegal — The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Continues and Is Growing Everyday! — Videos

Posted on September 1, 2015. Filed under: Blogroll, Politics, Video, Raves, Rants, Links, War, Immigration, People, Life, Babies, Communications, Law, Philosophy, Culture, Wisdom, liberty, Crime, government spending, media, history, Federal Government, Business, Money, Wealth, American History, Radio, Constitution, Legal, Illegal, Photos, Writing, Welfare, Crisis, Documentary, Corruption, Police, Political Correctness, Congress, Love | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Illegal Border Crossing in Mexico

Every year, thousands of Mexicans illegally cross the US border. To find out exactly how it’s done we went to El Alberto, Mexico to film the experience.

El Alberto lies 800 miles south of the US border in the state of Hidalgo. It’s pretty much like any other town of 3,000 people, except in El Alberto they offer tourists the chance to participate in a simulated illegal border crossing. It all happens at a standard recreational park with swimming pools, river trips, zip lines, and the other typical fare. We took a few cameras and headed for the EcoAlberto Park to spend some late-nights running through underground tunnels on the heels of our personal “Coyote” while being chased by border patrol. While we were there, we crashed a quinceñera party and saw El Alberto from the perspective of the locals.

U.S. BORDER FENCE Is Left WIDE OPEN Allowing Illegal Immigrants from Mexico to Walk Into USA

Can a wall be built between U.S. and Mexico?

U.S. BORDER WIDE OPEN – Illegals Caught on Camera

A LOT of people flee from a Van Crash

Illegal Immigrants caught Posing as U.S. Marines

63 Illegal Immigrants Caught

Mexico’s Immigrant Oasis: Last Stop Before the Border

Cop Pulls Over A Van Full of Illegals

14 Illegal Immigrants Flee Cops After Getting Pulled Over

Dealing with illegal immigration, US style (03 Aug10)

Illegal Alien steals Maricopa deputy’s ID. Gets work with it. Plus Sheriff Joe Arpaio Interview

ILLEGAL CROSSINGS AT CALIFORNIA MEXICO BORDER

Undocumented Mexican Worker Working For Donald Trump Wants You To Know Something – Ricardo Aca

Bill O’Reilly Interviews GRILLS Donald Trump on Immigration Plan – August 18, 2015 – Fox News

Satellite Images Confirm Many Holes In Border Fence

Risk Takers – 09 – Border Patrol Agents

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Border Patrol moved dozens of agents from Texas and California to patrol

01_apprehensionsus_border_apprehensions_1976_2013

cbp-illegal-alien-apprehens06_appsagentDHS’ STRATEGY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER

2011-deporations-and-latinos-112013-aprilborder-patrol-apprehensions-by-dispositionFT_14.06.06_UnaccompaniedChildren

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U.S.? – Introduction

Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Introduction by Wayne Lutton, The Social Contract.

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

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

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

Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR…

Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW…

Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY…

James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV…

James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun…

Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ…

Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…

For complete articles on the topic, see the Summer, 2007 issue of The Social Contract at http://www.TheSocialContract.com .

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

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

Bear Stearns

The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Fred Elbel

llegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”
Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? – An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers

By Fred Elbel
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”
Summary:
The Department of Homeland Security estimated in December 2003 that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and 700,000 new illegals enter and stay each year. These official estimates are somewhat suspect and may represent significant undercounts, as they are produced by the very entity responsible for the tidal wave of illegal aliens entering our nation —the United States Government. An alternative methodology is used here to estimate a range of numbers of illegals that is likely more realistic.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated in December 2003 that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and 700,000 new illegals enter and stay each year. These official estimates are somewhat suspect and may represent significant undercounts, as they are produced by the very entity responsible for the tidal wave of illegal aliens entering our nation —the United States Government. An alternative methodology is used here to estimate a range of numbers of illegals that is likely more realistic.

Methodology

The precise number of illegals entering the United States and the exact rate at which they cross our borders are unknown. Official government numbers are often hard to come by and are routinely sanitized. 7, 12 In this analysis, the estimate of the number of illegals in the U.S. is derived from U.S. Border Patrol apprehension rates and estimates of the number that “get away”—those that evade apprehension. This “get away” number is not reliably known, but can be estimated; therefore the methodology based upon this factor will produce a range of results as opposed to a single projection.

This methodology consists of the following steps:

  1. Estimate the gross number of illegals entering the U.S., as well as the number of those that evade apprehension by the Border Patrol. A “get away” ratio is applied to the numbers of illegals entering, resulting in a gross estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension.
  2. Factor in repeat apprehensions of the same individuals and legalizations out of the overall estimate. Many illegal aliens who are apprehended and are returned home try to enter the U.S. again and are subsequently apprehended. Others are legalized and are allowed to stay in the U.S.
  3. Factor “short term stays” from the overall estimate. Some illegal aliens voluntarily return home in less than year.
  4. Estimate the total number of illegal aliens living in the United States, based upon the estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension each year.

Step 1: Estimate the gross numbers of illegals entering the U.S.

Census figures show that 90 percent of illegal immigration comes from Latin America, with 70 percent of the total from Mexico.26 The last decade has witnessed a tidal wave of illegal Mexican immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies noted:

Indeed, the last decade saw an unprecedented number of Mexicans cross the U.S. border. Between 1990 and 2000, their number doubled—from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, or 30 percent of the entire foreign-born population in the United States. Within this number, unauthorized Mexicans grew by more than 100 percent—from 2 million to 4.8 million, or 69 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States.

Though the Mexican government should be embarrassed that 10 percent of its people have fled to the U.S. from Mexico, former President Vicente Fox’s administration embraced this reality. In fact, increasing the number of Mexicans working illegally in the United States is among Mexico’s highest foreign policy objectives.30

U.S. Government estimates of illegal aliens residing in the United States have been uniformly low.18 On December 9, 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge stated that there were 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States.1 The corrected U.S. Census Bureau estimate for 2003 was 8 million2; other Census data extrapolated to more like 10 million, and it recently has been questioned whether the actual number is much higher.20 Referring to a 2001 Northeastern University study stating that there were 11 million illegal aliens in the United States as opposed to U.S. Government estimates of 6 million,18 the Federation for American Immigration Reform stated:

It is inconceivable that official estimates could be that far off the mark unless someone was deliberately trying to mislead the American public.28

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) stated in February 2004 that according to U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, almost 4 million illegal aliens entered the U.S. illegally in 2002.5 (More than half of all illegal immigration into the U.S. comes through Arizona).

Of these 4 million, some were apprehended and removed, while most of them evaded apprehension and succeeded in reaching their interior destinations. How many were apprehended? The answer to this question clearly affects the number of illegals that are believed to reside within the United States. The Border Patrol provides numbers of apprehensions,6 but generally declines to answer specific questions regarding apprehension rates. However, Arizona’s representative Jim Kolbe testified to Senator McCain in a Congressional hearing on June 17, 2004, that the Border Patrol “figure about one out of four or five are apprehended”.9 Michael Nicely, Chief, Tucson Sector, U.S. Border Patrol, stated in a private telephone conversation in 2004 that “ It’s more like seven.”

This author has visited the Arizona border and has personally observed the situation on the ground. Border Patrol agents who were brave enough to share their own insights have stated that in their opinion, the Border Patrol is not apprehending anywhere close to one out of three or four illegal crossers, and that significantly larger numbers evade apprehension.7, 12, 14

Indeed, in July of 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 stated on their website that “There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure…” 36

Using Senator McCain’s number of 4 million entering illegally in 20025 and an official apprehension rate of one out of four means that 3 million were not apprehended and therefore remained in the U.S.

It also should be noted that this figure does not include the millions who the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly called the Government Accounting Office) tell us enter legally on temporary visas and continue to stay after their visas expire.13

Because the U.S. government routinely sanitizes statistics,7, 12 the number of illegal entries into the United States is almost certainly higher than official numbers. In fact, Forbes Magazine estimates that only four percent of illegal aliens crossing in Texas are apprehended and prosecuted.15

Detailed approaches to gross yearly calculations

Senator John McCain stated in February of 2004 that almost 4 million illegal aliens crossed our borders illegally in 2002.5 If one out of four were apprehended, that would mean in the year 2002, 3 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension (4 million x 3/4).

Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Asa Hutchinson, stated in June 2004 that arrests of illegal aliens in Arizona have increased to 3,000 daily from an average of about 2,000 a day since March.11 The increase in apprehensions can be attributed in part to additional Border Patrol agents, “but more than half of the promised U.S. Border Patrol agents have not arrived.11 Thus, it is highly likely that the numbers of illegal aliens entering the U.S. through Arizona had commensurately increased.

Below are several approaches used to converge on the number of illegals entering on a yearly basis:

  1. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that in 2001 there were 1,676,438 total U.S. border apprehensions.6 If one out of four were apprehended as the Border Patrol officially states, that would mean that in the year 2001, 5 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension (1,676,438 x 3). Table I summarizes illegal entries at various apprehension rates.
  2. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that in 2002 there were 955,310 total U.S. border apprehensions6 (this is significantly lower than apprehensions in 2000 and 2001). With a one out of four apprehension rate, then in the year 2002, 2.9 million illegals would have entered and evaded apprehension (955,310 x 3).
  3. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that there were 888,480 total U.S. border apprehensions from January 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004.6If one out of four were apprehended, then in the year 2004, 2.7 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension in that six-month period (888,480 x 3). Assuming that a similar number of illegals enter in each six-month period, this works out to 5.3 million per year.

Table I (below) summarizes calculations used by these three approaches.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table1.png

Step 2: Factor in repeat apprehensions of the same individuals

An illegal alien typically pays a coyote U.S. $1,500 or more to guide their illegal border crossing. Although a crossing is an expensive proposition, many illegals who are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol may try again several times until they make it across the border. 31

Precise data on the numbers who attempt reentry into the United States are not available. For the purposes of this analysis, the assumption is made that every single illegal alien who is apprehended and returned home subsequently tries again and successfully evades apprehension on his second attempt.

Under this assumption, of every four illegals reported in line one of Table I, we will assume one (the one apprehended) to be double-counted. (Although perhaps a questionable assumption, this is consistent with actual observations31). The numbers in line one of Table I therefore are assumed to include a 25 percent overcount. Line 2 of Table I is similarly assumed to represent a 14 percent overcount.

Table II shows the result of reducing values in Table I by these overcounts in order to factor out repeat apprehensions.

Table II shows an adjusted low range of 2.2 million to 4 million illegals entering annually and evading apprehension, using the official optimistic one out of four apprehension rate.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table2.png

Using similar logic and data, Time magazine subsequently reached the conclusion that 3 million illegals enter and stay annually,22 while using themost optimistic assumption that the Border Patrol apprehends one out of three illegal crossers.

Step 3: Factor “short term” stays and legalization from the overall estimate

Table II (below) shows the number of illegals entering, but those numbers must be adjusted downward to account for illegals returning home each year or receiving legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.

It is difficult to determine how many illegal aliens stay here permanently, or at least remain for a period of several years. Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) testified in 2004 that males no longer go back home but instead stay in the United States and then send for their families.9 Veteran Border Patrol agents have confirmed that illegal aliens are now coming here to stay.14

Yet a certain proportion of illegals return home each year after only a temporary stay in the United States.32 The INS estimated in 2001 that several hundred thousand illegals return home each year or receive legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.19 The Center for Immigration Studies reported that in 1999, the INS estimated that:

968,000 new illegal aliens settled in the United States

210,000 illegal aliens either died or returned home on their own

63,000 were removed (deported) by the INS

183,000 were given green cards as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.3

Table III (below) shows the results of applying INS estimates and thus assumes a generous estimate that 500,000 illegal aliens currently return home, are removed (deported), or receive legal status each year. Here, a projected average of between 2.8 and 7.1 illegal aliens are shown to be entering and staying annually.

It may be argued that Table III (below) contains inadequate adjustments—that since Table II presents total numbers significantly higher than official estimates, the number of illegals returning home must be increased accordingly. Although such an argument tends to contradict current information indicating that illegals are no longer returning home as they were in the past,9, 14 it is nevertheless interesting to see how the numbers play out under this argument.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table3.png

The following table shows the results of an overly generous assumption thatone-third of illegal aliens in the U.S. either return home or are legalized each year.

Table IV (below) shows a projected average of between 2.2 and 5.1 million illegal aliens entering and staying annually—a lower range than presented in Table III.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table4.png

Based on the results shown in Tables III and IV, it is reasonable to suggest that a medium-range figure of 12,000 illegal aliens enter the U.S. every day, or about 4 million per year. Indeed, Time magazine reports that along the 65-mile-long border of the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation with Mexico, up to 1,500 illegals are apprehended every day (with many more evading apprehension).22

Mortality of illegals is assumed not to significantly reduce these numbers. Although a certain number of illegals undoubtedly die each year, the overall mortality of the illegal alien population is presumed to be relatively low because of the young age (about 25 years of age34) of those entering the U.S. illegally. Thus, Census Bureau mortality data almost certainly do not correlate with illegal alien numbers, and therefore cannot be used as a proxy for those numbers.

Step 4: Estimate the total number of illegal aliens

Could there be 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. ?

In 2003, Georgia state Senator—and MALDEF national board member—Sam Zamarripa told the Georgia state senate that there were 20 million illegals in the U.S. at the time.8 This 20 million amounts to more than six percent of our current U.S. population (295 million in 2004) and is larger than the population of most states.

A January 3, 2005 Bear Stearns report, “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface,” sharply criticized Census Bureau estimates of the illegal alien population as being incomplete and inaccurate, and concluded that “The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.” 35

In other words, possibly one out of every 15 persons in the United States might well be an illegal alien.

Using traditional Department of Homeland Security estimates of 700,000 illegal aliens entering and staying each year, it would take 28.6 years to amass 20 million. If it is assumed that 1 million illegals enter and stay annually, then the time to amass 20 million would be 20 years.

Thus, even the relatively low official numbers lead us to conclude that we have quite possibly amassed nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the United States since the 1986 “amnesty to end all amnesties.” Table V shows the number of years it would take to amass 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table5.png

The higher yearly numbers in Table V reveal how quickly 20 million could be amassed. Based on the results of the analysis summarized in Table IV, it would take perhaps between four and nine years to amass 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. at the current rate of entry.

While immigration numbers fluctuate on a yearly basis, legal immigration into the U.S. since 1986 has increased steadily, and it is reasonable to assume that illegal immigration has correspondingly increased. Although the actual number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is not precisely known, it appears quite possible that 20 million or more illegals could be living within the U.S.

Considerations regarding illegal immigration numbers

Mexico ’s fertility and growth rate

How do the presumed 3 million to 4 million illegal aliens entering and staying in the U.S. each year compare to population growth in Mexico, the leading supplier of illegal aliens to the U.S.?

Population Reference Bureau mid-year data show that Mexico’s 2004 natural increase is 2.2 million and that actual 2003 to 2004 population increased by 1.3 million (1.2 percent).21 The difference is 0.9 million, representing the approximate legal emigration number into the United States. However, if Mexico alone is actually losing several million per year to U.S. emigration, then Mexico’s rate of natural increase (2.2 million) must be high enough so that the margin of births minus deaths yields the reported population increase of 1.3 million plus several million emigrants. This would require a high fertility rate to sustain such increases. Mexico’s 2004 fertility rate was only 2.8 births per woman, but it was significantly higher in the past: 5.4 in 1976 when the current generation of emigrants was first being born.23

This discrepancy could relate to the actual data source: the Mexican census. As stated by the Population Reference Bureau:

Mexico is a really thorny problem. It is a really bad problem—we don’t really know their Total Fertility Rate. It’s somewhere between 2.5 and three…. The (Mexican) Census was also a bit of a problem. They actually lied about the 1980 population.21

Unfortunately, due to the PRB’s methodology, it is not possible to calculate yearly population growth by direct comparison of one year’s total population to the next.21 Thus, Mexico’s true yearly population growth remains obscured.

Proportion of illegals from countries other than Mexico

Of course, not all illegal aliens come from Mexico. In 1997, the illegal alien population was 54 percent Mexican.24 The illegal alien population is currently 70 percent Mexican, with 30 percent coming from other countries.24 Latin America, including Mexico, is the source of 90 percent of illegal aliens entering into the United States.26 A 2004 Fox News article stated that “it is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as ‘OTMs’”—Other Than Mexicans.10

Time magazine reports that “from October 1 of last year until August 25, the Border Patrol estimates that it apprehended 55,890 OTMs”.22 This may represent a distinct undercount since the Border Patrol routinely sanitizes and underreports numbers of illegals.7, 18 It is therefore reasonable to assume that Other Than Mexicans account for at least several hundred thousand illegal entries annually.

Visa overstays contribute to illegal alien numbers

Many individuals from foreign countries are issued temporary work and student visas. Those who fail to return home after the visa expires become illegal aliens. Visa overstays account for a sizable number of illegal aliens in the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported in 1997 that:

There were 170,000 new overstayers each year between 1982–1992 and 181,000 between 1992 and 1996.

The number of new illegals who joined the illegal population by Entering Without Inspection (EWI) was 250,000 from 1982 to 1988 and 242,000 from 1988 to 1996.

41 percent of the illegal population are overstayers.24

The Government Accountability Office reported that significant numbers of foreign visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident overstay population as of January 2000 at 2.3 million, not including short-term overstays. It also omits what is described as “millions of potential long-term overstays from Mexico and Canada. A more recent Department of Homeland Security estimate placed the January 2000 resident overstay population at one-third of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million.24

Although correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it seems reasonable to presume a relatively modest 25 percent increase in illegal aliens starting January 15, 2004, through the rest of the year as a result of the “guest worker” proposal. This 25 percent is a conservative estimate of the increased flow of illegal aliens into the U.S. as a result of President Bush’s amnesty proposal.4 In fact, official Border Patrol apprehension statistics show that total 2004 apprehensions as of June 30, 2004 represent a 190-percent increaseover total 2003 apprehensions.6

Some of these apprehensions can be attributed to increased Border Patrol staffing levels, but since additional staffing has been only half of what was requested in 2004,11 it is logical to conclude that increased apprehensions have been due to increased illegal border crossings. Furthermore, recent Border Patrol directives have been issued, such as “sitting on X’s” (ordering Border Patrol agents to stay in a fixed location for an entire shift), in order tolower apprehensions and thereby sanitize publicized statistics.12 It also stands to reason that as larger numbers of illegals cross the border, more total numbers will evade apprehension. Thus, if apprehensions are reported to be increasing in the context of these factors, it is highly likely that total illegal entries as well as the total number evading apprehension are increasing in even larger proportions.

From the preceding sections, it can be estimated that approximately 3 million to 4 million illegal aliens entered in 2004 alone. If President Bush’s amnesty proposal had actually gone into law on January 7, 2004, those approximately 3 million would be greater than the total number “legalized” in the 1986“amnesty to end all amnesties.”29

President Bush’s 2004 Presidential opponent, John Kerry, stated that the president’s “legalization” plan did not go far enough and that he would offer legislation during the first hundred days of his administration that would offer not only amnesty, but a path to full, voting citizenship to the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. If this were to happen without securing our borders, or if President Bush and subsequent presidents continue to push for amnesty, the magnet of amnesty will draw an unending stream of high numbers of illegal aliens into our country.

Conclusion

Intentionally low, static, and misleading official government estimates claim that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and that 700,000 new illegals enter and stay every year. Based upon the analysis presented here, it is likely that up to 20 million illegal aliens presently reside in the United States, with up to 12,000 additional illegal aliens entering every day.

No one can say with certainty how many illegal aliens enter and reside in the United States because the precise data simply are not available. The methodology used in this analysis is presented as an alternative approach to estimating illegal alien numbers. Because it depends on factors that are not known with great accuracy, it produces a wider range of estimates than traditional estimates, but can be used to present another perspective on illegal immigration numbers.

Further analysis is certainly warranted. However, it is important to recognize the magnitude of the numbers in order to recognize the seriousness of the crisis and urgency for a return to the rule of law and secured borders that the United States Constitution demands. ■

References

1 Jerry Seper, “Ridge rapped for immigration views,” Washington Times(December 11, 2003):

“Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge’s suggestion that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States be ‘legalized’ drew harsh criticism yesterday from congressional and other opponents of such legalization.”

2 U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.Census.gov.

3 Center for Immigration Studies, http://www.CIS.org, including report on Illegal Immigration.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that in January of 2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number that is growing by half a million a year. Thus, the illegal-alien population in 2003 stands at least 8 million. Included in this estimate are approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror. It is important to note that the 500,000 annual increase is the net growth in the illegal-alien population (new illegal immigration minus deaths, legalizations, and out-migration). In 1999 for example, the INS estimates that 968,000 new illegal aliens settled in the U.S. This number was offset by 210,000 illegal aliens who either died or returned home on their own, 63,000 who were removed by the INS, and 183,000 illegal aliens who were given green cards as part of the normal “legal” immigration process. One of the most important findings of the INS report is the intimate link between legal and illegal immigration. The INS estimates that it gave out 1.5 million green cards to illegal aliens in the 1990s. This was not due to amnesty legislation, but rather reflects how the legal immigration process embraces illegal immigration and encourages it through legal exemptions. According to the INS, only 412,000 illegal aliens were removed during the decade.

The Census Bureau has also developed estimates of its own. Their estimate at the time of the 2000 Census suggests that the illegal immigration population was about 8 million. Using this number, it can be concluded that the illegal-alien population grew by almost half a million a year in the 1990s. This conclusion is derived from a draft report given to the House immigration subcommittee by the INS that estimated the illegal population was 3.5 million in 1990. For the illegal population to have reached 8 million by 2000, the net increase had to be 400,000 to 500,000 per year during the 1990s.

4 Stephen Dinan, “Bush ‘amnesty’ blamed for rise in illegals,” Washington Times (April 16, 2004).

5 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Letter from Sen. John McCain to citizen (February 10, 2004). (Arizona is a state with extremely high illegal numbers):

According to the U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, it is estimated that almost four million people crossed our borders illegally in 2002.

6 Telephone call, July 19, 2004, and July 27, 2004 from D.A. King (TheAmericanResistance) to Gloria Chavez, Border Patrol Spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and subsequent response by Patrol Agent Luis Gonzalez, assistant to Gloria Chavez. (See Table A in the appendix for on U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions.)

tsc_17_4_elbel_table6.png

7 Retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle, Illegal Entries (2004), ISBN 4-4140-4327-9. Available through AuthorHouse.com for $12.50 paperback; $4.50 electronic version. John Slagle has stated in correspondence that:

When it comes to illegal aliens, statistics can be maddening. The U.S. Border Patrol releases sanitized, low-number figures to the public by official information officers. There is no mention in these reports of illegal aliens from the Mid-east who are arrested, nor people apprehended from red list nations—that might alarm the public. Active duty agents I know state it’s all smoke and mirrors set up by D.C. plutocrats, resulting in frustration and low morale with the Border Patrol.

The official Border Patrol statistics are that one in five illegal aliens are apprehended and arrested. For agents on the line, they know better—it’s much higher,” e.g., one in ten.

8 Georgia State Senator Sam Zamarripa stated that there are 20 million illegals in the U.S. His comments were made on record to the Georgia Senate on April 17, 2003 in his remarks withdrawing his amendment to Senate Bill 191.

9 CNN Lou Dobbs segment (CNN, June 17, 2004):

Rep. Kolbe (R-AZ) testified that “155,000 people had been apprehended along the Arizona border in the first three months of this year,” and that one out of four or five are apprehended.

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) testified that he projected 2.4 million illegals entering in 2004—a figure based on the overly optimistic official one in four apprehension rate by the U.S. Border Patrol.

10 “Bush Amnesty Sparks Surge in Border Crossings,” (Fox News, February 19, 2004):

“… more than half of the Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S. through San Ysidro told authorities they were doing so to position themselves for the amnesty… ‘They believe that they are only responding to an invitation’… In the last several weeks, a staggering 90 percent of all illegal aliens intercepted in one sector in southern Texas claim they’ve come for the amnesty… ‘The agents were soon told to stop collecting this information.’

“Word of the 2000-mile wide open door between Mexico and the U.S. has spread far beyond Mexico. It is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as ‘OTMs.’”

11Susan Carroll and Daniel Gonzalez, “Border control initiative runs into troubles,” Tucson Citizen (June 3, 2004).

When Department of Homeland Security officials launched the Arizona Border Control Initiative in March, they said the agency planned to add 260 agents, four helicopters and two unmanned aerial drones, and expand detention space to hold illegal immigrants.

The effort was supposed to be in full swing by Tuesday. But more than half of the promised U.S. Border Patrol agents have not arrived, officials have scrapped plans to add tents for detained immigrants illegal aliens, and the drones remain on the ground…

Hutchinson said arrests of illegal immigrants in the state have increased to 3,000 daily from an average of about 2,000 a day since March.

12The new policy of sitting on X’s—ordering Border Patrol agents to stay in a fixed location for an entire shift—has been reported by CNN’s Lou Dobbs. Forward deployment has never worked, but is a method producing statistics showing that apprehensions are down. As a former Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Terry McCann stated in private correspondence:

“It’s all bullshit and politics. The number of people entering is massive, but by ordering Border Patrol agents to sit on predetermined sites all day and all night, there is visible presence, and arrests go down. Of course, the flood tide of illegal aliens ‘flank’ those positions right and left and with no one guarding the rear, the invasion is hardly slowed.”

13Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered Defense, Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives United States General Accounting Office, General Accounting Office, report GAO-04-82 (May, 2004).

14 Former Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Terry McCann stated in private correspondence:

“As the Chinese did during the last century, Mexicans have decided to stay. You are correct in your assessment that they send for their families. With regard to Border Patrol checkpoints, aliens simply walk around them and are later picked up by alien smugglers. Man power provided, the Patrol will position personnel to apprehend ‘walk around’ aliens.

Non immigrants aliens, after having been admitted as temporary agricultural workers, may seek employment in better paying jobs and thereby void the terms of their admissions. With such monetary gain why should they return to countries of their birth? Their intended destination may be another municipality to reside and work near their families.

The United States continues to make history; however, as per aliens illegally entering the United States, we are facing an onslaught far worse than that experienced by the ancient Roman Empire.”

15 Michael Maiello and Susan Kitchens, “Preying on Human Cargo,” Forbes(June 7, 2004).

16 Juan Mann, “It’s Official! Bush Betrayal Triggered Wave of Illegals” (VDARE.com, June 14, 2004.

The U.S. Border Patrol made 135,468 apprehensions along the southwest border during April 2004, an 80 percent increase when compared to April 2003.

17 Timothy Egan, “Border Desert Proves Deadly For Mexicans,” New York Times (May 23, 2004).

After a four year drop, apprehensions which the Border Patrol uses to measure human smuggling are up 30 per cent over last year along the entire southern border, with 660,000 people detained from Oct. 1, 2003 through the end of April, 2004

18 “Feds Undercount Illegal Aliens,” (NewsMax.com, March 16, 2001).

Northeastern University researchers Andrew Sum, Neeta Fogg and Paul Harrington have been researching for some time another anomaly. From 1994 to 2000, U.S. businesses reported creating 5.2 million more jobs than U.S. workers had been reporting obtaining. They believe this discrepancy largely stems from illegal aliens who wish to avoid coming to the government’s attention. This would suggest that the annual increase in illegal aliens is between 500,000 and 1 million. That would be about the same as the net number of legal immigrants each year…

The new estimates of illegal immigration have important implications for long-term population growth. Last year, the Census Bureau estimated that America’s population would grow to 571 million in 2100, with the number of Hispanics growing to 190 million. But these figures may now have to be looked at again…

19 “Estimate of Illegal Immigrant Population Rises” (National Center for Policy Analysis, October 25, 2001).

…the INS estimates that several hundred thousand illegals return home each year or receive legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process

20 D.A. King , “Could There Be Twenty Million Illegals in the U.S.?” (VDARE.com, August 7, 2004).

21 2003 and 2004 “ World Population Data Sheet” (Population Reference Bureau, 2003, 2004). See table 7, below.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table7_2.png

Definitions:

Rate of Natural Increase (RNI): “The birth rate minus the death rate, implying the annual rate of population growth without regard for migration. Expressed as a percentage.”
Total Fertility Rate (TFR): “The average number of children a woman would have assuming that current age-specific birth rates remain constant throughout her childbearing years (usually considered to be ages 15 to 49).”

The following statements from Carl Haub, author of the Population Reference Bureau World Population Data Sheets, were made on September 22, 2004 to Fred Elbel via telephone discussion. They are reprinted with permission:

“You can’t generally compare years between the Data Sheets. We recalculate the sheets each year. Thus, it is possible that they could show population declining in a country where it is known to be increasing.”

“Mexico is a really thorny problem. It is a really bad problem—we don’t really know their Total Fertility Rate. It’s somewhere between 2.5 and 3. Mexico has three agencies, chartered with different objectives (including reducing fertility) who report different rates… The (Mexican) Census was also a bit of a problem. They actually lied about the 1980 population.”

PRB uses the 2000 Mexican Census, projected to 2004 and including a net migration rate of -4.0 per 1,000. They estimate Mexico’s natural increase at 2.2 million.

Regarding the September 20, 2004 Time magazine article,22 “I can’t buy 3 million per year emigrating in total or from Mexico, especially on a net basis. In 10 years, that would be 30 million people. It must have been supplied by an anti-immigrant anti-immigration group.”

The U.S. Census does serious work on migration. They calculated Mexican migration at -4.2 per 1,000. You can find that on their website—it is very complete. Go to http://www.census.gov. Then select “I” from the “A-Z” selection. Then go to International and then to International database. View quick summary or detailed summary.

22 Laura Karmatz and Joan Levinstein, “Who Left the Door Open?,” Timemagazine (September 20, 2004).

The article states that 3 million illegal aliens each year enter into the United States. When questioned about this number, journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele replied in the October 25, 2004 issue:

Although the figure of 3 million illegal aliens is an estimate, it is based on government formulas and interviews with border-patrol agents and other law-enforcement authorities. Anderson’s reference in a letter toTime to 350,000 illegals comes from Census Bureau data, which are widely acknowledged to be seriously flawed.

23 Population—Mexico, World Encyclopedia.

24 Steven A. Camarota, “5 Million Illegal Immigrants: An Analysis of New INS Numbers,” Immigration Review #28 (Center for Immigration Studies, Spring 1997).

On February 7, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released its latest estimate for the size and growth of the illegal alien population in the United States, updating its 1994 report…

There were 170,000 new overstayers each year between 1982 and 1992 and 181,000 between 1992 and 1996. The number of new illegals who joined the illegal population by Entering Without Inspection (EWI) was 250,000 from 1982 to 1988 and 242,000 from 1988 to 1996.

The INS estimates that 41 percent of the illegal population are overstayers and 59 percent are EWIs. This is a change from the estimated 50-50 split in its previous study.

The illegal population is 54 percent Mexican.

25 INS: 7 million illegal immigrants in United States—Mexicans make up nearly 70 percent of total, figures show (CNN News, February 1, 2003).

26 John Price, “Tendencias—Latin America Market Report,” Info Americasnewsletter (June 2001).

The unprecedented growth of legal and illegal immigration to the US in the 1990s was dominated by flows from Latin America, which were the source of more than 70 percent of new legal immigrants and 90 percent of illegals. Mexico and Central America were the most important source countries.

27 “Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense,” Government Accounting [Accountability] Office (October 16, 2003).

Significant numbers of foreign visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident overstay population at 2.3 million as of January 2000. Because the starting point for this estimate is the 2000 census, it does not cover short-term overstays who have not established residence here. It also omits an unknown number of potential long-term overstays from Mexico and Canada.

A recent DHS estimate put the January 2000 resident overstay population at 1/3 of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million.

28 “2000 Census Shows that Illegal Alien Population Much Larger than Estimated by INS” (Federation for American Immigration Reform, February 6, 2001).

According to data from the 2000 Census, the size of the illegal alien population in the United States may be millions more than the estimates of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have acknowledged…

“The size and scope of the illegal immigrant problem in the United States is a national scandal in more ways than one,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The Northeastern study18 places the figure at nearly double any previous estimate of the size of the illegal population, indicating gross incompetence on the part of the government agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws. Equally as serious, if the Northeastern study proves to be accurate, it indicates a deliberate cover-up on the part of the government. It is inconceivable that official estimates could be that far off the mark unless someone was deliberately trying to mislead the American public,” charged Stein.

29 “U.S. Amnesties for Illegal Aliens” (www.NumbersUSA.com).

Census 2000 results indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with an estimated 8-11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States

According to INS estimates released in October, 2000, the amnesties granted in 1986 as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act significantly contributed to an increase in illegal immigration as the relatives of newly legalized illegal immigrants came illegally to the United States to join their family members.

Congress has passed 7 amnesties for illegal aliens, starting in 1986.
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty, 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

30 Social Security ‘Totalization’—Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico (Center for Immigration Studies, September 2004).

“Tidal wave of Mexican immigration. Indeed, the last decade saw an unprecedented number of Mexicans cross the U.S. border. Between 1990 and 2000, their number doubled—from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, or 30 percent of the entire foreign-born population in the United States. Within this number, unauthorized Mexicans grew by more than 100 percent—from 2 million to 4.8 million, or 69 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States.

While perhaps embarrassed that 10 percent of its people have fled Mexico to earn a decent living, President Vicente Fox’s administration has embraced this reality. In fact, increasing the number of Mexicans working in the United States is among its highest foreign policy objectives.”

31 Ben Winograd, “Crossing the Border, again and again and again,” Tucson Citizen (November 5, 2004).

“By comparing the totals of individuals to apprehensions, the figures show that the percentage of illegal immigrants who are caught more than once has risen in the past three years. In the Tucson sector during fiscal 2002, roughly 1 in 4 apprehensions was an immigrant arrested earlier in the year. By 2004, the number had grown to 1 in 3.… Despite the recent rise in recidivism, repeat crossers were more common five years ago.”

32 Charlie LeDuff, “Holidays Inspire a Rush to the Border,” New York Times(December 23, 2004).

33 Telephone conversation between Richard Humphries and Michael Nicely, Chief, Tucson Sector, U.S. Border Patrol (August/September, 2004).

Humphries: “Chief Nicely, your agents in the Tucson Sector are arresting more than 1,000 illegals every 24 hours and you and I both know that, for every one they apprehend, at least 3 get away.”

Nicely: “It’s more like 7, Mr. Humphries.”

34 E-mail from retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle (May 30, 2005):

“The average age we’ve seen and reported since 2002 in the Three Points Area [Arizona] has been late teens to late twenties, mostly males.”

35 Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface,” Bear Stearns (January 3, 2005):

“Though we cannot conduct an independent census of the United States population, as investors, we need not accept the accuracy of the official census immigration statistics, which are widely recognized as incomplete. There are many ancillary sources of data that provide evidence that the rate of growth in the immigrant population is much greater than the Census Bureau statistics. School enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits are some of the statistics that point to a far greater rate of change in the immigrant population than the census numbers. At the risk of appearing dogmatic or taking a leap of faith, we have applied the rate of growth from these other areas and have drawn several conclusions about the current immigration population:

1. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, almost double the official estimates of 11.1 million of the March 2005 Current Population Survey and 11.5 million–12 million by the Pew Hispanic Center (Fact Sheet, April 5, 2006).

2. The total number of legalized immigrants entering The United States since 1990 has averaged 962,000 per year. Several credible studies indicate that the number of illegal entries has recently crept up to 3 million per year, triple the authorized figure.

3. Undocumented immigrants are gaining a larger share of the job market, and hold approximately 12 to 15 million jobs in the United States (8 percent of the employed)…”

36 U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 (covering most of Arizona) stated on their website at http://www.local2544.org in July of 2005:

“There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you—don’t believe them for a second).”

About the author

Fred Elbel is a computer and political consultant. His career spans over 35 years in the computer industry in management, technical areas, financial, and consulting, in the United States and overseas. He has extensive experience in large-scale computer systems performance evaluation and capacity planning and has developed successful modeling application packages and methodologies. He has developed numerous environmental and immigration-related websites and regularly consults with nonprofit organizations on technical issues.

As an environmentalist, Elbel has spent considerable effort fighting to preserve Utah wilderness—particularly during the efforts of the 104th Congress to undermine wilderness designation. As a former director of SUSPS, he has worked for years to try to return the Sierra Club to a rational population policy that addressed mass immigration—the driving force behind U.S. population doubling this century.

Elbel was the media liaison for the original Minuteman Project in Arizona in 2005—the highly successful project that focused media attention from around the world on America’s porous borders. He is a former director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Elbel is co-chair of the Defend Colorado Now initiative effort that resulted in significant immigration reform legislation being signed into law in Colorado in 2006.

Tuesday, September 1
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Loras College Trump 25, Carson 18, Cruz 7, Walker 6, Fiorina 5, Bush 10, Rubio 4, Huckabee 4, Paul 2, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Jindal 1, Santorum 1, Perry 1, Graham 0 Trump +7
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Trump 29, Carson 15, Bush 9, Cruz 6, Rubio 7, Walker 5, Fiorina 8, Kasich 6, Huckabee 5, Christie 2, Paul 1, Santorum 2, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Pataki 0 Trump +14
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 55, Sanders 20, Biden, O’Malley 4, Webb 3, Chafee 1 Clinton +35
Monday, August 31
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Monmouth Trump 23, Carson 23, Cruz 9, Walker 7, Fiorina 10, Bush 5, Rubio 4, Huckabee 2, Paul 3, Kasich 4, Christie 1, Jindal 1, Santorum 2, Perry 1, Graham 0 Tie
Sunday, August 30
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus DM Register Trump 23, Carson 18, Cruz 8, Walker 8, Fiorina 5, Bush 6, Rubio 6, Huckabee 4, Paul 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Jindal 2, Santorum 1, Perry 1, Graham 0 Trump +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

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

Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly Proxy For Rupert Murdock and Open Borders For Illegal Aliens — Illegal Aliens Is A Wedge Issue — The Real Reason The Democratic Party and Republican Party Establishment Loath Donald Trump and The American Voters Like Trump — Videos

Posted on August 8, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Television, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Story 1: Donald Trump vs. Megyn Kelly Proxy For Rupert Murdock and Open Borders For Illegal Aliens — Illegal Aliens Is A Wedge Issue — The Real Reason The Democratic Party and Republican Party Establishment Loath Donald Trump and The American Voters Like Trump — Videos

Donald Trump On Megyn Kelly This Week Abc

Donald Trump Megyn Kelly ‘Blood Coming Out of Her | Donald Trump Interview CNN Don Lemon FULL

Donald Trump and Megyn Kelly go back and forth at the Fox News GOP debate

Donald Trump on Megyn Kelly: “There Was Blood Coming Out of Her Wherever”

Megyn Kelly Interviews Donald Trump Prior to Presidential Republican Debate and Announcing Run

Megyn Kelly – Donald Trump’s border trip ignites immigration debate

Mark Levin Goes Off on Fox, Megyn Kelly over Debate: They Had ‘Ratings Agenda’

Glenn’s Response to Trump’s “Bimbo” Megyn Kelly Tweet | “Glenn Beck Radio Program”

Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Laura Ingraham: “Trump Isn’t the Problem With Republican Brand”

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

Scathing Immigration Report – Illegal Immigration Laura Ingraham Weighs In – O’Reilly

Ted Cruz – Laura Ingraham Show – July 7, 2015

Rupert Murdoch Breaks From Fox News, Denounces Trump’s Racist Comments About Mexican Immigrants

Donald Trump V. Megyn Kelly…

Conservatives grapple with surprise Trump snub

Michael Pemberton, a 65-year-old conservative from Kentucky, started the day in a good mood. He was attending his second RedState Gathering, and ready to hear from 10 of the Republican Party’s presidential candidates. He dug into breakfast — coffee and fruit — and sat down with another conference-goer.

“One of the chaps across me asked, ‘Did you hear the news?'” recalled Pemberton. “I thought he was going to tell me that a sinkhole opened up in Kentucky and I couldn’t go again. But no: He said, they disinvited Donald Trump. I lost my appetite.”

The TV news confirmed it. RedState’s outgoing editor-in-chief, Erick Erickson, made an 11th hour call to disinvite Trump after the GOP presidential front-runner told CNN that Fox News’s Megyn Kelly had “blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” when she grilled him during Thursday’s presidential debate.

[Erickson: Trump’s words about Kelly simply went too far]

Pemberton grabbed a sharpie and a note card and scrawled out “I AM DONALD TRUMP.” He affixed it to his jacket with an American flag pin and grudgingly walked into the conference, determined never to come again.

More than 700 activists had signed up for the gathering, and up to a thousand of them had been expected to join Trump at a Saturday night party at the College Football Hall of Fame. On Saturday morning, the reaction to Trump’s exclusion was mixed — and distracting. Annoyance at what seemed to be a politically correct purge competed with annoyance at Trump himself.

“It was really inappropriate to attack Megyn Kelly,” said Richard Fonte, 70, an activist who split his time between Texas and Illinois, and strongly supported Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wis.) for president. “That and the fact that he’s taking the position that he might run as a third party — that would automatically elect Hillary Clinton.”

Fonte’s wife, Dulsey, 68, was even happier to see Trump gone: “I find him crude,” she said. “I have no sympathy for his candidacy.”

5 times Donald Trump has insulted women(2:08)
During the first GOP presidential debate, Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly asked Donald Trump about his insulting remarks toward women over the years. Here are five examples, from Rosie O’Donnell to Brande Roderick. (The Washington Post)

Those sentiments had been burbling up on the right, but even 12 hours earlier, Trump’s Republican critics had started to soften their tone, and say that the billionaire candidate had tapped into a well of legitimate voter anger. Saturday’s burst of anger at Trump was jarring; not everyone at the conference could agree what Trump had even said. Was he making a crude joke about menstruation or wasn’t he?

“It’s wrong to exclude him and insult him on what people interpret he said as opposed to what he said,” said Pemberton. “He was saying that Megyn was seeing blood, in her eyes. As far as ‘blood coming out all over,’ the first thing I think of is not a woman’s menstrual cycle. I think of Jesus Christ, thorns on his head, nail holes in his hands, stigmata.”

In an interview with The Washington Post’s Robert Costa, Erickson defended his Trump snub by attacking the overall tone of the candidate’s post-debate rants. The CNN “blood” interview came after a series of jabs at Kelly, which started in the spin room behind the debate stage. To Erickson, it all sounded sexist and dismissive. “I’m not going to have a guy on stage with my wife and daughter in the crowd who thinks a tough question from a woman is because of hormones,” he said.

In a Saturday morning tweet, Trump clarified, saying he was talking about blood coming from her nose. (His campaign had failed to convey this to Erickson.)

His campaign later released a statement, credited to Trump, that ripped into the RedState editor-in-chief personally.

“The guy (Erick Erickson) who made the decision about RedState called Supreme Court Justice David Souter a ‘goat [expletive] child molester’ and First Lady Michelle Obama a ‘Marxist Harpy,'” Trump said. “He was forced to make a humbling apology. Also, not only is Erick a total loser, he has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns so it is an honor to be uninvited from his event.”

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, who opened Saturday’s session of the Gathering, found himself pulled into the Trump frenzy. He did not mention Trump in his speech, nor did Erickson ask any questions about the candidate or his remarks. Yet when Huckabee walked into a short news conference, he hit a wall of Trump queries.

“Rather than say something about the criticism, I’ll tell you there’s not a more professional, more savvy, and more brilliant person in television today than Megyn Kelly,” Huckabee insisted.

He refused to speak on Trump’s behalf. He rejected a question about whether the Trump outrage fed into Democratic accusations that the GOP waged a “war” on women.

“The Republican Party is not engaged in a war on women,” said Huckabee. “The Republican Party is not engaged in saying things about Megyn Kelly. One individual is. I’m a Republican. I’ve been one since a teenager. I think what I say about Megyn Kelly has more gravity.”

It sounded as though Huckabee was attacking Trump, until he got a question about whether the tycoon was too “thin-skinned” to be president.

“I don’t know what his skin looks like,” said Huckabee. “I haven’t been that close. Do we have another non-Donald Trump question?”

A few reporters obliged, asking Huckabee about gay marriage, abortion, and the upcoming block of Southern Republican contests that have become known as the “SEC primary.” Then came another Trump question.

“I’m running for president,” said Huckabee. “I’m not running to be the social media critic of someone else who’s running for president. You guys can ask him all day. Talk to me about issues. Talk to me about my tax plan. Talk to me about Iran. There’s plenty of people who can talk about Donald Trump. I’m the only one who can talk about Mike Huckabee running for president.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/08/conservatives-grapple-with-surprise-trump-snub/

 

Banned Donald Trump says: I was talking about Megyn Kelly’s NOSE! Tycoon declares war on ‘politically correct fools’ who kicked him out of GOP conference for his ‘sexist’ attack on Fox host

  • Trump made remarks about Kelly in a CNN interview over GOP debate
  • Frontrunner declared there ‘was blood coming out of her… wherever’
  • Comment was widely interpreted as reference to the menstrual cycle
  • Blogger Eric Erickson banned Trump from major RedState gathering
  • The high-profile event is taking place in Atlanta, Georgia, on Saturday 
  • But now, Trump has lashed out, calling critics ‘politically correct fools’
  • He claimed on Twitter that he was referring to blood from Kelly’s nose
  • His campaign said in release: ‘Only a deviant would think anything else’ 
  • It called Erickson ‘pathetic’ and said being disinvited was an ‘honor’

Donald Trump has publicly lashed out after he was banned from one of the biggest gatherings of conservative activists over controversial comments he made about Fox News host Megyn Kelly.

In an interview with CNN on Friday, the GOP frontrunner appeared to imply that Kelly ‘unfairly’ grilled him about his history of insulting women during a televised debate because she was menstruating.

He remarked that there ‘was blood coming out of her… wherever’, sparking outrage and causing RedState’s Erick Erickson to boot him off the line-up of the high-profile event in Georgia.

On Saturday, Trump took to Twitter to hit back at his critics, writing: ‘So many “politically correct” fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!’

In a later post on Saturday morning, the 2016 presidential candidate added that his remarks about Kelly were not made in reference to her menstrual cycle – but to the host’s nose.

Scroll down for video 

Donald Trump (pictured) has lashed out at critics after he was banned from one of the biggest gatherings of conservative activists over comments he made about Fox News host Megyn Kelly

Kelly is pictured

Donald Trump taking part in Thursday’s GOP debate, hosted by Fox News’s Megyn Kelly (right). A day later Trump lashed out at the way Kelly had questioned him about his history of insulting women. He said on Friday: ‘You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever’

In a tweet on Saturday morning, the Republican frontrunner hit back with the tweet: 'So many "politically correct" fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!'

In a tweet on Saturday morning, the Republican frontrunner hit back with the tweet: ‘So many “politically correct” fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!’

He also rejected claims that he had been referring to Kelly's menstrual cycle during his interview with CNN, saying that his quote - [there] was blood coming out of her... wherever' - was actually referring to her nose

He also rejected claims that he had been referring to Kelly’s menstrual cycle during his interview with CNN, saying that his quote – [there] was blood coming out of her… wherever’ – was actually referring to her nose

Then in a tweet to RedState, he said: 'I miss you all, and thanks for all of your support. Political correctness is killing our country. "weakness"'

Then in a tweet to RedState, he said: ‘I miss you all, and thanks for all of your support. Political correctness is killing our country. “weakness”‘

Trump on CNN: ‘There was blood coming out of her… wherever’

‘Re. Megyn Kelly quote: “you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever” (NOSE). Just got on w/thought,’ he tweeted his 3.58million followers.

Trump had taken umbrage to the way Kelly questioned him during Thursday night’s televised debate involving GOP candidates – which was watched by a record 24million viewers.

On Saturday, he also wrote a public message to RedState’s official Twitter page, saying: ‘I miss you all, and thanks for all of your support. Political correctness is killing our country. “weakness”.’

A Trump campaign spokesman said that the controversy is ‘just another example of weakness through being politically correct’ – and Trump will now go elsewhere to spread his message.

‘For all of the people who were looking forward to Mr Trump coming, we will miss you,’ the spokesman told Daily Mail Online on Saturday. ‘Blame Erick Erickson, your weak and pathetic leader. We’ll now be doing another campaign stop at another location.

Meanwhile, a campaign press release sent to Daily Mail Online describes how Trump made Kelly look ‘really bad’ in the GOP debate, saying: ‘She was a mess with her anger and totally caught off guard.’

It continues: ‘Mr Trump said “blood was coming out of her eyes and whatever” meaning nose, but wanted to move on to more important topics. Only a deviant would think anything else.

The release also deems Erickson a ‘total loser’ who ‘has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns’. Therefore, it ‘is an honor to be uninvited from his event’, it reads.

It even goes so far as to mention a tweet posted by Erickson in 2009, in which the conservative blogger allegedly described Supreme Court Justice David Souter as a ‘goat f***ing child molester’.

And it cites Erickson’s former description of First Lady Michelle Obama as a ‘Marxist harpy wife’.

Erickson has since apologized for both remarks. Daily Mail Online has reached out to his communications team for comment following the release of Trump’s campaign statement.

Throughout Saturday, Kelly, who previously hosted America Live, appeared to be resisting temptation to fight back against Trump’s continued outbursts, remaining silent on social media.

Frontrunner: Trump participates in the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday

Frontrunner: Trump participates in the first Republican presidential debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on Thursday

Moderators: During the televised debate, Kelly, center, asked candidates questions along with Fox hosts Chris Wallace (left) and Bret Baier (right). Trump also attacked Wallace, but much more mildly than Kelly

Moderators: During the televised debate, Kelly, center, asked candidates questions along with Fox hosts Chris Wallace (left) and Bret Baier (right). Trump also attacked Wallace, but much more mildly than Kelly

Jibe: Trump reposted this message from a supporter, which brands Kelly a 'bimbo', to his 3.58m followers

Jibe: Trump reposted this message from a supporter, which brands Kelly a ‘bimbo’, to his 3.58m followers

Outrage: Trump's comments sparked a storm of outrage that led to RedState's Erick Erickson booting him from the high-profile Georgia event's Saturday line-up. Above, Erickson tweeted this post on Friday night

Outrage: Trump’s comments sparked a storm of outrage that led to RedState’s Erick Erickson booting him from the high-profile Georgia event’s Saturday line-up. Above, Erickson tweeted this post on Friday night

She is due to appear on MediaBuzz with Howard Kurtz at 11am on Sunday, a Fox spokesman pointed out. The interview was apparently filmed in advance on Friday night and discusses Trump’s remarks.

On Friday night, Erickson declared that ‘there are just real lines of decency a person running for President should not [cross]’ and that Trump’s comments about Kelly had been ‘inappropriate’.

‘It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong,’ he said.

And on Saturday, Erickson noted on stage – as he kicked off the second full day of the RedState conference – that Trump’s rescinded invitation would likely serve as a distraction for speakers.

TRUMP CAMPAIGN STATEMENT ON THE MEGYN KELLY CONTROVERSY

‘Mr Trump made Megyn Kelly look really bad – she was a mess with her anger and totally caught off guard.

‘Mr Trump said “blood was coming out of her eyes and whatever” meaning nose, but wanted to move on to more important topics. 

‘Only a deviant would think anything else.

‘This related to the debate, which because of Mr Trump had 24 million viewers – the biggest in cable news history. 

‘According to TIME, Newsmax, Drudge Report, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Hill and many others, Mr Trump won the debate.

‘By the way, the guy (Erick Erickson) who made the decision about RedState called Supreme Court Justice David Souter a “goat [expletive] child molester” and First Lady Michelle Obama a “Marxist Harpy.”

‘He was forced to make a humbling apology.

‘Also, not only is Erick a total loser, he has a history of supporting establishment losers in failed campaigns so it is an honor to be uninvited from his event. Mr Trump is an outsider and does not fit his agenda.

‘Many of the 900 people that wanted to hear Mr Trump speak tonight have been calling and emailing – they are very angry at Erickson and the others that are trying to be so politically correct. 

‘To them Mr Trump says, “We will catch you at another time soon.”‘

He urged the audience and the media at the Atlanta-based gathering to keep their questions to the morning’s keynote guest, presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, and his plans for America.

But despite his request, there was only one topic on most reporters’ minds at Huckabee’s press conference: Trump.

Huckabee avoided commenting directly on Trump’s explosive comments about Kelly – his former Fox News colleague – while praising her journalistic standards and professionalism.

Kelly, he said, is one of the ‘most beloved people in the building’ at Fox.

‘She is also one of those people you don’t tangle with,’ he said.

He described her as a tough, ‘hands-on’ journalist, who is passionate about her job.

‘It doesn’t matter who you are, she’s gonna try to get to the story,’ he said. ‘And I respect her for that. And she has pressed me hard on many things. That’s fine. That’s what she’s supposed to do. And that’s why she is a successful journalist. She deserves it. She’s earned it.

‘So rather than say something about the criticism, I’ll tell you that there’s not a more professional, a more savvy and more brilliant person in television today than Megyn Kelly.’

During the exchange that incited the all-out assault on Kelly from Trump, the host had asked Trump if his comments about the opposite sex fed into liberals’ claims that the Republican Party is engaged on a ‘War on Women.

But at Saturday’s press conference, Huckabee defended his party from the line of attack, saying: ‘The Republican Party is not engaged in a “War on Women”.

‘The Republican Party is not engaged in saying things about Megyn Kelly.

‘One individual is. I’m telling you what I say about a woman, and I think she’s one of the most remarkable people I know.’

He then took an unprompted swipe at Trump over his evolving views on the issues (the GOP frontrunner has changed his party affiliation multiple times throughout his life).

‘I think what I say about Megyn Kelly probably has more gravity than what anyone else says about Megyn Kelly, not only because I have known and worked with her, but I’ve been a Republican long enough to understand what it takes to be a Republican,’ he said.

And while he wouldn’t take the bait to take a KO shot at Trump, he distanced himself from the candidate’s derogatory remarks about women. ‘I certainly wouldn’t say them,’ Huckabee said.

Asked if Trump should apologize to the media maven, he added: ‘I’ll have to leave that up to him.’

Major conference: Erickson kicks off the second full day of the RedState gathering in Atlanta on Saturday

Major conference: Erickson kicks off the second full day of the RedState gathering in Atlanta on Saturday

Erick Erickson's Twitter response after he disinvited Trump and invited Megyn instead to the RedState event

Erick Erickson’s Twitter response after he disinvited Trump and invited Megyn instead to the RedState event

However, at one point, Huckabee appeared to lose his cool, snapping at a reporter who had asked him why he was declining to criticize Trump’s blatant remarks about Kelly during the GOP debate.

The former Governor of Arkansas cut off the reporter, saying: ‘I didn’t in anyway support them, and I haven’t declined to criticize them… I’m running for president.

‘I’m not running for the social media critic for somebody else who’s running for president.

‘You guys can ask him all day, talk to me about issues,’ he added, listing off some topics he felt were fair game such as his tax plan or the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran.

He finished: ‘I’m running for president, not to evaluate one of the other 16 people, or 323 people running for president. So, there’s plenty of people who can talk about Donald Trump.

‘I’m the only person who can talk about what Mike Huckabee’s doing, running for president.’

So many ‘politically correct’ fools in our country. We have to all get back to work and stop wasting time and energy on nonsense!
Donald Trump, Twitter

Texas Senator Ted Cruz was likewise bombarded with questions about Trump’s spat with Kelly at an early-afternoon news conference following his own speech at the conservative gathering.

‘I think every candidate should treat everyone else with civility and respect, that’s the standard I try to follow as a senator,’ he told a reporter looking for a reaction to Trump’s comments about Kelly.

He also refused to weigh in on conference organizers’ decision to disinvite Trump.

‘Well, I think that’s a decision for RedState to make,’ he said.

Cruz spent much of the gaggle filibustering as reporters shouted over each other to ask him questions about Trump, diving into a long statement on the crimes against Americans of Iranian General Qassem Suleimani.

‘We’re not going to solve the problems of this country, we’re not going to defeat the Washington cartel, by obsessing over, the politics of personality,’ he said.

‘This is about real challenges facing the American people. This is about bankrupting our kids and grandkids, defending the bill of rights, and restoring America’s leadership in the world. That’s where my focus has been, and it’s where I intend to keep it.’

He finally commented on the drama with Kelly, but never mentioned Trump by name.

‘I think Megyn Kelly is a terrific journalist,’ he said, ‘and I think she does a great job. I think she did a very good job moderating the debate.’ Continuing, he said, ‘I’m not going to engage in a back and forth on personalities,’ as he tried to get reporters to write about something ‘infinitely more important that the momentary bickering between different political’ candidates – Suleimani.

Keynote guest: Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaking at the RedState Gathering on Saturday

Keynote guest: Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee speaking at the RedState Gathering on Saturday

Huckabee shakes hands with Erickson as he steps on to the stage to talk about his plans for America

Huckabee shakes hands with Erickson as he steps on to the stage to talk about his plans for America

'She was a mess with her anger': Trump's press office sent this release to Daily Mail Online on Saturday

‘She was a mess with her anger’: Trump’s press office sent this release to Daily Mail Online on Saturday

Before leaving the room, Cruz did take a question on charges that Trump’s disparaging comments toward women were playing right into the hands of Democrats’ ‘War on Women’ attacks on the Republicans.

‘You know I’ve gotta say you’re exactly right that women across this country are deeply dismayed with the direction this country goes,’ he said, noting that as the father of two little girls, he cares ‘very much’ about not only them, but women in America.

That millions of women are in poverty, their median wages stagnate, and single moms are struggling to feed their children, ‘that is the war on women,’ Cruz said.

‘And I look forward to getting back to the sort of environment where small businesses are prospering, and women have every opportunity to achieve their hopes and dreams,’ he added.

Trump’s remarks about Kelly during Friday night’s CNN interview were the latest in a series of upsets in which the politician has turned on female targets.

Following the interview, Trump was attacked by Carly Fiornia, the only woman in the GOP field, who tweeted: ‘Mr. Trump: There. Is. No. Excuse.’ and ‘I stand with Megyn Kelly.’

The latter tweet – and its accompanying hashtag #istandwithmeg – have since gone viral.

And on Saturday, Governor Rick Perry said in a statement to Daily Mail Online that Trump ‘has proven once again that he doesn’t have the temperament to hold our nation’s highest office.’

Questions: Texas Senator Ted Cruz (seen at RedState on Saturday) was bombarded with questions about Trump’s spat with Kelly at an early-afternoon news conference following his  speech at the major gathering

Questions: Texas Senator Ted Cruz (seen at RedState on Saturday) was bombarded with questions about Trump’s spat with Kelly at an early-afternoon news conference following his speech at the major gathering

Supporters: Cruz, right, has his photo taken with Betsy Shaw Kramer, from Georgia, following his speech

Supporters: Cruz, right, has his photo taken with Betsy Shaw Kramer, from Georgia, following his speech

‘Attacking veterans, Hispanics and women demonstrates a serious lack of character and basic decency, and his comments distract from the serious issues facing our country,’ Perry said.

In Friday’s CNN exchange Trump roundly attacked Kelly, saying: ‘I don’t have a lot of respect for Megyn Kelly, she came out, reading her little script, trying to be tough and sharp.

‘When you meet her you realize she is not very tough or very sharp. She is zippo.’

When Lemon asked him to expand, he said: ‘I just don’t respect her as a journalist. I have no respect for her, I don’t think she’s very good. She’s highly overrated.

‘I got out there they start saying all this stuff… she gets out and she starts asking me all sorts of ridiculous questions. You could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, blood coming out of her wherever… you could see she was off-base.’

‘It is unfortunate to have to disinvite him. But I just don’t want someone on stage who gets a hostile question from a lady and his first inclination is to imply it was hormonal. It just was wrong
Erick Erickson

He concluded: ‘She’s a lightweight, I couldn’t care less about her’. Some commentators online criticized Lemon for not asking Trump to explain himself.

However, the disparaging remarks did irk some influential Republicans, including Erickson, who runs the RedState political website.

Trump was due to appear at a special three-and-a-half-hour ‘tailgate’ towards the end of Erickson’s RedState gathering in Atlanta – but was booted from the lineup close to midnight on Friday.

In a response to the blackballing, Trump’s campaign called him ‘weak’, ‘pathetic’ and said they would organize another event.

Most of his rivals, including Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, Chris Christie and Marco Rubio will be there.

Kelly was asked to fill in for Trump.

In an interview with the Guardian, Erickson said that he thought Trump’s remarks were so objectionable that he has effectively ‘disqualified himself’ from the race.

He added that the dispute would be ‘the beginning of the end’ of Trump’s campaign.

Trump’s dispute with Kelly began with a tense exchange on Thursday night’s Republican contenders’ debate, where he appeared onstage with other 2016 candidates.

These included Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, Rand Paul and Scott Walker.

The scrap began after Kelly tried to force Trump to address his history of insulting women, whom he has previously called ‘pigs’ and ‘disgusting animals’.

Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham, who are also hoping to become the Republican presidential candidate, posted tweets against Trump on saturday

Carly Fiorina and Lindsey Graham, who are also hoping to become the Republican presidential candidate, posted tweets against Trump on saturday

Donald Trump arrives for the GOP presidential debate

She said: ‘You’ve called women you don’t like “fat pigs, dogs, slobs, and disgusting animals…’

‘Only Rosie O’Donnell’, Trump intervened, before Kelly could finish speaking.

She continued: ‘No, it wasn’t… Your Twitter account has several disparaging comments about women’s looks.

‘You once told a contestant on Celebrity Apprentice it would be a pretty picture to see her on her knees. Does that sound to you like the temperament of a man we should elect as president?’

Trump attempted to laugh the question off, and said he doesn’t ‘have time for total political correctness’.

He also characterized the insults as ‘fun’ and ‘kidding’ before adding that he’d be ‘very nice’ to Kelly – but could turn on her.

In a later question she confronted him again, this time with past remarks where he’d said he was a Democrat and pro-choice – before asking ‘when did you actually become a Republican?’

Trump began attacking her almost immediately after the debates.

According to the Washington Post, Trump hit out at Kelly immediately in the so-called ‘spin room’ where reporters gather after the contest.

He said: ‘The questions to me were not nice. I didn’t think they were appropriate. And I thought Megyn behaved very badly, personally’.

Donald Trump spoke for the longest period of time at the GOP debate, taking up 10 minutes and 32 seconds

Donald Trump spoke for the longest period of time at the GOP debate, taking up 10 minutes and 32 seconds

Trump has since threatened to boycott future Fox debates after being treated ‘unfairly’.

He later continued the backlash on social media, repeating a comment by one supporter that branded Kelly a ‘bimbo’. He also asserted that she ‘really bombed’.

Kelly has yet to address the remarks, although she did post messages on her Twitter account noting the debate’s record viewership of 24million people, as confirmed by Nielsen data.

On Saturday, Marcy Stec, the communications director of EMILY’s List – a political action committee that was founded in 1985 and aims to help elect pro-choice Democratic female candidates to office – said that Trump and Erickson are ‘just symptoms of a larger problem’.

‘At its core, the ideology that Republican Party policies are grounded in is a fundamental distrust of women. Republicans have shown us time and time again: They don’t trust women,’ she said.

‘They don’t respect women. They don’t understand women. And even more importantly, they don’t want to… Republicans are simply unfit to address the challenges faced by women in this country.’

She added: ‘Today’s outrage over extreme rhetoric is justified – but tomorrow we’re still going to be stuck with a field of candidates whose collective agenda threatens the health and well-being of women and families. And that is truly outrageous.’

‘SHE’S DISGUSTING’: A HISTORY OF TRUMP INSULTING WOMEN

'If someone screws you, screw them back': Trump (seen on Thursday) has a track record of lobbing insults at those he feels have treated him unfairly

‘If someone screws you, screw them back’: Trump (seen on Thursday) has a track record of lobbing insults at those he feels have treated him unfairly

Trump has a track record of lobbing insults at those he feels have treated him unfairly, and advises those who buy his books to do the same.

‘For many years I’ve said that if someone screws you, screw them back,’ he wrote in Trump: How to Get Rich. ;’When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.;

When doing so, he has repeatedly targeted women and their physical appearance.

‘Rosie O’Donnell’s disgusting, I mean both inside and out. You take a look at her, she’s a slob. She talks like a truck driver,; he said in 2006 during an interview with Entertainment Tonight. ‘I’d look her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say, “Rosie, you’re fired” from her television show, The View.

During the debate, Trump acknowledged making such comments — but only about O’Donnell.

When Kelly said Trump’s comments had gone beyond O’Donnell and asked about his use of such insults on Twitter, Trump replied that he didn’t ‘have time for total political correctness’.

A review of Trump’s writings, televised interviews and Twitter feed show he’s long used harsh language to describe women – and occasionally men.

In tweets sent last year, Trump called Huffington Post editor Arianna Huffington ‘a dog who wrongfully comments on me’ and said she is ‘ugly both inside and out!’

In 2012, Trump wrote on Twitter of singer Bette Midler: ‘But whenever she sees me, she kisses my ass. She’s disgusting.’

Trump has also said the same of men. ‘Little @MacMiller, I’m now going to teach you a big boy lesson about lawsuits and finance. You ungrateful dog!’ he tweeted in 2013 at a rapper who wrote a song titled Donald Trump.

And to former U.S. Rep. Barney Frank in 2011: ‘Barney Frank looked disgusting – nipples protruding – in his blue shirt before Congress. Very very disrespectful.’

During the debate, Kelly also referenced a boardroom scene from Trump’s NBC’s realty show, Celebrity Apprentice, in which Trump was told by one contestant that a female teammate had gotten down on her knees to beg.

‘That must be a pretty picture, you dropping to your knees,’ Trump said in response.

In the book, Trump declared that ‘All the women on The Apprentice flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.’

And he had this to say about women’s victories on the show: ‘It’s certainly not groundbreaking news that the early victories by the women on The Apprentice were, to a very large extent, dependent on their sex appeal’.

On some occasions Trump appears to have recognized he’s gone too far. In April, he retweeted, then deleted, a tweet that read ‘If Hillary Clinton can’t satisfy her husband what makes her think she can satisfy America?’

Fiorina Fundraising Spikes after Debate

by JOEL GEHRKE August 9, 2015

Claiming a spike in fundraising since Thursday night’s debate, Carly Fiorina threw a punch at Donald Trump while also making an appeal to voters currently inclined to support him.

“We certainly have seen an uptick in financial support. We’ve seen an uptick in support generally and so, it’s very exciting,” Fiorina told Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. “We’re going to talk to as many people as we can through every medium there is. I will continue to do what I’ve done from day one. I will answer any question. I will talk to anyone. I’m not afraid to talk about anything.The more people get to know me, the more people support me. So, that’s what we’re going to keep doing.”

NBC conducted an online survey that suggests Fiorina and Senator Ted Cruz (R., Texas) were the two candidates who gained the most support from their debate performances, although Trump still led the field. “22 percent said Fiorina won or had the best performance in the debate, followed by 18 percent who said Trump had the best performance,” per MSNBC. “However, another 29 percent said Trump did the worst in the debate, clearly showing how polarizing he is. When the candidates’ negative performance percentages are subtracted from their positive percentages, Fiorina notched a positive 20, whereas Trump scored a negative 11.”

Trump insulted Fiorina on Sunday following her defense of Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, who asked the real estate mogul and reality TV star if he could defend making derogatory comments about women. “I just realized that if you listen to Carly Fiorina for more than ten minutes straight, you develop a massive headache. She has zero chance!” Trump tweeted.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422295/fiorina-fundraising-spikes-after-debate-joel-gehrke

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

President Obama on Iran Nuclear Deal at American University, August 5, 2015 — Videos

Posted on August 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, British History, Chemistry, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, history, Islam, Islam, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Religion, Religious, Resources, Science, Security, Shite, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Technology, Television, Terrorism, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

President Obama FULL SPEECH on Iran Nuclear Deal – “Rejecting Iran nuclear deal is a vote for war”

President Obama Iran Nuclear Deal Press Conference July 15, 2015 [FULL]

Iran nuclear news -nuclear disasters! Netanyahu Iran nuke deal – see now!

PM Netanyahu – Why We Must Oppose the Iran Deal

The Iran Nuclear Deal

Is the nuclear agreement between the United States and Iran a good or bad deal? Would it be harder or easier for Iran to develop nuclear weapons? Would it make Iran and its terror proxies stronger or weaker? Should the U.S. Congress support or defeat the deal? Dennis Prager answers these questions and more.

Top three political realities of the Iran nuclear deal

Eric Shawn Reports: The Iran Deal’s details

Senate Hearing on Iran Nuclear Deal

House Hearing on Iran Nuclear Deal

Will the Iran nuclear agreement work?

Ted Cruz: Iran Deal a ‘Catastrophic Mistake’ (July 15, 2015) | Charlie Rose

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) questions on Iran Nuclear Deal (C-SPAN)

Sen. Ted Cruz: Any president worth his salt would overturn Iran deal

Donald Trump on nuke deal: They are laughing at us in Iran

Federal Prosecutor: Obama’s Iran Nuke Deal Clearly Treason

Mark Levin gives his commentary regarding the hearing on Iran nuclear deal (audio from 07-29-2015)

Mark Levin: Barack Obama has planted the seeds for World War III (audio from 07-14-2015)

The Savage Nation- Michael Savage- Wed, August 5, 2015 (1st Hour)

The Godfather – Sollozzo Known As The Turk 4/10 (HD)

The Godfather – Michael shoots Sollozzo and McCluskey

Godfather-Meeting of the five families

Iran Nuclear Agreement: The Administration’s Case

Full text: Obama gives a speech about the Iran nuclear deal

President Obama is continuing his push for the Iran nuclear deal, giving a speech at American University. Here is a complete transcript of his remarks.

OBAMA: Thank you.

(APPLAUSE)

Thank you so much. Thank you. Everybody, please have a seat. Thank you very much.

I apologize for the slight delay; even presidents have a problem with toner.

(LAUGHTER)

It is a great honor to be back at American University, which has prepared generations of young people for service and public life.

I want to thank President Kerwin and the American University family for hosting us here today.

Fifty-two years ago, President Kennedy, at the height of the Cold War, addressed this same university on the subject of peace. The Berlin Wall had just been built. The Soviet Union had tested the most powerful weapons ever developed. China was on the verge of acquiring the nuclear bomb. Less than 20 years after the end of World War II, the prospect of nuclear war was all too real.

With all of the threats that we face today, it is hard to appreciate how much more dangerous the world was at that time. In light of these mounting threats, a number of strategists here in the United States argued we had to take military action against the Soviets, to hasten what they saw as inevitable confrontation. But the young president offered a different vision.

OBAMA: Strength, in his view, included powerful armed forces and a willingness to stand up for our values around the world. But he rejected the prevailing attitude among some foreign-policy circles that equated security with a perpetual war footing.

Instead, he promised strong, principled American leadership on behalf of what he called a practical and attainable peace, a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature, but on a gradual evolution in human institutions, on a series of concrete actions and effective agreements.

Such wisdom would help guide our ship of state through some of the most perilous moments in human history. With Kennedy at the helm, the Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved peacefully.
Under Democratic and Republican presidents, new agreements were forged: A nonproliferation treaty that prohibited nations from acquiring nuclear weapons, while allowing them to access peaceful nuclear energy, the SALT and START treaties, which bound the United States and the Soviet Union to cooperation on arms control.

Not every conflict was averted, but the world avoided nuclear catastrophe, and we created the time and the space to win the Cold War without firing a shot at the Soviets.

The agreement now reached between the international community and the Islamic Republic of Iran builds on this tradition of strong, principled policy diplomacy.

After two years of negotiations, we have achieved a detailed arrangement that permanently prohibits Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. It cuts off all of Iran’s pathways to a bomb. It contains the most comprehensive inspection and verification regime ever negotiated to monitor a nuclear program.

As was true in previous treaties, it does not resolve all problems. It certainly doesn’t resolve all our problems with Iran. It does not ensure a warming between our two countries. But it achieves one of our most critical security objectives. As such, it is a very good deal.

Today, I want to speak to you about this deal and the most consequential foreign-policy debate that our country has had since the invasion of Iraq, as Congress decides whether to support this historic diplomatic breakthrough or instead blocks it over the objection of the vast majority of the world. Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal, backed by tens of millions of dollars in advertising. And if the rhetoric in these ads and the accompanying commentary sounds familiar, it should, for many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.

Now, when I ran for president eight years ago as a candidate who had opposed the decision to go to war in Iraq, I said that America didn’t just have to end that war. We had to end the mindset that got us there in the first place.
It was a mindset characterized by a preference for military action over diplomacy, a mindset that put a premium on unilateral U.S. action over the painstaking work of building international consensus, a mindset that exaggerated threats beyond what the intelligence supported.

Leaders did not level with the American people about the costs of war, insisting that we could easily impose our will on a part of the world with a profoundly different culture and history.

OBAMA: And, of course, those calling for war labeled themselves strong and decisive while dismissing those who disagreed as weak, even appeasers of a malevolent adversary.

More than a decade later, we still live with the consequences of the decision to invade Iraq. Our troops achieved every mission they were given, but thousands of lives were lost, tens of thousands wounded. That doesn’t count the lives lost among Iraqis. Nearly a trillion dollars was spent.

Today, Iraq remains gripped by sectarian conflict, and the emergence of al-Qaida in Iraq has now evolved into ISIL. And ironically, the single greatest beneficiary in the region of that war was the Islamic Republic of Iran, which saw its strategic position strengthened by the removal of its long-standing enemy, Saddam Hussein.

I raise this recent history because now more than ever, we need clear thinking in our foreign policy, and I raise this history because it bears directly on how we respond to the Iranian nuclear program. That program has been around for decades, dating back to the Shah’s efforts, with U.S. support, in the 1960s and ’70s to develop nuclear power. The theocracy that overthrew the Shah accelerated the program after the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, a war in which Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to brutal effect, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced steadily through the 1990s despite unilateral U.S. sanctions.

When the Bush administration took office, Iran had no centrifuges, the machines necessary to produce material for a bomb, that were spinning to enrich uranium. But despite repeated warnings from the United States government, by the time I took office, Iran had installed several thousand centrifuges and showed no inclination to slow, much less halt, its program.
Among U.S. policymakers, there’s never been disagreement on the danger posed by an Iranian nuclear bomb. Democrats and Republicans alike have recognized that it would spark an arms race in the world’s most unstable region and turn every crisis into a potential nuclear showdown. It would embolden terrorist groups like Hezbollah and pose an unacceptable risk to Israel, which Iranian leaders have repeatedly threatened to destroy. More broadly, it could unravel the global commitment to nonproliferation that the world has done so much to defend.

The question then is not whether to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, but how. Even before taking office, I made clear that Iran would not be allowed to acquire a nuclear weapon on my watch, and it’s been my policy throughout my presidency to keep all options, including possible military options, on the table to achieve that objective.

But I have also made clear my preference for a peaceful diplomatic resolution of the issue, not just because of the costs of war, but also because a negotiated agreement offered a more effective, verifiable and durable resolution. And so in 2009, we let the Iranians know that a diplomatic path was available. Iran failed to take that path, and our intelligence community exposed the existence of a covert nuclear facility at Fordo.

Now some have argued that Iran’s intransigence showed the futility of negotiations. In fact, it was our very willingness to negotiate that helped America rally the world to our cause and secured international participation in an unprecedented framework of commercial and financial sanctions.

OBAMA: Keep in mind, unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran had been in place for decades, but had failed to pressure Iran to the negotiating table. What made our new approach more effective was our ability to draw upon new U.N. Security Council resolutions, combining strong enforcement with voluntary agreements for nations like China and India, Japan and South Korea, to reduce their purchases of Iranian oil, as well as the imposition by our European allies of a total oil embargo.
Winning this global buy-in was not easy. I know; I was there. In some cases, our partners lost billions of dollars in trade because of their decision to cooperate. But we were able to convince them that, absent a diplomatic resolution, the result could be war with major disruptions to the global economy, and even greater instability in the Middle East.

In other words, it was diplomacy, hard, painstaking diplomacy, not saber rattling, not tough talk, that ratcheted up the pressure on Iran. With the world now unified beside us, Iran’s economy contracted severely, and remains about 20 percent smaller today than it would have otherwise been. No doubt this hardship played a role in Iran’s 2013 elections, when the Iranian people elected a new government, that promised to improve the economy through engagement to the world.

A window had cracked open. Iran came back to the nuclear talks. And after a series of negotiations, Iran agreed with the international community to an interim deal, a deal that rolled back Iran’s stockpile of near 20 percent enriched uranium, and froze the progress of its program so that the P5+1 — the United States, China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the European Union, could negotiate a comprehensive deal without the fear that Iran might be stalling for time.

Now, let me pause here just to remind everybody that, when the interim deal was announced, critics, the same critics we are hearing from now, called it a historic mistake. They insisted Iran would ignore its obligations, they warned that the sanctions would unravel. They warned that Iran would receive a windfall to support terrorism.

The critics were wrong. The progress of Iran’s nuclear program was halted for the first time in a decade, its stockpile of dangerous materials was reduced, the deployment of its advanced centrifuges was stopped, inspections did increase. There was no flood of money into Iran. And the architecture of the international sanctions remained in place. In fact, the interim deal worked so well that the same people who criticized it so fiercely now cite it as an excuse not to support the broader accord. Think about that. What was once proclaimed as an historic mistake is now held up as a success and a reason to not sign the comprehensive of deal.
So keep that in mind when you assess the credibility of the arguments being made against diplomacy today. Despite the criticism, we moved ahead to negotiate a more lasting, comprehensive deal. Our diplomats, led by Secretary of State John Kerry kept our coalition united, our nuclear experts, including one of the best in the world, Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, work tirelessly on a technical details.

In July, we reached a comprehensive of plan of action that meets our objectives. Under its terms, Iran is never allowed to build a nuclear weapon. And while Iran, like any party to the nuclear non- proliferation treaty, is allowed to access peaceful nuclear energy, the agreement strictly defines the manner in which its nuclear program can proceed, ensuring that all pathways to a bomb are cut off.

OBAMA: Here is how.

Under this deal, Iran cannot acquire the plutonium needed for a bomb. The core of its heavy reactor at Arak will be pulled out, filled with concrete, replaced with one that will not produce plutonium for a weapon. The spent fuel from that reactor will be shipped out of the country, and Iran will not build any new heavy water reactors for at least 15 years.

Iran will also not be able to acquire the enriched uranium that could be used for a bomb. As soon as this deal is implemented, Iran will remove two-thirds of its centrifuges. For the next decade, Iran will not enrich uranium with its more advanced centrifuges. Iran will not enrich uranium at the previously undisclosed Fordo facility, which is very deep underground, for at least 15 years.

Iran will get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of enriched uranium, which is currently enough for up to 10 nuclear bombs for the next 15 years. Even after those 15 years have passed, Iran will never have the right to use a peaceful program as cover to pursue a weapon, and in fact this deal shuts off the type of covert path Iran pursued in the past.

There will be 24/7 monitoring of Iran’s key nuclear facilities. For decades, inspectors will have access to Iran’s entire nuclear supply chain, from the uranium mines and mills where they get raw materials to the centrifuge production facilities where they make machines to enrich it. And understand why this is so important.
For Iran to cheat, it has to build a lot more than just one building or covert facility like Fordo. It would need a secret source for every single aspect of its program. No nation in history has been able to pull of such subterfuge when subjected to such rigorous inspections. And under the terms of the deal, inspectors will have the permanent ability to inspect any suspicious sites in Iran.

And finally, Iran has powerful incentives to keep its commitments. Before getting sanctions relief, Iran has to take significant concrete steps, like removing centrifuges and getting rid of its stock piles. If Iran violates the agreement over the next decade, all of the sanctions can snap back into place. We won’t need the support of other members of the U.N. Security Council, America can trigger snap back on our own.

On the other hand, if Iran abides by the deal, and its economy beings to reintegrate with the world, the incentive to avoid snap back will only grow.

So this deal is not just the best choice among alternatives, this is the strongest nonproliferation agreement ever negotiated, and because this is such a strong deal, every nation in the world that has commented publicly, with the exception of the Israeli government, has expressed support. The United Nations Security Council has unanimously supported it. The majority of arms control and nonproliferation experts support it. Over 100 former ambassadors who served under Republican and Democratic presidents support it.

I’ve had to make a lot of tough calls as president, but whether or not this deal is good for American security is not one of those calls, it’s not even close. Unfortunately, we’re living through a time in American politics where every foreign policy decision is viewed through a partisan prison, evaluated by headline-grabbing soundbites, and so before the ink was even dry on this deal, before Congress even read it, a majority of Republicans declared their virulent opposition. Lobbyists and pundits were suddenly transformed into armchair nuclear scientists…
(LAUGHTER)

… disputing the assessments of experts like Secretary Moniz, challenging his findings, offering multiple and sometimes contradictory arguments about why Congress should reject this deal.

OBAMA: But if you repeat these arguments long enough, they can get some traction. So, let me address just a few of the arguments that have been made so far in opposition to this deal.

First, there’re those who say the inspections are not strong enough, because inspectors can’t go anywhere in Iran at any time with no notice.

Well, here’s the truth. Inspectors will be allowed daily access to Iran’s key nuclear sites.

If there is a reason for inspecting a suspicious undeclared site anywhere in Iran, inspectors will get that access even if Iran objects. This access can be with as little as 24 hours notice.

And while the process for resolving a dispute about access can take up to 24 days, once we’ve identified a site that raises suspicion, we will be watching it continuously until inspectors get in.

And — and by the way, nuclear material isn’t something you hide in the closet.

(LAUGHTER)

It can leave a trace for years.

The bottom line is, if Iran cheats, we can catch them, and we will.

Second, there are those who argue that the deal isn’t strong enough, because some of the limitations on Iran’s civilian nuclear program expire in 15 years.

Let me repeat. The prohibition on Iran having a nuclear weapon is permanent. The ban on weapons-related research is permanent. Inspections are permanent.

It is true that some of the limitations regarding Iran’s peaceful program last only 15 years. But that’s how arms control agreements work. The first SALT treaty with the Soviet Union lasted five years. The first START treaty lasted 15 years.

And in our current situation, if 15 or 20 years from now, Iran tries to build a bomb, this deal ensures that the United States will have better tools to detect it, a stronger basis under international law to respond and the same options available to stop our weapons program as we have today, including, if necessary, military options.
On the other hand, without this deal, the scenarios that critics warn about happening in 15 years could happen six months from now. By killing this deal, Congress would not merely Iran’s pathway to a bomb, it would accelerate it.

Third, a number of critics say the deal isn’t worth it, because Iran will get billions of dollars in sanctions relief.

Now, let’s be clear. The international sanctions were put in place precisely to get Iran to agree to constraints on its program. That’s the point of sanctions. Any negotiated agreement with Iran would involve sanctions relief.

So an argument against sanctions relief is effectively an argument against any diplomatic resolution of this issue. It is true that if Iran lives up to its commitments, it will gain access to roughly $56 billion of its own money, revenue frozen overseas by other countries.

But the notion that this will be a game-changer with all this money funneled into Iran’s pernicious activities misses the reality of Iran’s current situation.

Partly because of our sanctions, the Iranian government has over half a trillion dollars in urgent requirements, from funding pensions and salaries to paying for crumbling infrastructure.

Iran’s leaders have raised expectations of their people, that sanctions relief will improve their lives. Even a repressive regime like Iran’s cannot completely ignore those expectations, and that’s why our best analysts expect the bulk of this revenue to go into spending that improves the economy and benefits the lives of the Iranian people.

Now, this is not to say that sanctions relief will provide no benefit to Iran’s military. Let’s stipulate that some of that money will flow to activities that we object to.

OBAMA: We have no illusions about the Iranian government or the significance of the Revolutionary Guard and the Quds Force. Iran supports terrorist organizations like Hezbollah. It supports proxy groups that threaten our interests and the interests of our allies, including proxy groups who killed our troops in Iraq.
They tried to destabilize our Gulf partners. But Iran has been engaged in these activities for decades. They engaged in them before sanctions and while sanctions were in place. In fact, Iran even engaged in these sanctions in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war, a war that cost them nearly a million lives and hundreds of billions of dollars. The truth is that Iran has always found a way to fund these efforts, and whatever benefit Iran may claim from sanctions relief pales in comparison to the danger it could pose with a nuclear weapon.

Moreover, there is no scenario where sanctions relief turns Iran into the region’s dominant power. Iran’s defense budget is eight times smaller than the combined budget of our Gulf allies. Their conventional capabilities will never compare to Israel’s, and our commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge helps guarantee that.

Over the last several years, Iran has had to spend billions of dollars to support its only ally in the Arab world, Bashar al-Assad, even as he’s lost control of huge chunks of his country. And Hezbollah suffered significant blows on this same battlefield. And Iran, like the rest of the region, is being forced to respond to the threat of ISIL in Iraq.

So, contrary to the alarmists who claim Iran is on the brink of taking over the Middle East, or even the world, Iran will remain a regional power with its own set of challenges. The ruling regime is dangerous and it is repressive. We will continue to have sanctions in place on Iran’s support for terrorism and violation of human rights. We will continue to insist upon the release of Americans detained unjustly. We will have a lot of differences with the Iranian regime.

But if we are serious about confronting Iran’s destabilizing activities, it is hard to imagine a worse approach than blocking this deal. Instead, we need to check the behavior that we are concerned about directly, by helping our allies in the region strengthen their own capabilities to counter a cyber attack or a ballistic missile, by improving the interdiction of weapons’ shipments that go to groups like Hezbollah, by training our allies’ special forces so they can more effectively respond to situations like Yemen.
All these capabilities will make a difference. We will be in a stronger position to implement them with this deal.

And by the way, such a strategy also helps us effectively confront the immediate and lethal threat posed by ISIL.

Now, the final criticism, this is sort of catchall that you may hear, is the notion that there is a better deal to be had. We should get a better deal. That is repeated over and over again. It’s a bad deal — we need a better deal.

(LAUGHTER)

One that relies on vague promises of toughness and, more recently, the argument that we can apply a broader and indefinite set of sanctions to squeeze the Iranian regime harder. Those making this argument are either ignorant of Iranian society, or they are not being straight with the American people. Sanctions alone are not going to force Iran to completely dismantle all vestiges of its nuclear infrastructure, even aspects that are consistent with peaceful programs. That, is oftentimes, is what the critics are calling a better deal.

OBAMA: Neither the Iranian government, or the Iranian opposition, or the Iranian people would agree to what they would view as a total surrender of their sovereignty.

Moreover, our closest allies in Europe or in Asia, much less China or Russia, certainly are not going to enforce existing sanctions for another five, 10, 15 years according to the dictates of the U.S. Congress because their willingness to support sanctions in the first place was based on Iran ending its pursuit of nuclear weapons. It was not based on the belief that Iran cannot have peaceful nuclear power, and it certainly wasn’t based on a desire for regime change in Iran.

As a result, those who say we can just walk away from this deal and maintain sanctions are selling a fantasy. Instead of strengthening our position, as some have suggested, Congress’ rejection would almost certainly result in multi-lateral sanctions unraveling.

If, as has also been suggested, we tried to maintain unilateral sanctions, beefen them up, we would be standing alone. We cannot dictate the foreign, economic and energy policies of every major power in the world. In order to even try to do that, we would have to sanction, for example, some of the world’s largest banks. We’d have to cut off countries like China from the American financial system. And since they happen to be major purchasers of our debt, such actions could trigger severe disruptions in our own economy, and, by way, raise questions internationally about the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. That’s part of the reason why many of the previous unilateral sanctions were waived.
What’s more likely to happen should Congress reject this deal is that Iran would end up with some form of sanctions relief without having to accept any of the constraints or inspections required by this deal. So in that sense, the critics are right. Walk away from this agreement, and you will get a better deal — for Iran.

(APPLAUSE)

Now because more sanctions won’t produce the results that the critics want, we have to be honest. Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any U.S. administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option, another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative, I am stating a fact. Without this deal, Iran will be in a position, however tough our rhetoric may be, to steadily advance its capabilities. Its breakout time, which is already fairly small, could shrink to near zero. Does anyone really doubt that the same voices now raised against this deal will be demanding that whoever is president bomb those nuclear facilities? And as someone who does firmly believe that Iran must not get a nuclear weapon and who has wrestled with this issue since the beginning of my presidency, I can tell you that alternatives to military actions will have been exhausted once we reject a hard-won diplomatic solution that the world almost unanimously supports.

So let’s not mince words. The choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy or some form of war. Maybe not tomorrow, maybe not three months from now, but soon.

OBAMA: And here’s the irony. As I said before, military action would be far less effective than this deal in preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. That’s not just my supposition. Every estimate, including those from Israeli analysts, suggest military action would only set back Iran’s program by a few years at best, which is a fraction of the limitations imposed by this deal.

It would likely guarantee that inspectors are kicked out of Iran. It is probable that it would drive Iran’s program deeper underground. It would certainly destroy the international unity that we have spent so many years building.
Now, there are some of opponents — I have to give them credit. They’re opponents of this deal who accept the choice of war. In fact, they argue that surgical strikes against Iran’s facilities will be quick and painless.

But if we’ve learned anything from the last decade, it’s that wars in general and wars in the Middle East in particular are anything but simple.

(APPLAUSE)

The only certainty in war is human suffering, uncertain costs, unintended consequences.

We can also be sure that the Americans who bear the heaviest burden are the less-than-1 percent of us, the outstanding men and women who serve in uniform, and not those of us who send them to war.

As commander-in-chief, I have not shied away from using force when necessary. I have ordered tens of thousands of young Americans into combat. I have sat by their bedside sometimes when they come home.

I’ve ordered military action in seven countries. There are times when force is necessary, and if Iran does not abide by this deal, it’s possible that we don’t have an alternative.

But how can we, in good conscience, justify war before we’ve tested a diplomatic agreement that achieves our objectives, that has been agreed to by Iran, that is supported by the rest of the world and that preserves our option if the deal falls short? How could we justify that to our troops? How could we justify that to the world or to future generations? In the end, that should be a lesson that we’ve learned from over a decade of war. On the front end, ask tough questions, subject our own assumptions to evidence and analysis, resist the conventional wisdom and the drumbeat of war, worry less about being labeled weak, worry more about getting it right.

I recognize that resorting to force may be tempting in the face of the rhetoric and behavior that emanates from parts of Iran. It is offensive. It is incendiary. We do take it seriously.

But superpowers should not act impulsively in response to taunts or even provocations that can be addressed short of war. Just because Iranian hardliners chant “Death to America” does not mean that that’s what all Iranians believe. In fact, it’s those…
(APPLAUSE)

In fact, it’s those hardliners who are most comfortable with the status quo. It’s those hardliners chanting “Death to America” who have been most opposed to the deal. They’re making common cause with the Republican Caucus.

(APPLAUSE)

The majority of the Iranian people have powerful incentives to urge their government to move in a different, less provocative direction, incentives that are strengthened by this deal. We should offer them that chance. We should give them the opportunity.

OBAMA: It’s not guaranteed to succeed. But if they take it, that would be good for Iran. It would be good for the United States. It would be good for a region that has known too much conflict. It would be good for the world.

And if Iran does not move in that direction, if Iran violates this deal, we will have ample ability to respond. You know, the agreements pursued by Kennedy and Reagan with the Soviet Union. Those agreements and treaties involved America accepting significant constraints on our arsenal. As such, they were riskier.

This agreement involves no such constraints. The defense budget of the United States is more than $600 billion. To repeat, Iran’s is about $15 billion. Our military remains the ultimate backstop to any security agreement that we make. I have stated that Iran will never be allowed to obtain a nuclear weapon, and have done what is necessary to make sure our military options are real. And I have no doubt that any president who follows me will take the same position.

So, let me sum up here. When we carefully examine the arguments against this deal, none stand up to scrutiny. That may be why the rhetoric on the other side is so strident. I suppose some of it can be ascribed to knee-jerk partisanship that has become all too familiar, rhetoric that renders every decision made to be a disaster, a surrender. You’re aiding terrorists; you’re endangering freedom.

On the other hand, I do think it is important to a knowledge another more understandable motivation behind the opposition to this deal, or at least skepticism to this deal. And that is a sincere affinity for our friend and ally Israel. An affinity that, as someone who has been a stalwart friend to Israel throughout my career, I deeply share.

When the Israeli government is opposed to something, people in the United States take notice; and they should. No one can blame Israelis for having a deep skepticism about any dealings with the government like Iran’s, which includes leaders who deny the Holocaust, embrace an ideology of anti-Semitism, facilitate the flow of rockets that are arrayed on Israel’s borders. Are pointed at Tel Aviv.

In such a dangerous neighbor Israel has to be vigilant, and it rightly insists it cannot depend on any other country, even it’s great friend the United States, for its own security.

So, we have to take seriously concerns in Israel. But the fact is, partly due to American military and intelligence assistance, which my administration has provided at unprecedented levels, Israel can defend itself against any conventional danger, whether from Iran directly or from its proxies. On the other hand, a nuclear-armed Iran changes that equation.

And that’s why this deal must be judged by what it achieves on the central goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This deal does exactly that. I say this as someone who is done more than any other president to strengthen Israel’s security. And I have made clear to the Israeli government that we are prepared to discuss how we can deepen that cooperation even further. Already, we have held talks with Israel on concluding another 10-year plan for U.S. security assistance to Israel.

OBAMA: We can enhance support for areas like missile defense, information sharing, interdiction, all to help meet Israel’s pressing security needs. And to provide a hedge against any additional activities that Iran may engage in as a consequence of sanctions relief.

But I have also listened to the Israeli security establishment, which warned of the danger posed by a nuclear armed Iran for decades. In fact, they helped develop many of the ideas that ultimately led to this deal. So to friends of Israel and the Israeli people, I say this. A nuclear armed Iran is far more dangerous to Israel, to America, and to the world than an Iran that benefits from sanctions relief.
I recognize that prime minister Netanyahu disagrees, disagrees strongly. I do not doubt his sincerity, but I believe he is wrong. I believe the facts support this deal. I believe they are in America’s interests and Israel’s interests, and as president of the United States it would be an abrogation of my constitutional duty to act against my best judgment simply because it causes temporary friction with a dear friend and ally.

I do not believe that would be the right thing to do for the United States, I do not believe it would be the right thing to do for Israel.

(APPLAUSE)

For the last couple of weeks, I have repeatedly challenged anyone opposed to this deal to put forward a better, plausible alternative. I have yet to hear one. What I’ve heard instead are the same types of arguments that we heard in the run up to the Iraq war. “Iran cannot be dealt with diplomatically.” “We can take military strikes without significant consequences.” “We shouldn’t worry about what the rest of the world thinks, because once we act, everyone will fall in line.” “Tougher talk, more military threats will force Iran into submission.” “We can get a better deal.”

I know it’s easy to play in people’s fears, to magnify threats, to compare any attempt at diplomacy to Munich, but none of these arguments hold up. They didn’t back in 2002, in 2003, they shouldn’t now.

(APPLAUSE)

That same mind set in many cases offered by the same people, who seem to have no compunction with being repeatedly wrong…

(LAUGHTER)

… lead to a war that did more to strengthen Iran, more to isolate the United States than anything we have done in the decades before or since. It’s a mind set out of step with the traditions of American foreign policy where we exhaust diplomacy before war and debate matters of war and peace in the cold light of truth.

“Peace is not the absence of conflict,” President Reagan once said. It is the ability to cope with conflict by peaceful means. President Kennedy warned Americans not to see conflict as inevitable, accommodation as impossible, and communication as nothing more than the exchange of threats. It is time to apply such wisdom. The deal before us doesn’t bet on Iran changing, it doesn’t require trust, it verifies and requires Iran to forsake a nuclear weapon.
OBAMA: Just as we struck agreements with the Soviet Union at a time when they were threatening our allies, arming proxies against us, proclaiming their commitment to destroy our way of life, and had nuclear weapons pointed at all of our major cities, a genuine existential threat.

You know, we live in a complicated world, a world in which the forces unleashed by human innovation are creating for our children that were unimaginable for most of human history.

It is also a world of persistent threats, a world in which mass violence and cruelty is all too common and human innovation risks the destruction of all that we hold dear.

In this world, the United States of America remains the most powerful nation on Earth, and I believe that we will remain such for decades to come.

But we are one nation among many, and what separates us from the empires of old, what has made us exceptional, is not the mere fact of our military might.

Since World War II, the deadliest war in human history, we have used our power to try and bind nations together in a system of international law. We have led an evolution of those human institutions President Kennedy spoke about to prevent the spread of deadly weapons, to uphold peace and security and promote human progress.

We now have the opportunity to build on that progress. We built a coalition and held together through sanctions and negotiations, and now we have before us a solution that prevents Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon without resorting to war.

As Americans, we should be proud of this achievement. And as members of Congress reflect on their pending decision, I urge them to set aside political concerns, shut out the noise, consider the stakes involved with the vote that you will cast.

If Congress kills this deal, we will lose more than just constraints on Iran’s nuclear deal or the sanctions we have painstakingly built. We will have lost something more precious: America’s credibility as a leader of diplomacy. America’s credibility is the anchor of the international system.
John F. Kennedy cautioned here more than 50 years ago at this university that the pursuit of peace is not as dramatic as the pursuit of war. But it’s so very important. It is surely the pursuit of peace that is most needed in this world so full of strife.

My fellow Americans, contact your representatives in Congress, remind them of who we are, remind them of what is best in us and what we stand for so that we can leave behind a world that is more secure and more peaceful for our children.

Thank you very much.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/08/05/text-obama-gives-a-speech-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal/

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

Good Will Hunting — Videos

Posted on July 30, 2015. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Education, Films, Freedom, government, Law, Life, Links, Love, Math, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Radio, Rants, Raves, Terrorism, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Writing | Tags: , , , |

Watch Good Will Hunting Watch Movies Online Free

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

The Big Chill — Videos

Posted on July 29, 2015. Filed under: American History, Art, Babies, Blogroll, Culture, Entertainment, history, Law, liberty, Life, Literacy, Love, media, Money, Movies, Music, People, Philosophy, Religion, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

The Big Chill 1983 Comedy / Drama Movies Full Movie

Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (The David Frost Show 1969)

Procol Harum ‘A Whiter Shade Of Pale’ 1967

A Whiter Shade Of Pale – Procol Harum

Spencer Davis Group – “Gimme Some Lovin” (1966)

Percy Sledge – When a Man Loves a Woman (1966)

Percy Sledge & Michael Bolton – When A Man Loves A Woman

The band – The Weight (Take a load off Annie/Fanny)

ARETHA FRANKLIN – NATURAL WOMAN – 1977

My Girl

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

A Summer Story (1988) — Videos

Posted on July 29, 2015. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Culture, Education, Entertainment, Fiction, Freedom, Friends, Love, media, Movies, Music, Vacations, Video, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , |

A Summer Story (1988) full movie

A Summer Story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A Summer Story
Directed by Piers Haggard
Produced by Danton Rissner
Written by John Galsworthy
Penelope Mortimer
Starring James Wilby
Imogen Stubbs
Susannah York
Kenneth Colley
Music by Georges Delerue
Cinematography Kenneth MacMillan
Edited by Ralph Sheldon
Release dates
  • 11 August 1988(New York City New York)
Running time
95 minutes
Country United Kingdom
Language English

A Summer Story is a British drama film released in 1988. Directed by Piers Haggard, with a script written by Penelope Mortimer, it stars James Wilby, Imogen Stubbs, and Susannah York.[1] In 1902, a young gentleman visiting a rural area has an intense love affair with a village girl. Twenty years later, he is passing that way again. The film is based on the John Galsworthy story The Apple Tree.

Plot

In the summer of 1902 Frank Ashton, an educated young man from London, is on a walking holiday in Devon with a friend. When he falls and twists his ankle, Ashton is helped at a nearby farmhouse and stays there for a few days to recover, while his friend goes on. Ashton quickly falls for the village girl who looks after him, Megan David, and she falls in love with him, to the great distress of her cousin Joe Narracombe, who wants her for himself. Ashton and Megan spend a night together, and after that he takes the train to a seaside town to cash a cheque at a bank, promising to return the next morning and take Megan away with him and marry her.

On arrival in the town, Ashton finds a branch of his bank, but it will not cash his cheque, insisting on first contacting his branch in London. While he is delayed, Ashton meets an old school friend, staying at a local hotel with his three sisters, of whom the oldest is Stella Halliday. Thanks to the bank’s delays, he misses the train he needed to catch to make his rendezvous with Megan. During the day that follows, he spends more time with his friend and his sisters, and while Stella flirts with him he begins to have second thoughts about marrying Megan.

Megan then travels to the seaside town looking for Ashton, carrying her luggage for running away. He sees her on the beach and follows her into the town, but when she turns and catches a glimpse of him, he hides.

Twenty years later, Ashton is married to Stella and they are motoring through Devon. They have no children. Ashton visits the farm where he seduced Megan and is recognized. He learns that Megan was heart-broken about losing him and also that she died soon after giving birth to a son, who she named “Francis”, or Frank. He is taken to see Megan’s grave, which is at the spot where he had arranged to meet her. She had asked to be buried there, to wait for his return. In motoring away with Stella, Ashton passes his son, young Frank, who gives him a friendly wave.

Cast

  • Camilla Power – Sabina Halliday
  • Juliette Fleming – Freda Halliday
  • Sukie Smith – Betsy
  • John Savident – Bank Clerk
  • Rachel Joyce – Post Office Girl
  • Patrick Morris – Pierrot 1
  • Paul Allain – Pierrot 2
  • Christopher Majeika – Pierrot 3
  • James Wilson – Pierrot 4

References

  1. Jump up^ A Summer Story at bfi.org.uk

External links

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

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

Obama The Tyrant Races To Have The United Nations Security Council Pass The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty Before Congress Votes It Down — Congress and President Betray The United States Constitution –Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties — Never Again Fasicism — Videos

Posted on July 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Articles, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Bomb, Books, British History, Bunker Busters, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Diasters, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Education, Ethic Cleansing, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Communications Commission, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, media, Middle East, Missiles, Monetary Policy, Money, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Police, Politics, Press, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Resources, Securities and Exchange Commission, Security, Speech, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Weapons of Mass Destruction, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 457: April 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1: Obama The Tyrant Races To Have The United Nations Security Council Pass The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty Before Congress Votes It Down — Congress and President Betray The United States Constitution — Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties — Never Again Fasicism — Videos

Incredible! New George S Patton speech! Iran & modern warfare

The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?

George Pataki: Iran deal is bad for civilized world

White House, Democrats divided over Iran nuclear deal

KEY POINTS OF HISTORIC IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL

Bolton: Nuke Deal ‘Paves the Way’ for Iran to Get Nuclear Weapons

Mitch McConnell Fox News Sunday. McConnell On Iran Deal, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump

July 14, 2015 Fiorina on nuclear deal with Iran: Bad behavior pays

Trump reacts to Obama’s Iran deal presser, El Chapo’s escape

Key Republican Senator Corker Angry Over Iran Nuclear Deal

Blackburn: Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad for the United States

Levin: ‘U.S. Senate Just Capitulated To Obama,’ And Rewrote The Constitution’s Treaty Provision

Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties

Discusses Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act on FOX News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor”

“TREATY” – The Word Congress Won’t Use

Judge Napolitano : Obama pushes World Government by signing U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (Sep 26, 2013)

Obama Bringing Iran Deal to UN, Bypassing Congress

The Four Tops Walk Away Renee

Four Tops – It’s The Same Old Song (1966)

UN ENDORSES IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL WITH 6 WORLD POWERS

The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and authorized a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt Iran’s economy.

But the measure also provides a mechanism for U.N. sanctions to “snap back” in place if Iran fails to meet its obligations.

Both U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power and Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy, the Iranian promising to be “resolute in fulfilling its obligations” and the American pledging to be vigilant in ensuring they are carried out.

The resolution had been agreed to by the five veto-wielding council members, who along with Germany negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. It was co-sponsored by all 15 members of the Security Council. The European Union’s foreign ministers endorsed the agreement later Monday in Brussels and pledged to implement it.

Under the agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.

Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran’s real goal is to build atomic weapons. U.S. President Barack Obama has stressed that all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon are cut off for the duration of the agreement and Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of uranium.

Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said “the world is now a safer place in the knowledge that Iran cannot now build a nuclear bomb.” But Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor told reporters immediately after the vote that the Security Council had “awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world,” calling it “a very sad day” not only for Israel but the entire world.

The document specifies that seven resolutions related to U.N. sanctions will be terminated when Iran has completed a series of major steps to curb its nuclear program and the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that “all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”

All provisions of the U.N. resolution will terminate in 10 years, including the “snap back” provision on sanctions.

But last week the six major powers – the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and the European Union sent a letter, seen by The Associated Press, informing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that they have agreed to extend the snap back mechanism for an additional five years. They asked Ban to send the letter to the Security Council.

Obama told reporters the vote will send a strong message of international support for the agreement as the best way to ensure “that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” He faces strong opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress and expressed hope that members will pay attention to the vote.

Power, the U.S. ambassador, said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”

She urged Iran to release three “unjustly imprisoned” Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in Iran in 2007.

The message that diplomacy can work ran through many speeches from council members.

Iran’s Khoshroo stressed that only if commitments are fully honored “can diplomacy prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression.”

Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the agreement “clearly demonstrates that where there’s a political will based on realism and respect for legitimate mutual interests of the international community, the most complex tasks can be resolved.”

“Today, the Security Council has confirmed the inalienable right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear program, including to enrich uranium, while ensuring the comprehensive control by the IAEA,” Churkin said.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_UNITED_NATIONS_IRAN_NUCLEAR_DEAL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2015-07-20-12-04-13

 

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.

Full text of the clause

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…

One of three types of international accord

In the United States, the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements.[1] All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause [2] empowers the President to make or enter into treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of theSenate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone.[1] Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress).[3] The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:

It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….[4]

A further distinction embodied in U.S. law is between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws.[1][5] These various distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of accords under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President.[1] Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President.[1] For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals, but a congressional-executive agreement or sole-executive agreement cannot.

In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism.[6] At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties.[7] If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.[8]

Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties.[1] Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.

Repeal

American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law.[1] Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.[1]

Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert.[9] The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.

In Goldwater v. Carter,[10] Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter‘s unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that “The issue at hand … was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition.” In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, “The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts”. Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.[11]

Scope of presidential powers

Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Roosevelt explained:

The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done.[12]

A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty.[1] Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).

In 1972, Congress passed legislation requiring the president to notify Congress of any executive agreements that are formed.[13]

Although the nondelegation doctrine prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch, Congress has allowed the executive to act as Congress’s “agent” in trade negotiations, such as by setting tariffs, and, in the case of Trade Promotion Authority, by solely authoring the implementing legislation for trade agreements. The constitutionality of this delegation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (1892).

See also

Further reading

Warren F. Kimball, Alliances, Coalitions, and Ententes – The American alliance system: an unamerican tradition

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atT1erLYbOE

 

HAMILTON’S WARNING AGAINST OBAMA AND THE IRAN DEAL – FEDERALIST NO. 75

“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” Thus did Alexander Hamilton warn the American people, in Federalist No. 75, against allowing the president to make treaties alone.

Hamilton, while a supporter of executive power, nevertheless argued for the Senate’s treaty role, because “it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years’ duration.”

It would be unsafe, he said, because even the most virtuous individuals, with the best of intentions, would fall prey to the temptations that negotiations with foreign powers would certainly provide.

How much more so does his advice apply to a president of lesser virtue, such as Barack Obama, who intends to decrease the power of the United States as a matter of ideological conviction, and who seeks narcissistic satisfaction in the attention a deal with Iran would temporarily provide!

Hamilton also anticipated the greed allegedly displayed by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whose perambulations around the globe in service of the president’s dubious foreign policy agenda coincided with generous donations from foreign governments to her family’s personal foundation.

“An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth,” Hamilton warns, prescribing the review powers of the Senate as the remedy.

And lest apologists for Obama argue that the nuclear deal with Iran is not actually a “treaty,” but merely an “executive agreement,” Hamilton leaves no doubt as to the scope of arrangements to which the Senate’s review power applies.

“The power of making treaties,” he says, concerns “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith” (original emphasis).

Congress should heed Hamilton’s warning before it is too late.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/28/alexander-hamiltons-warning-against-obama-and-the-iran-deal/

 

The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….

ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2

Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.

Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined:

The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.

Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”

The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.

At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.

The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.

Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?

While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.

A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power.

A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.

A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).

The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications.

Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters.

Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example.

Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making.

A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.

Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished.

The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.

Profile photo of Michael D. Ramsey
Michael D. Ramsey
Professor of Law
University of San Diego School of Law

http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/articles/2/essays/90/treaty-clause

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-508

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Planned Parenthood’s Evil of Killing, Butchering and Selling Baby Parts Regrets Their Tone Not Their Actions– Reminds Me of The Nazis (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) Discussing The Final Solution for The Jewish Question — The Killing of Babies Supported By Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives and Ruling Political Elites — Stop Killing Babies And Lying To The American People — Videos

Posted on July 18, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Catholic Church, Chemistry, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, IRS, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medical, Money, Music, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Quotations, Radio, Radio, Rants, Regulations, Religion, Science, Security, Strategy, Supreme Court, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Torture, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 457: April 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1: Planned Parenthood’s Evil of Killing, Butchering and Selling Baby Parts Regrets Their Tone Not Their Actions– Reminds Me of The Nazis (National Socialist German Workers’ Party) Discussing The Final Solution for The Jewish Question — The Killing of Babies Supported By Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Progressives and Ruling Political Elites — Stop Killing Babies And Lying To The American People — Videos

He that is kind is free, though he is a slave; he that is evil is a slave, though he be a king.

~Saint Augustine

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

~Edmund Burke

There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root.

~Henry David Thoreau

The resolution to avoid an evil is seldom framed till the evil is so far advanced as to make avoidance impossible.

~Thomas Hardy
The Holocaust was the most evil crime ever committed.
~Stephen Ambrose

The sad truth is that most evil is done by people who never make up their minds to be good or evil.”

~Hannah Arendt

martin luther kingNUMBER-ONE-KILLER-2013-FBgenocide-blackspp-screens-centers-1Abortion Graph Planned Parenthood Total Per Yearstatsreabortiontotals

Planned Parenthood: Cecile Richards’ Official Video Response

Brenda Lee – I’m Sorry

Senator Lankford Speaks about the Planned Parenthood Video on the Senate Floor

Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

What So-Called Pro-Choicers Cannot Watch From Start To Finish

The Silent Scream (Full Length)

FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

Abby Johnson Exposes The Lie of Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards’ Attempt To Dismiss Viral Video Backfires!

Caught on Camera: Planned Parenthood Harvesting Babies Organs

Die Wannseekonferenz (1984)

A real time recreation of the 1942 Wannsee Conference, in which leading SS and Nazi Party officials led by SS-General Reinhard Heydrich gathered to discuss the “Final Solution to the Jewish Question”.

MAAFA 21 THE BLACK HOLOCAUST

Abortion Inc: Promoting Black Genocide in US?

Planned Parenthood Banks on Fraud

Planned Parenthood’s New Image

Fit vs. UnFit, Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control Report

Sex Control Police State, Eugenics, Galton, Kantsaywhere, Mind Control Report

Mind Control Hate Propaganda, Hate Speech & Crime, Black PR

Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Justice Antonin Scalia talks about Roe v. Wade

Auschwitz The Nazis and the Final Solution complete

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (1/5)

AUSHWITZ:THE FINAL SOLUTION CLIP 2/5

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (3/5)

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (4/5)

Auschwitz: The Nazi and the Final Solution (5/5)

Science and the Swastika: The Deadly Experiment

Sterilizing Undesirables: Did The USA Inspire The Nazis?

Keeping Dems Honest: CNN’s Anderson Cooper Puts Truth First and Challenges DNC Abortion Lies

Glenn Beck : Agenda 21 is not a fiction, it’s implemented right now in US and all over the World !

Glenn Beck – Ted Cruz Discusses the Evils of Agenda 21

Bill Whittle What We Believe Full Version

Brenda Lee – I’m Sorry (Live from Canada 1980)

Planned Parenthood head apologizes for ‘tone’ of doctor in covert video

The president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America on Thursday apologized for remarks captured on video that show Deborah Nucatola, an executive of the organization, casually discussing abortion techniques aimed at preserving the internal organs of fetuses for use in research.

In a video posted on Planned Parenthood’s Web site, Cecile Richards called the tenor of the remarks “unacceptable,” and said the organization strives as its top priority to provide compassionate care.

“In the video, one of our staff members speaks in a way that does not reflect that compassion,” she said. “This is unacceptable, and I personally apologize for the staff member’s tone and statements.”

[Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research]

But Richards also emphatically defended the organization’s tissue donation program, which she said is purely voluntary for the women and does not yield a profit for Planned Parenthood. And she condemned the group that covertly recorded Nucatola’s remarks, which she said heavily edited the video to make “outrageous claims.”

“We know the real agenda of organizations behind videos like this, and they have never been concerned with protecting the health and safety of women,” she said. “Their mission is to ban abortion completely and cut women off from care at Planned Parenthood and other health centers.”

Richards’s apology came a day after a little-known anti-abortion group called the Center for Medical Progress unveiled the video as part of what its leader said was a 30-month investigation into Planned Parenthood’s tissue donation program. The group alleges Planned Parenthood illegally sells fetal body parts to companies that use the tissue for research.

While the video did not prove this claim, it still painted Planned Parenthood in an unflattering light that reignited controversy over the women’s health organization, the nation’s largest abortion provider and a longtime target of anti-abortion activism. It showed Nucatola, the organization’s senior director of medical services, discussing graphically the ways in which abortions can be completed to preserve a fetus’s liver, lungs, heart and other materials for research.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” she says in the video, drinking wine and eating salad with anti-abortion activists posing as medical company representatives.

Later in the video, she continues: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

The Center for Medical Research distilled the video into a nine-minute clip, but also posted a longer cut lasting more than two-and-a-half hours showing a fuller context of the discussion. It also posted some supporting documents on its site, and the group’s leader has promised more evidence in the coming weeks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/07/16/planned-parenthood-head-apologizes-for-tone-of-doctor-in-covert-video/

Planned Parenthood chief apologizes after video

Congressional leaders and Republican presidential hopefuls slammed Planned Parenthood on Wednesday and called for congressional hearings on the incident.

RELATED: Lawmakers call for Hill hearings on Planned Parenthood

Richards said political attacks are nothing new for her organization, the country’s largest abortion provider.

“Spreading false information is an age-old strategy of people hell-bent on denying women care & shaming them for exercising their rights,” she tweeted.

Several Republican candidates have promised to defund federal dollars to Planned Parenthood if elected. Richards argued that would keep millions from breast exams, sexually transmitted infection exams and sex education.

“Reminder: 1 out of every 5 women has been to PP in her life. Threatening our patients’ care & rights will get politicians nowhere real fast,” she tweeted. “We’ve fought for our patients before, and we’ll fight for them again and again.”

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/16/politics/planned-parenthood-president-criticizes-gop-candidates/

Planned Parenthood exec, fetal body parts subject of controversial video

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

Planned Parenthood

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Planned parenthood)
This article is about Planned Parenthood Federation of America. For the international organization, see International Planned Parenthood Federation.
Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood logo.svg
Abbreviation PPFA
Formation 1916 to 1942[note 1]
Legal status Federation
Purpose Reproductive health
Headquarters New York City & Washington, D.C.
Location
  • 820 locations[1]
Region served
United States
Membership
85 independent affiliates[1]
President
Cecile Richards
Affiliations International Planned Parenthood Federation
Budget
$1.04 billion (as of 2008–09)[2]
Website PlannedParenthood.org

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), commonly shortened to Planned Parenthood, is the U.S. affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and one of its larger members. PPFA is a non-profit organization providing reproductive health and maternal and child health services. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund, Inc. (PPAF) is a related organization which lobbies for pro-choice legislation, comprehensive sex education, and access to affordable health care in the United States. In recent years, Planned Parenthood has begun to move away from the pro-choice label to words and phrases that more accurately reflect the entire range of women’s health and economic issues.[3]

Planned Parenthood is the largest U.S. provider of reproductive health services, including cancer screening, HIV screening and counseling, contraception, and abortion.[4][5][6] Contraception accounts for 34% of PPFA’s total services and abortions account for 3%; PPFA conducts roughly 300,000 abortions each year, among 3 million people served.[7][8][9]

The organization has its roots in Brooklyn, New York, where Margaret Sanger opened the country’s first birth-control clinic. Sanger founded the American Birth Control League in 1921, which in 1942 became part of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Since then, Planned Parenthood has grown to have over 820 clinic locations in the U.S., with a total budget of US $1 billion. PPFA provides an array of services to over three million people in the United States, and supports services for over one million clients outside the United States.

History

Early history

Margaret Sanger (1922), the first president and founder of Planned Parenthood

The origins of Planned Parenthood date to October 16, 1916 when Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne, and Fania Mindell opened the first birth control clinic in the U.S. in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York.[10] All three women were immediately arrested and jailed for violating provisions of the Comstock Act– for distributing “obscene materials” at the clinic. The “Brownsville trials” brought national attention and support to their cause, and although Sanger and her co-defendants were convicted, their convictions were eventually overturned. Their campaign led to major changes in the laws governing birth control and sex education in the United States.[11]

In 1938, the clinic was organized into the American Birth Control League, which became part of the only national birth control organization in the US until the 1960s, but the title was found too offensive and “against families” so the League began discussions for a new name.[12] By 1941, the organization was operating 222 centers and had served 49,000 clients.[13] By 1942 the League had become part of what became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.[12]

By 1960, the Federation’s grassroots volunteers had provided family planning counseling in hundreds of communities across the country.[13] Planned Parenthood was one of the founding members of the International Planned Parenthood Federation when it was launched at a conference in Bombay, India in 1952.[13][14]

After Sanger

Following Margaret Sanger, Alan Frank Guttmacher became president of Planned Parenthood and served from 1962 till 1974.[15] During his tenure, the Food and Drug Administration approved the sale of the original birth control pill, giving rise to new attitudes towards women’s reproductive freedom.[13] Also during his presidency, Planned Parenthood lobbied the federal government to support reproductive health, culminating with President Richard Nixon‘s signing of Title X to provide governmental subsidies for low-income women to access family planning services.[16] The Center for Family Planning Program Development was also founded as a semi-autonomous division during this time.[17] The center became an independent organization and was renamed the Guttmacher Institute in 1977.[17]

Faye Wattleton was the first woman named president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1978 and served till 1992.[18] She was the first African-American to serve as president, and the youngest president in Planned Parenthood’s history.[19] During her term, Planned Parenthood grew to become the seventh largest charity in the country, providing services to four million clients each year through its 170 affiliates whose activities were spread across 50 states.[20]

A Planned Parenthood supporter participates in a demonstration in support of the organization.

From 1996 to 2006, Planned Parenthood was led by Gloria Feldt.[21][22] Feldt activated the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, the organization’s political action committee, launching what was the most far reaching electoral advocacy effort in its history.[23] She also launched the Responsible Choices Action Agenda, a nationwide campaign to increase services to prevent unwanted pregnancies, improve quality of reproductive care and ensure access to safe and legal abortions.[13] Another initiative was the commencement of a “Global Partnership Program” with the aim of building a vibrant activist constituency in support of family planning.[13]

On February 15, 2006, Cecile Richards became president of the organization.[24]

Margaret Sanger Awards

In 1966, PPFA began awarding the Margaret Sanger Award annually to honor, in their words, “individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.” In the first year, it was awarded to four men, Carl G. Hartman, William H. Draper, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Martin Luther King.[25][26][27][28] Later recipients have included John D. Rockefeller III, Katharine Hepburn, Jane Fonda, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Ted Turner.[29][30][31]

Services and facilities

Location in Houston, Texas

PPFA is a federation of 85 independent Planned Parenthood affiliates around the U.S.[1] These affiliates together operate more than 820 health centers in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.[1][32] The largest of these facilities, a $26 million, 78,000-square-foot (7,200 m2) structure was completed in Houston, Texas in May 2010.[33] This serves as a headquarters for 12 clinics in Texas and Louisiana.[33] Together, they are the largest family planning services provider in the U.S. with over four million activists, supporters and donors.[34][35][36] Planned Parenthood is staffed by 27,000 staff members and volunteers.[37]

They serve over five million clients a year, 26% of which are teenagers under the age of 19.[38] According to Planned Parenthood, 75% of their clients have incomes at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level.[37]

Services provided at locations include contraceptives (birth control); emergency contraception; screening for breast, cervical and testicular cancers; pregnancy testing and pregnancy options counseling; testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases; comprehensive sexuality education, menopause treatments; vasectomies, tubal ligations, and abortion.

In 2009, Planned Parenthood provided 4,009,549 contraceptive services (35% of total), 3,955,926 sexually transmitted disease services (35% of total), 1,830,811 cancer related services (16% of total), 1,178,369 pregnancy/prenatal/midlife services (10% of total), 332,278 abortion services (3% of total), and 76,977 other services (1% of total), for a total of 11,383,900 services.[9][37][39][40][41][42] The organization also said its doctors and nurses annually conduct 1 million screenings for cervical cancer and 830,000 breast exams.

Funding

Planned Parenthood headquarters on Massachusetts Avenue in Washington, D.C.

Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law enjoyed bipartisan support from liberals who saw contraception access as increasing families’ control over their lives, and conservatives who saw it as a way to keep people off welfare. Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.”[43]

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2011, total (consolidated) revenue was $201 million: clinic revenue totaling $2 million, grants and donations of $190 million, investment income of $2 million, and $7 million other income.[44] Approximately two-thirds of the revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest.

Planned Parenthood receives about a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $360 million in 2009).[45] By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,[46] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services “frees up” funds to be re-allocated for abortion.[4][47]

A coalition of national and local pro-life groups have lobbied federal and state government to stop funding Planned Parenthood, and as a result, Republican federal and state legislators have proposed legislation to reduce the funding levels.[46][48] Some six states have gone ahead with such proposals.[4][49][50][51] In some cases, the courts have overturned such actions, citing conflict with federal or other state laws, and in others, the federal executive branch has provided funding in lieu of the states.[50][51][52] In other cases, complete or partial defunding of Planned Parenthood has gone through successfully.[53][54]

Planned Parenthood is also funded by private donors, with a membership base of over 700,000 active donors whose contributions account for approximately one quarter of the organization’s revenue.[55] Large donors also contribute a substantial portion of the organization’s budget; past donors have included the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Buffett Foundation, Ford Foundation, Turner Foundation, the Cullmans and others.[56][57][58][59] The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s contributions to the organization have been specifically marked to avoid funding abortions.[56] Some, such as the Buffett Foundation, have supported reproductive health that can include abortion services.[56] Pro-life groups have advocated the boycott of donors to Planned Parenthood.[60]

Stand on political and legal issues

Planned Parenthood and its predecessor organizations have provided and advocated for access to birth control. The modern organization of Planned Parenthood America is also an advocate for reproductive rights.[61] This advocacy includes contributing to sponsorship of abortion rights and women’s rights events[62] and assisting in the testing of new contraceptives.[63] The Federation opposes restrictions on women’s reproductive health services, including parental consent laws. Planned Parenthood has cited the case of Becky Bell, who died following a septic abortion after failing to seek parental consent, to justify their opposition.[64][65] Planned Parenthood also takes the position that laws requiring parental notification before an abortion is performed on a minor are unconstitutional on privacy grounds.[66] The organization also opposes laws requiring ultrasounds before abortions, stating that their only purpose is to make abortions more difficult to obtain.[67] Planned Parenthood has also opposed initiatives that require waiting periods before abortions,[68] and bans on late-term abortions including intact dilation and extraction, which has been illegal in the U.S. since 2003.[69]

Planned Parenthood argues for the wide availability of emergency contraception (EC) measures.[70] It opposes conscience clauses, which allow pharmacists to refuse to dispense drugs against their beliefs. In support of their position, they have cited cases where pharmacists have refused to fill life saving drugs under the laws.[71] Planned Parenthood has also been critical of hospitals that do not provide access to EC for rape victims.[72] Planned Parenthood supports and provides FDA-approved abortifacients such as mifepristone.[73]

Citing the need for medically accurate information in sex education, Planned Parenthood opposes abstinence-only education in public schools. Instead, Planned Parenthood is a provider of, and endorses, comprehensive sex education, which includes discussion of both abstinence and birth control.[74]

Political Action Committee

Planned Parenthood also has a political action committee called Planned Parenthood Action Fund. The committee was founded in 1996 by then new president Gloria Feldt for the purpose of maintaining reproductive health rights and supporting political candidates of the same mindset. In 2012 election cycle the committee gained prominence based on its effectiveness of spending on candidates.[75]

Before the U.S. Supreme Court

Former Planned Parenthood President Gloria Feldt with Congressman Albert Wynn in front of the U.S. Supreme Court

Planned Parenthood regional chapters have been active in the American courts. A number of cases in which Planned Parenthood has been a party have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. Notable among these cases is the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the case that sets forth the current constitutional abortion standard. In this case, “Planned Parenthood” was the Southeast Pennsylvania Chapter, and “Casey” was Robert Casey, the governor of Pennsylvania. The ultimate ruling was split, and Roe v. Wade was narrowed but upheld in an opinion written by Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and David Souter. Harry Blackmun and John Paul Stevens concurred with the main decision in separately written opinions. The Supreme Court struck down spousal consent requirements for married women to obtain abortions, but found no “undue burden”—an alternative to strict scrutiny which tests the allowable limitations on rights protected under the Constitution—from the other statutory requirements. Dissenting were William Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Byron White. Blackmun, Rehnquist, and White were the only justices who voted on the original Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 who were still on the Supreme Court to rule on this case, and their votes on this case were consistent with their votes on the original decision that legalized abortion.[76] Only Blackmun voted to maintain Roe v. Wade in its entirety.

Other related cases include:

  • Planned Parenthood of Central Missouri v. Danforth (1976). Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri law encompassing parental consent, spousal consent, clinic bookkeeping and allowed abortion methods. Portions of the challenged law were held to be constitutional, others not.[77]
  • Planned Parenthood Association of Kansas City v. Ashcroft (1983). Planned Parenthood challenged the constitutionality of a Missouri law encompassing parental consent, clinic record keeping, and hospitalization requirements. Most of the challenged law was held to be constitutional.[78]
  • Planned Parenthood v. ACLA (2001). The American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) released a flier and “Wanted” posters with complete personal information about doctors who performed abortions. A civil jury and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals both found that the material was indeed “true threats” and not protected speech.[79]
  • Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (2003). Planned Parenthood sued Attorney General Gonzales for an injunction against the enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. Planned Parenthood argued the act was unconstitutional because it violated the Fifth Amendment, namely in that it was overly vague, violated women’s constitutional right to have access to abortion, and did not include language for exceptions for the health of the mother. Both the district court and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed,[80][81] but that decision was overturned in a 5–4 ruling by the Supreme Court.[82]
  • Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England (2006). Planned Parenthood et al. challenged the constitutionality of a New Hampshire parental notification law related to access to abortion.[83][84] In Sandra Day O’Connor’s final decision before retirement, the Supreme Court sent the case back to lower courts with instructions to seek a remedy short of wholesale invalidation of the statute. New Hampshire ended up repealing the statute via the legislative process.[85]

Controversy and criticism

Abortion

Planned Parenthood has occupied a central position in the abortion debate in the U.S., and has been among the most prominent targets of U.S. pro-life activists for decades. Congressional Republicans have attempted since the 1980s to defund the organization,[45] nearly leading to a government shutdown over the issue in 2011.[86] The federal money received by Planned Parenthood is not used to fund abortion services, but pro-life activists have argued that the funding frees up other resources which are, in turn, used to provide abortions.[45]

Planned Parenthood is the largest single provider of abortions in the U.S.[7] In 2009, Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions (for comparison, 1.21 million abortions were performed in the US in 2008[87]), from which it derives about $164,154,000, or 15% of its annual revenue as of their 2008–2009 calculations.[88] According to PPFA’s own estimates, its contraceptive services prevent approximately 612,000 unintended pregnancies and 291,000 abortions annually.[37][89] Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards has argued that the organization’s family planning services reduce the need for abortions.[90] Megan Crepeau of the Chicago Tribune said that, because of its birth control and family planning services, PPFA could be “characterized as America’s largest abortion preventer.”[91] Anti-abortion activists dispute the evidence that greater access to contraceptives reduces abortions.[92]

Margaret Sanger and eugenics

Further information: Margaret Sanger § Eugenics

In the 1920s various theories of eugenics were popular among intellectuals in the United States. For example, 75% of colleges offered courses on eugenics.[93] Sanger, in her campaign to promote birth control, teamed with eugenics organizations such as the American Eugenics Society, although she argued against many of their positions.[94][95][96] Scholars describe Sanger as believing that birth control, sterilization and abortion should be voluntary and not based on race.[97] She advocated for “voluntary motherhood”—the right to choose when to be pregnant—for all women, as an important element of women’s rights.[98][99] Opponents of Planned Parenthood often refer to Sanger’s connection with supporters of eugenics to discredit the organization by associating it, and birth control, with the more negative modern view of eugenics.[100][101] Planned Parenthood has responded to this effort directly in a leaflet acknowledging that Sanger agreed with some of her contemporaries who advocated the voluntary hospitalization or sterilization of people with untreatable, disabling, hereditary conditions, and limits on the immigration of the diseased. The leaflet also states that Planned Parenthood “finds these views objectionable and outmoded” but says that it was compelled to discuss the topic because “anti-family planning activists continue to attack Sanger . . . because she is an easier target” than Planned Parenthood.[102]

Recorded stings by pro-life activists

Planned Parenthood supporters in Columbus, OH

Periodically pro-life activists have tried to demonstrate that Planned Parenthood does not follow applicable state or federal laws. The groups called or visited a Planned Parenthood health center posing as victims of statutory rape,[103] minors who would need parental notification for abortion,[104][105] racists seeking to earmark donations for abortions for black women to abort black babies,[106] or pimps who want abortions for child prostitutes.[107] Edited video and audio productions of these dialogues seem to capture employees being sympathetic to potentially criminal acts, leading to allegations that the health centers in question are violating the law. An official federal inspection in 2005 by the Bush administration‘s Department of Health and Human Services “yielded no evidence of clinics around the nation failing to comply with laws on reporting child abuse, child molestation, sexual abuse, rape or incest.”[104]

In 2011, the organization Live Action released a series of videos that they said showed Planned Parenthood employees at multiple affiliates actively assisting or being complicit in aiding the underage prostitution ring of actors posing as a pimp and a prostitute. Planned Parenthood conducted a frame-by-frame analysis of the recordings, and said they found instances of “editing that dramatically alter[ed] the meaning of the recorded conversations.”[108]

None of these stings have led to criminal conviction.[109] However, a small number of Planned Parenthood employees and volunteers were fired for not following procedure, and the organization committed to retraining its staff.[106][110]

State and local court cases against Planned Parenthood

In some states, anti-abortion Attorneys General have subpoenaed medical records of patients treated by Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood has gone to court to keep from turning over these records, citing medical privacy and concerns about the motivation for seeking the records.[111]

In 2006, Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, a strongly anti-abortion Republican, released some sealed patient records obtained from Planned Parenthood to the public. His actions were described as “troubling” by the state Supreme Court, but ultimately Planned Parenthood was compelled to turn over the medical records, albeit with more stringent court-mandated privacy safeguards for the patients involved.[111] In 2007, Kline’s successor, Paul J. Morrison, notified the clinic that no criminal charges would be filed after a three-year investigation, as “an objective, unbiased and thorough examination” showed no wrongdoing. Morrison stated that he believed Kline had politicized the attorney general’s office.[112] In 2012, a Kansas district attorney dropped all of the remaining criminal charges against the Kansas City-area Planned Parenthood clinic accused of performing illegal abortions, citing a lack of evidence of wrongdoing.[113] In all, the Planned Parenthood clinic had faced 107 criminal charges from Kline and other Kansas prosecutors, all of which were ultimately dropped for lack of evidence.[113]

In Indiana, Planned Parenthood was not required to turn over its medical records in an investigation of possible child abuse.[114] In October 2005, Planned Parenthood Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota was fined $50,000 for violating a Minnesota state parental consent law.[115]

On December 31, 2012, Judge Gary Harger ruled Texas may exclude otherwise qualified doctors and clinics from receiving state funding if they advocate for abortion rights.[116]

Anti-abortion violence

Planned Parenthood clinics have been the target of many instances of anti-abortion violence, including (but not limited to) bombing, arson, and attacks with chemical weaponry.[117][118][119][120][121][122][123][124][125][126][127]

1994 Brookline shootings

Main article: John Salvi

In 1994, John Salvi entered a Brookline, Massachusetts Planned Parenthood clinic and opened fire, murdering receptionist Shannon Elizabeth Lowney and wounding three others. He fled to another Planned Parenthood clinic where he murdered Leane Nichols and wounded two others.[128]

See also

Notes

  1. Planned Parenthood “dates its beginnings to 1916” but a predecessor, the American Birth Control League, was not founded until 1921 and the organization did not adopt its name until 1942.

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

Margaret Sanger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Margaret Sanger
MargaretSanger-Underwood.LOC.jpg

Sanger in 1922
Born Margaret Higgins
September 14, 1879
Corning, New York,
United States
Died September 6, 1966 (aged 86)
Tucson, Arizona,
United States
Occupation Social reformer, sex educator, nurse
Spouse(s) William Sanger (1902–1921)[note 1]
James Noah H. Slee (1922–1943).

Margaret Higgins Sanger (September 14, 1879 – September 6, 1966) was an American birth control activist, sex educator, and nurse. Sanger popularized the term birth control, opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, and established organizations that evolved into the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Sanger was also a writer. She used this method to help promote her way of thinking. She was prosecuted for her book Family Limitation under the Comstock Act in 1914. She was afraid of what would happen, so she fled to Britain until she knew it was safe to return to the US.[citation needed] Sanger’s efforts contributed to several judicial cases that helped legalize contraception in the United States. Sanger is a frequent target of criticism by opponents of abortion and has also been criticized for supporting eugenics, but remains an iconic figure in the American reproductive rights movement.[2]

In 1916, Sanger opened the first birth control clinic in the United States, which led to her arrest for distributing information on contraception. Her subsequent trial and appeal generated controversy. Sanger felt that in order for women to have a more equal footing in society and to lead healthier lives, they needed to be able to determine when to bear children. She also wanted to prevent unsafe abortions, so-called back-alley abortions, which were common at the time because abortions were usually illegal. She believed that while abortion was sometimes justified it should generally be avoided, and she considered contraception the only practical way to avoid the use of abortions.[citation needed]

In 1921, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In New York City, she organized the first birth control clinic staffed by all-female doctors, as well as a clinic in Harlem with an entirely African-American staff. In 1929, she formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control, which served as the focal point of her lobbying efforts to legalize contraception in the United States. From 1952 to 1959, Sanger served as president of the International Planned Parenthood Federation. She died in 1966, and is widely regarded as a founder of the modern birth control movement.

Life

Early life

Sanger was born Margaret Louise Higgins in 1879 in Corning, New York,[3] to Michael Hennessey Higgins, an Irish-born stonemason and free-thinker, and Anne Purcell Higgins, a Catholic Irish-American. Michael Hennessey Higgins had emigrated to the USA at age 14 and joined the U.S. Army as a drummer at age 15, during the Civil War. After leaving the army, Michael studied medicine and phrenology, but ultimately became a stonecutter, making stone angels, saints, and tombstones.[4] Michael H. Higgins was a Catholic who became an atheist and an activist for women’s suffrage and free public education.[5] Anne Higgins went through 18 pregnancies (with 11 live births) in 22 years before dying at the age of 49. Sanger was the sixth of eleven surviving children,[6] and spent much of her youth assisting with household chores and caring for her younger siblings. Anne’s parents took their children and emigrated to Canada when she was a child, due to the Potato Famine.

Supported by her two older sisters, Margaret Higgins attended Claverack College and Hudson River Institute, before enrolling in 1900 at White Plains Hospital as a nurse probationer. In 1902, she married the dashing architect William Sanger and gave up her education.[7] Though she was plagued by a recurring active tubercular condition, Margaret Sanger bore three children, and the couple settled down to a quiet life in Westchester, New York.

Sanger with sons Grant and Stuart, c. 1919

Social activism

In 1911, after a fire destroyed their home in Hastings-on-Hudson, the Sangers abandoned the suburbs for a new life in New York City. Margaret Sanger worked as a visiting nurse in the slums of the East Side, while her husband worked as an architect and a house painter. Already imbued with her husband’s leftist politics, Margaret Sanger also threw herself into the radical politics and modernist values of pre-World War I Greenwich Village bohemia. She joined the Women’s Committee of the New York Socialist party, took part in the labor actions of the Industrial Workers of the World (including the notable 1912 Lawrence Textile Strike and the 1913 Paterson Silk Strike) and became involved with local intellectuals, left-wing artists, socialists and social activists, including John Reed, Upton Sinclair, Mabel Dodge and Emma Goldman.[8]

Sanger’s political interests, emerging feminism and nursing experience led her to write two series of columns on sex education entitled “What Every Mother Should Know” (1911–12) and “What Every Girl Should Know” (1912-13) for the socialist magazine New York Call. By the standards of the day, Sanger’s articles were extremely frank in their discussion of sexuality, and many New York Call readers were outraged by them. Other readers, however, praised the series for its candor, one stated that the series contained “a purer morality than whole libraries full of hypocritical cant about modesty.[9] Both were later published in book form in 1916.[10]

During her work among working class immigrant women, Sanger was exposed to graphic examples of women going through frequent childbirth, miscarriage and self-induced abortion for lack of information on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy. Access to contraceptive information was prohibited on grounds of obscenity by the 1873 federal Comstock law and a host of state laws. Searching for something that would help these women, Sanger visited public libraries, but was unable to find information on contraception.[11] These problems were epitomized in a (possibly fictional) story that Sanger would later recount in her speeches: while Sanger was working as a nurse, she was called to the apartment of a woman, “Sadie Sachs,” who had become extremely ill due to a self-induced abortion. Afterward, “Sadie” (whose marital status Sanger never mentioned) begged the attending doctor to tell her how she could prevent this from happening again, to which the doctor simply advised her to remain abstinent. A few months later, Sanger was called back to “Sadie’s” apartment — only this time, “Sadie” died shortly after Sanger arrived. She had attempted yet another self-induced abortion.[12][13] Sanger would sometimes end the story by saying, “I threw my nursing bag in the corner and announced … that I would never take another case until I had made it possible for working women in America to have the knowledge to control birth.” Although “Sadie Sachs” was possibly a fictional composite of several women Sanger had known, this story marks the time when Sanger began to devote her life to help desperate women before they were driven to pursue dangerous and illegal abortions.[13][14]

Accepting the connection proposed between contraception and working-class empowerment by radicals such as Emma Goldman, Sanger came to believe that only by liberating women from the risk of unwanted pregnancy would fundamental social change take place. She proceeded to launch a campaign to challenge governmental censorship of contraceptive information. She would set up a series of confrontational actions designed to challenge the law and force birth control to become a topic of public debate. Sanger’s trip to France in 1913 exposed her to what Goldman had been saying. Sanger’s experience during her trip to France directly influence The Women Rebel newsletter. The trip to France was also the beginning of the end of her marriage with William Sanger.[15]

In 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters“.[16][note 2][17] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, popularized the term “birth control” as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as “family limitation”[18] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[19] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free-speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[20][21] Though postal authorities suppressed five of its seven issues, Sanger continuing publication, all the while preparing, Family Limitation, an even more blatant challenge to anti-birth control laws. This 16-page pamphlet contained detailed and precise information and graphic descriptions of various contraceptive methods. In August 1914 Margaret Sanger was indicted for violating postal obscenity laws by sending the The Woman Rebel through the postal system. Instead of standing trial, she jumped bail and fled to Canada. Then, under the alias “Bertha Watson”, sailed for England. En route she ordered her labor associates to release copies of the Family Limitation.[22]

Margaret Sanger spent much of her 1914 exile in England, where contact with British neo-Malthusianists helped refine her socioeconomic justifications for birth control. She was also profoundly influenced by the liberation theories of British sexual theorist Havelock Ellis. Under his tutelage she formulated a new rationale that would liberate women not just by making sexual intercourse safe, but also pleasurable. It would, in effect, free women from the inequality of sexual experience. Early in 1915, Margaret Sanger’s estranged husband, William Sanger, was entrapped into giving a copy of Family Limitation to a representative of anti-vice crusader Anthony Comstock. William Sanger was tried and convicted, he spent thirty days in jail, while also escalating interest in birth control as a civil liberties issue.[23][24][25]

Birth control movement

This page from Sanger’s Family Limitation, 1917 edition, describes a cervical cap.

Some countries in northwestern Europe had more liberal policies towards contraception than the United States at the time, and when Sanger visited a Dutch birth control clinic in 1915, she learned about diaphragms and became convinced that they were a more effective means of contraception than the suppositories and douches that she had been distributing back in the United States. Diaphragms were generally unavailable in the United States, so Sanger and others began importing them from Europe, in defiance of United States law.[8]

In 1917, she started publishing the monthly periodical Birth Control Review.[note 3]

On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States.[26] Nine days after the clinic opened, Sanger was arrested. Sanger’s bail was set at $500 and she went back home. Sanger continued seeing some women in the clinic until the police came a second time. This time Sanger and her sister, Ethel Byrne, were arrested for breaking a New York state law that prohibited distribution of contraceptives, Sanger was also charged with running a public nuisance.[27] Sanger and Ethel went to trial in January 1917.[28] Byrne was convicted and sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse but went on hunger strike. She was the first woman in the US to be force fed.[29] Only when Sanger pledged that Byrne would never break the law, she was pardoned after ten days.[30] Sanger was convicted; the trial judge held that women did not have “the right to copulate with a feeling of security that there will be no resulting conception.”[31] Sanger was offered a more lenient sentence if she promised to not break the law again, but she replied: “I cannot respect the law as it exists today.”[32] For this, she was sentenced to 30 days in a workhouse.[32] An initial appeal was rejected, but in a subsequent court proceeding in 1918, the birth control movement won a victory when Judge Frederick E. Crane of the New York Court of Appeals issued a ruling which allowed doctors to prescribe contraception.[33] The publicity surrounding Sanger’s arrest, trial, and appeal sparked birth control activism across the United States, and earned the support of numerous donors, who would provide her with funding and support for future endeavors.[34]

Sanger became estranged from her husband in 1913, and the couple’s divorce was finalized in 1921.[35] Sanger’s second husband was Noah Slee. He followed Sanger around the world and provided much of Sanger’s financial assistance. The couple got married in September 1922, but the public did not know about it until February 1924. They supported each other with their pre-commitments.[36]

American Birth Control League

Sanger published the Birth Control Review from 1917 to 1929.[note 4]

After World War I, Sanger shifted away from radical politics, and she founded the American Birth Control League (ABCL) in 1921 to enlarge her base of supporters to include the middle class.[37] The founding principles of the ABCL were as follows:[38]

We hold that children should be (1) Conceived in love; (2) Born of the mother’s conscious desire; (3) And only begotten under conditions which render possible the heritage of health. Therefore we hold that every woman must possess the power and freedom to prevent conception except when these conditions can be satisfied.

Sanger’s appeal of her conviction for the Brownsville clinic secured a 1918 court ruling that exempted physicians from the law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptive information to women—provided it was prescribed for medical reasons—she established the Clinical Research Bureau (CRB) in 1923 to exploit this loophole.[8][39] The CRB was the first legal birth control clinic in the United States, and it was staffed entirely by female doctors and social workers.[40] The clinic received a large amount of funding from John D. Rockefeller Jr. and his family, which continued to make donations to Sanger’s causes in future decades, but generally made them anonymously to avoid public exposure of the family name,[41] and to protect family member Nelson Rockefeller‘s political career since openly advocating birth control could have led to the Catholic Church opposing him politically.[42] John D. Rockefeller Jr. donated five thousand dollars to her American Birth Control League in 1924 and a second time in 1925.[43] In 1922, she traveled to China, Korea, and Japan. In China she observed that the primary method of family planning was female infanticide, and she later worked with Pearl Buck to establish a family planning clinic in Shanghai.[44] Sanger visited Japan six times, working with Japanese feminist Kato Shidzue to promote birth control.[45] This was ironic since ten years earlier Sanger had accused Katō of murder and praised an attempt to kill her.[46]

In 1926, Sanger gave a lecture on birth control to the women’s auxiliary of the Ku Klux Klan in Silver Lake, New Jersey.[47] She described it as “one of the weirdest experiences I had in lecturing,” and added that she had to use only “the most elementary terms, as though I were trying to make children understand.”[47] Sanger’s talk was well received by the group, and as a result, “a dozen invitations to similar groups were proffered.”[47]

In 1928, conflict within the birth control movement leadership led Sanger to resign as the president of the ABCL and take full control of the CRB, renaming it the Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau (BCCRB), marking the beginning of a schism in the movement that would last until 1938.[48]

Sanger invested a great deal of effort communicating with the general public. From 1916 onward, she frequently lectured—in churches, women’s clubs, homes, and theaters—to workers, churchmen, liberals, socialists, scientists, and upper-class women.[49] She wrote several books in the 1920s which had a nationwide impact in promoting the cause of birth control. Between 1920 and 1926, 567,000 copies of Woman and the New Race and The Pivot of Civilization were sold.[50] She also wrote two autobiographies designed to promote the cause. The first, My Fight for Birth Control, was published in 1931 and the second, more promotional version, Margaret Sanger: An Autobiography, was published in 1938.

During the 1920s, Sanger received hundreds of thousands of letters, many of them written in desperation by women begging for information on how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.[51][52] Five hundred of these letters were compiled into the 1928 book, Motherhood in Bondage.[53][54]

Planned Parenthood era

Main article: Planned Parenthood

Sanger’s Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau operated from this New York building from 1930 to 1973.

In 1929, Sanger formed the National Committee on Federal Legislation for Birth Control in order to lobby for legislation to overturn restrictions on contraception.[55] That effort failed to achieve success, so Sanger ordered a diaphragm from Japan in 1932, in order to provoke a decisive battle in the courts. The diaphragm was confiscated by the United States government, and Sanger’s subsequent legal challenge led to a 1936 court decision which overturned an important provision of the Comstock laws which prohibited physicians from obtaining contraceptives.[56] This court victory motivated the American Medical Association in 1937 to adopt contraception as a normal medical service and a key component of medical school curriculums.[57]

This 1936 contraception court victory was the culmination of Sanger’s birth control efforts, and she took the opportunity, now in her late 50s, to move to Tucson, Arizona, intending to play a less critical role in the birth control movement. In spite of her original intentions, she remained active in the movement through the 1950s.[57]

In 1937, Sanger became chairman of the newly formed Birth Control Council of America, and attempted to resolve the schism between the ABCL and the BCCRB.[58] Her efforts were successful, and the two organizations merged in 1939 as the Birth Control Federation of America.[59][note 5] Although Sanger continued in the role of president, she no longer wielded the same power as she had in the early years of the movement, and in 1942, more conservative forces within the organization changed the name to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a name Sanger objected to because she considered it too euphemistic.[60]

In 1946, Sanger helped found the International Committee on Planned Parenthood, which evolved into the International Planned Parenthood Federation in 1952, and soon became the world’s largest non-governmental international family planning organization. Sanger was the organization’s first president and served in that role until she was 80 years old.[61] In the early 1950s, Sanger encouraged philanthropist Katharine McCormick to provide funding for biologist Gregory Pincus to develop the birth control pill which was eventually sold under the name Enovid.[62]

Death

Margaret Sanger Square, at the intersection of Mott Street and Bleecker Street in Manhattan

Sanger died of congestive heart failure in 1966 in Tucson, Arizona, aged 86, about a year after the event that marked the climax of her 50-year career: the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Griswold v. Connecticut, which legalized birth control in the United States.[note 6] Sanger is buried in Fishkill, New York, next to her sister, Nan Higgins, and her second husband, Noah Slee.[63] One of her surviving brothers was College Football Hall of Fame player and coach Bob Higgins.[64]

Legacy

Long after her death, Sanger has continued to be regarded as a leading figure in the battle for American women’s rights. Sanger’s story has been the subject of several biographies, including an award-winning biography published in 1970 by David Kennedy, and is also the subject of several films, including Choices of the Heart: The Margaret Sanger Story.[65] Sanger’s writings are curated by two universities: New York University‘s history department maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers Project,[66] and Smith College‘s Sophia Smith Collection maintains the Margaret Sanger Papers collection.[67]

Sanger has been recognized with many important honors. In 1957, the American Humanist Association named her Humanist of the Year. Government authorities and other institutions have memorialized Sanger by dedicating several landmarks in her name, including a residential building on the Stony Brook University campus, a room in Wellesley College’s library,[68] and Margaret Sanger Square in New York City’s Greenwich Village.[69] In 1993, the Margaret Sanger Clinic—where she provided birth control services in New York in the mid twentieth century—was designated as a National Historic Landmark by the National Park Service.[70] In 1966, Planned Parenthood began issuing its Margaret Sanger Awards annually to honor “individuals of distinction in recognition of excellence and leadership in furthering reproductive health and reproductive rights.”[71]

Due to her connection with Planned Parenthood, many who are opposed to abortion frequently condemn Sanger by criticizing her views on racial supremacy, birth control, and eugenics.[72][73][note 7] In spite of such controversies, Sanger continues to be regarded as an icon for the American reproductive rights movement and woman’s rights movement.

Controversies

Sexuality

While researching information on contraception Sanger read various treatises on sexuality in order to find information about birth control. She read The Psychology of Sex by the English psychologist Havelock Ellis and was heavily influenced by it.[74] While traveling in Europe in 1914, Sanger met Ellis.[75] Influenced by Ellis, Sanger adopted his view of sexuality as a powerful, liberating force.[76] This view provided another argument in favor of birth control, as it would enable women to fully enjoy sexual relations without the fear of an unwanted pregnancy.[77] Sanger also believed that sexuality, along with birth control, should be discussed with more candor.[76]

However, Sanger was opposed to excessive sexual indulgence. She stated “every normal man and woman has the power to control and direct his sexual impulse. Men and women who have it in control and constantly use their brain cells thinking deeply, are never sensual.”[78][79] Sanger said that birth control would elevate women away from a position of being an object of lust and elevate sex away from purely being for satisfying lust, saying that birth control “denies that sex should be reduced to the position of sensual lust, or that woman should permit herself to be the instrument of its satisfaction.”[80] Sanger wrote that masturbation was dangerous. She stated: “In my personal experience as a trained nurse while attending persons afflicted with various and often revolting diseases, no matter what their ailments, I never found any one so repulsive as the chronic masturbator. It would not be difficult to fill page upon page of heart-rending confessions made by young girls, whose lives were blighted by this pernicious habit, always begun so innocently.”[81] She believed that women had the ability to control their sexual impulses, and should utilize that control to avoid sex outside of relationships marked by “confidence and respect.” She believed that exercising such control would lead to the “strongest and most sacred passion.”[82] However, Sanger was not opposed to homosexuality and praised Ellis for clarifying “the question of homosexuals… making the thing a—not exactly a perverted thing, but a thing that a person is born with different kinds of eyes, different kinds of structures and so forth… that he didn’t make all homosexuals perverts—and I thought he helped clarify that to the medical profession and to the scientists of the world as perhaps one of the first ones to do that.”[83] Sanger believed sex should be discussed with more candor, and praised Ellis for his efforts in this direction. She also blamed the suppression of discussion about it on Christianity.[83]

Eugenics

An advertisement for a book entitled

Sanger’s 1920 book endorsed eugenics.

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[84] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing the reproduction of those who were considered unfit. In “The Morality of Birth Control,” a 1921 speech, she divided society into three groups: the educated and informed class that regulated the size of their families, the intelligent and responsible who desired to control their families however did not have the means or the knowledge and the irresponsible and reckless people whose religious scruples “prevent their exercising control over their numbers.” Sanger concludes “there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped.”[85] Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the “profoundly retarded”.[86][87] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[88] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[89][90][91]

In contrast with eugenicist William Robinson, who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 8] Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[92] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[87] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[89][93]

Sanger also supported restrictive immigration policies. In “A Plan for Peace”, a 1932 essay, she proposed a congressional department to address population problems. She also recommended that immigration exclude those “whose condition is known to be detrimental to the stamina of the race,” and that sterilization and segregation be applied to those with incurable, hereditary disabilities.[86][87][94]

Race

W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger’s Harlem clinic.[95]

Sanger’s writings echoed her ideas about inferiority and loose morals of particular races. In one “What Every Girl Should Know” commentary, she references popular opinion that Aboriginal Australians were “just a step higher than the chimpanzee” with “little sexual control,” as compared to the “normal man and Woman.”[78] Elsewhere she bemoaned that traditional sexual ethics “… have in the past revealed their woeful inability to prevent the sexual and racial chaos into which the world has today drifted.”[93]

Such attitudes did not keep her from collaborating with African-American leaders and professionals who saw a need for birth control in their communities. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York’s Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[96] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with black doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of black doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and in black churches, and it received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[97] In 1939 Sanger wrote, “We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” She did not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor would she tolerate any refusal to work within interracial projects.[98] Sanger’s work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[99]

From 1939 to 1942 Sanger was an honorary delegate of the Birth Control Federation of America, which included a supervisory role—alongside Mary Lasker and Clarence Gamble—in the Negro Project, an effort to deliver birth control to poor black people.[100] Sanger wanted the Negro Project to include black ministers in leadership roles, but other supervisors did not. To emphasize the benefits of involving black community leaders, she wrote to Gamble “we do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.” This quote has been cited by Angela Davis to support her claims that Sanger wanted to exterminate black people.[101] However, New York University’s Margaret Sanger Papers Project, argues that in writing that letter, “Sanger recognized that elements within the black community might mistakenly associate the Negro Project with racist sterilization campaigns in the Jim Crow South, unless clergy and other community leaders spread the word that the Project had a humanitarian aim.”[102]

Freedom of speech

Sanger opposed censorship throughout her career, with a zeal comparable to her support for birth control. Sanger grew up in a home where iconoclastic orator Robert Ingersoll was admired.[103] During the early years of her activism, Sanger viewed birth control primarily as a free-speech issue, rather than as a feminist issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel in 1914, she did so with the express goal of provoking a legal challenge to the Comstock laws banning dissemination of information about contraception.[21] In New York, Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to members of the Free Speech League, such as Edward Bliss Foote and Theodore Schroeder, and subsequently the League provided funding and advice to help Sanger with legal battles.[104]

Over the course of her career, Sanger was arrested at least eight times for expressing her views during an era in which speaking publicly about contraception was illegal.[105] Numerous times in her career, local government officials prevented Sanger from speaking by shuttering a facility or threatening her hosts.[106] In Boston in 1929, city officials under the leadership of James Curley threatened to arrest her if she spoke—so she turned the threat to her advantage and stood on stage, silent, with a gag over her mouth, while her speech was read by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.[107]

Abortion

Sanger’s family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion.[108][note 9] It was not until the mid-1960s, after Sanger’s death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception.[note 10] Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception, and because they were dangerous for the mother in the early 20th century. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote: “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”[111]

Historian Rodger Streitmatter concluded that Sanger’s opposition to abortion stemmed from concerns for the dangers to the mother, rather than moral concerns.[112] However, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: “[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”[113] And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that “no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”[114]

Works

Books and pamphlets
  • What Every Mother Should Know – Originally published in 1911 or 1912, based on a series of articles Sanger published in 1911 in the New York Call, which were, in turn, based on a set of lectures Sanger gave to groups of Socialist party women in 1910–1911.[115] Multiple editions published through the 1920s, by Max N. Maisel and Sincere Publishing, with the title What Every Mother Should Know, or how six little children were taught the truth … Online (1921 edition, Michigan State University)
  • Family Limitation – Originally published 1914 as a 16-page pamphlet; also published in several later editions. Online (1917, 6th edition, Michigan State University)
  • What Every Girl Should Know – Originally published 1916 by Max N. Maisel; 91 pages; also published in several later editions. Online (1920 edition); Online (1922 ed., Michigan State University)
  • The Case for Birth Control: A Supplementary Brief and Statement of Facts – May 1917, published to provide information to the court in a legal proceeding. Online (Internet Archive)
  • Woman and the New Race, 1920, Truth Publishing, foreword by Havelock Ellis. Online (Harvard University); Online (Project Gutenberg); Online (Internet Archive); Audio on Archive.org
  • Debate on Birth Control – 1921, text of a debate between Sanger, Theodore Roosevelt, Winter Russell, George Bernard Shaw, Robert L. Wolf, and Emma Sargent Russell. Published as issue 208 of Little Blue Book series by Haldeman-Julius Co. Online (1921, Michigan State University)
  • The Pivot of Civilization, 1922, Brentanos. Online (1922, Project Gutenberg); Online (1922, Google Books)
  • Motherhood in Bondage, 1928, Brentanos. Online (Google Books).
  • My Fight for Birth Control, 1931, New York: Farrar & Rinehart
  • An Autobiography. New York, NY: Cooper Square Press. 1938. ISBN 0-8154-1015-8.
  • Fight for Birth Control, 1916, New York] [1] (The Library of Congress)
  • Birth Control A Parent’s Problem or Women’s?” The Birth Control Review, Mar. 1919, 6-7.
Periodicals
  • The Woman Rebel – Seven issues published monthly from March 1914 to August 1914. Sanger was publisher and editor.
  • Birth Control Review – Published monthly from February 1917 to 1940. Sanger was Editor until 1929, when she resigned from the ABCL.[116] Not to be confused with Birth Control News, published by the London-based Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress.
Collections and anthologies
Speeches

See also

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-507

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Democrats and Progressives Support Planned Parenthood’s Big Business of Abortions, Baby Butchering and Selling Baby Body Parts For Money — Moral Bankruptcy of The Lying Lunatic Left — Killing Black, Hispanic and White Babies and Selling Their Baby Parts For Money — Progressive Eugenics Today –Stop Killing Babies! — Videos

Posted on July 15, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Biology, British History, Catholic Church, Chemistry, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Demographics, Documentary, Economics, Education, Ethic Cleansing, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Medical, Natural Gas, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Religious, Resources, Science, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Technology, Television, Video, War, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 505 July 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 504 July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503 July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502 July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501 July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500 July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499 July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498 July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497 July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496 June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495 June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494 June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

 Story 1: Democrats and Progressives Support Planned Parenthood’s Big Business of Abortions, Baby Butchering and Selling Baby Body Parts For Money — Moral Bankruptcy of The Lying Lunatic Left — Killing Black, Hispanic and White Babies and Selling Their Baby Parts For Money — Progressive Eugenics Today –Stop Killing Babies! — Videos

 martin luther kingNUMBER-ONE-KILLER-2013-FBgenocide-blacks

SHOCK VIDEO: Planned Parenthood sells dead baby body parts

Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

BUSTED! Proof Planned Parenthood Sells Dead Babies to Anyone Willing to Buy! LEAKED FOOTAGE!

REP STANDS UP TO BABY PARTS BROKERS of PLANNED PARENTHOOD SATANISTS

Planned Parenthood Exposed

FULL FOOTAGE: Planned Parenthood Uses Partial-Birth Abortions to Sell Baby Parts

The Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (lyrics)

Rolling Stones – You Can’t Always Get What You Want (The David Frost Show 1969)

The Silent Scream (Full Length)

The Silent Scream Complete Version – Abortion as Infanticide

Dr. Bernard Nathanson’s classic video that shocked the world. He explains the procedure of a suction abortion, followed by an actual first trimester abortion as seen through ultrasound. The viewer can see the child’s pathetic attempts to escape the suction curette as her heart rate doubles, and a “silent scream” as her body is torn apart. A great tool to help people see why abortion is murder. The most important video on abortion ever made. This video changed opinion on abortion to many people.
Introduction by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, host. Describes the technology of ultrasound and how, for the first time ever, we can actually see inside the womb. Dr. Nathanson further describes the ultrasound technique and shows examples of babies in the womb. Three-dimensional depiction of the developing fetus, from 4 weeks through 28 weeks. Display and usage of the abortionists’ tools, plus video of an abortionist performing a suction abortion.

Dr. Nathanson discusses the abortionist who agreed to allow this abortion to be filmed with ultrasound. The abortionist was quite skilled, having performed more than 10,000 abortions. We discover that the resulting ultrasound of his abortion so appalled him that he never again performed another abortion.

The clip begins with an ultrasound of the fetus (girl) who is about to be aborted. The girl is moving in the womb; displays a heartbeat of 140 per minute; and is at times sucking her thumb. As the abortionist’s suction tip begins to invade the womb, the child rears and moves violently in an attempt to avoid the instrument. Her mouth is visibly open in a “silent scream.” The child’s heart rate speeds up dramatically (to 200 beats per minute) as she senses aggression. She moves violently away in a pathetic attempt to escape the instrument. The abortionist’s suction tip begins to rip the baby’s limbs from its body, ultimately leaving only her head in the uterus (too large to be pulled from the uterus in one piece). The abortionist attempts to crush her head with his forceps, allowing it to be removed. In an effort to “dehumanize” the procedure, the abortionist and anesthesiologist refer to the baby’s head as “number 1.” The abortionist crushes “number 1” with the forceps and removes it from the uterus.

Abortion statistics are revealed, as well as who benefits from the enormously lucrative industry that has developed. Clinics are now franchised, and there is ample evidence that many are controlled by organized crime. Women are victims, too. They haven’t been told about the true nature of the unborn child or the facts about abortion procedures. Their wombs have been perforated, infected, destroyed, and sterilized. All as a result of an operation about which they they have had no true knowledge.

Films like this must be made part of “informed consent.” NARAL (National Abortion Rights Action League) and Planned Parenthood are accused of a conspiracy of silence, of keeping women in the dark about the reality of abortion. Finally, Dr. Nathanson discusses his credentials. He is a former abortionist, having been the director of the largest clinic in the Western world.

Margaret Sanger’s “Negro Project” & Barack Obama’s Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Exposed

Obama Tells Planned Parenthood-God Bless You – YouTube

A message to Planned Parenthood Supporters from President Obama

Barack Obama Addresses Planned Parenthood

Obama In ’03: No On Banning Late Term Abortions

Obama’s Barbaric Views on Partial Birth Abortion and Infanticide

MAAFA 21 [A documentary on eugenics and genocide]

Hitler`s Biological Soldiers / Science and the Swastika (EUGENICS)

Eugenics Glenn Beck w/ Edwin Black author of “War Against the Weak” talk Al Gore & Margaret Sanger

OVERPOPULATION

What’s Wrong With Socialism?

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood & Psychology, Mind Control

Mind Control, Psychology of Brainwashing, Sex & Hypnosis

Sex Addiction, Restless Legs Syndrome, PMS & Drug, Mind Control Report

Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood’s Racist Founder

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (1/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (2/3)

Margaret Sanger: Eugenicist (3/3)

Pro-Lifer Mark Crutcher & Alex Jones: Eugenics is The Heart of The Globalists Religion 1/3

Pro-Lifer Mark Crutcher & Alex Jones: Eugenics is The Heart of The Globalists Religion 2/3

Pro-Lifer Mark Crutcher & Alex Jones: Eugenics is The Heart of The Globalists Religion 3/3

Slow Kill Holocaust: Proof the Government is Killing You

War on the Weak: Eugenics in America

Eugenics: Science In History

Bill O’Reilly Calls Planned Parenthood An “Abortion Mill”

Eugenics: alive and well in the USA

Scientific Racism The Eugenics of Social Darwinism

Eugenics, Population Control, and the NWO

Agenda 21 & Eugenics – Bill Gates Depopulation Plans Exposed

The Depopulation Agenda For a New World Order Agenda 21 ☁☢☁☰☰☰☰☰✈

George Carlin – List of people who ought to be killed

The Rolling Stones – Angie – OFFICIAL PROMO (Version 1)

Undercover video shows Planned Parenthood official discussing fetal organs used for research

By Sandhya Somashekhar and Danielle Paquette

An antiabortion group on Tuesday released an undercover video of an official at Planned Parenthood discussing in graphic detail how to abort a fetus to preserve its organs for medical research — as well as the costs associated with sharing that tissue with scientists.

Over lunch at a Los Angeles restaurant, two antiabortion activists posing as employees from a biotech firm met with Deborah Nucatola, Planned Parenthood’s senior director of medical research. Armed with cameras, the activists recorded Nucatola talking about Planned Parenthood’s work donating fetal tissue to researchers and pressed her on whether the clinics were charging for the organs.

The Center for Medical Progress, which recorded and edited the video, says the footage proves that Planned Parenthood is breaking the law by selling fetal organs. But the video does not show Nucatola explicitly talking about selling organs. The Planned Parenthood official says the organization is “very, very sensitive” about being perceived as illegally profiting from organ sales and charges only for the cost, for instance, of shipping the tissue.

[Congressional and state investigations into the video have begun]

The video threatens to reignite a long-standing debate over the use of fetal tissue harvested through abortions and could add fuel to efforts seeking to ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

In a statement, a spokesman for Planned Parenthood said the video misrepresents the organization’s work. Planned Parenthood clinics, with a patient’s permission, may sometimes donate fetal tissue for use in stem cell research, said the spokesman, who added that the group’s affiliates, which operate independently, do not profit from these donations.

“At several of our health centers, we help patients who want to donate tissue for scientific research, and we do this just like every other high-quality health-care provider does — with full, appropriate consent from patients and under the highest ethical and legal standards,” spokesman Eric Ferrero said. “In some instances, actual costs, such as the cost to transport tissue to leading research centers, are reimbursed, which is standard across the medical field.”
He accused the Center for Medical Progress of mounting a misleading attack similar to those by other groups that have tried to mount undercover “stings” targeting Planned Parenthood.

But antiabortion groups said the video shows that Planned Parenthood is essentially selling fetal organs and that Congress and other authorities should investigate.

Buying and selling human fetal tissue is illegal in the United States. Federal regulations also prohibit anyone from altering the timing or method of an abortion for the sole purpose of later using the tissue in research. Donating the tissue for research, however, is legal with a woman’s consent.

Antiabortion groups also said the callous nature of the discussion captured on film should tug at viewers’ consciences — particularly when Nucatola apparently describes “crushing” the fetus in ways that keep its internal organs intact and her remarks about researchers’ desire for lungs and livers.

“I’d say a lot of people want liver,” she says in the video posted on the Center for Medical Progress’s Web site, between bites of salad. “And for that reason, most providers will do this case under ultrasound guidance so they’ll know where they’re putting their forceps.”

She continues: “We’ve been very good at getting heart, lung, liver, because we know that, so I’m not gonna crush that part, I’m gonna basically crush below, I’m gonna crush above, and I’m gonna see if I can get it all intact.”

It’s hard to assess exactly what happened at the lunch with Nucatola. The antiabortion group had complete control over the filming and editing of the footage. The group also posted a nearly three-hour version of the video that it’s calling the “full footage,” though there is no way to verify that the video is truly complete.

Key moments from the undercover recording with Planned Parenthood executive(7:56)
The anti-abortion group Center for Medical Progress posted a long version of the conversation between a Planned Parenthood executive and undercover actors on YouTube along with an shorter version that has been shared widely. These are excerpts of the longer version. (CenterforMedicalProgress.org)
The unidentified activists, a man and a woman, told Nucatola they worked for a biotech firm that aimed to snare “a competitive advantage” by providing local samples for researchers who would like to avoid lengthy trips between clinic and lab. They said they worked in Norwalk, a suburb.

“Every provider has patients who want to donate their tissue, and they want to accommodate them,” says Nucatola. “They just want to do it in a way that is not perceived as: This clinic is selling tissue. This clinic is making money off this. In the Planned Parenthood world, they’re very, very sensitive to that. Some affiliates might do it for free. They want to come to a number that looks like a reasonable number for the effort that is allotted on their part . . . ”
One activist asks, “Okay, so, when you are — or when the affiliate is — determining what that monetary . . . So that it doesn’t raise the question of . . . ‘This is what it’s about’ — What price range would you . . . ?”

“You know, I would throw a number out, I would say it’s probably anywhere from $30 to $100, depending on the facility and what’s involved,” says Nucatola. “It just has to do with space issues, are you sending someone there that’s going to be doing everything . . . is there shipping involved? Is someone going to be there to pick it up?”

In order to film the footage, the activists wore “police-quality undercover cameras,” said David Daleiden, who ran the project for the Center of Medical Progress. (He refused to elaborate: “I don’t answer questions about our undercover costumes.”)

The “sting” unfolded over three years, Daleiden said, because it takes time to build up a front as a biotech company and gain access to Planned Parenthood executives. The lunch, he said, is just the beginning: The Center for Medical Progress plans to release a new video every week for the next few months.

Daleiden rejects Nucatola’s claim that costs associated with fetal tissue donation involve shipping and staff hours. “Literally the only thing the clinic is doing is carrying the fetus from the operation to the tech,” he said.

The Center for Medical Progress was established by Daleiden, a controversial antiabortion activist who previously worked with Live Action, another antiabortion group known for its “stings” of Planned Parenthood using actors and undercover videos.

The group is a non-profit organization that describes itself on its Web site as “a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics and advances.”

“The promotional video mischaracterizing Planned Parenthood’s mission and services is made by a long time anti-abortion activist that has used deceptive and unethical video editing, and that has created a fake medical website as well as a fake human tissue website that purports to provide services to stem cell researchers,” Planned Parenthood said in a statement Tuesday.
Daleiden also alleges that the procedure described by Nucatola is similar to “intact dilation and extraction,” referred to by opponents as partial-birth abortion, which Congress outlawed in 2003. The Supreme Court upheld the law’s constitutionality four years later.

In the 1980s and 1990s, researchers considered fetal tissue transplants a budding treatment for Parkinson’s disease and diabetes. Some believed they held the potential to prevent autism.

As different kind of stem cells — embryonic stem cells — gain prominence in research, fetal tissue donations today are often used to gain deeper anatomical understanding of fetuses, said Arthur Caplan, director of New York University’s Division of Medical Ethics. The practice, however, is problematic if an abortion provider goes into a procedure with the primary intention of preserving a liver, he said. In the video, Nucatola appears to allude to methods for carefully extracting the organs.

“I think the only relevant goal of an abortion clinic is to provide a safe and least risky abortion to a woman,” Caplan said. “If you’re starting to play with how it’s done, and when it’s done, other things than women’s health are coming into play. You’re making a huge mountain of conflict of interest around a period for many people is morally difficult.”

A number of Republicans, including a few presidential candidates, reacted Tuesday to the video.

“This latest news is tragic and outrageous,” Carly Fiorina wrote on Facebook.

“This is a shocking and horrific reminder that we must do so much more to foster a culture of life in America,” said Jeb Bush on Twitter.

As politicians responded to the video, a bill to increase funding for breast cancer research was pulled from the House floor after abortion critics linked it to Planned Parenthood. The Breast Cancer Awareness Commemorative Coin Act would have raised as much as $4.75 million in research funds for Susan G. Komen for the Cure—an organization that has a longstanding alliance with Planned Parenthood to fund preventative cancer screenings. The bill was expected to pass easily, but House Republican leaders pulled it from consideration after the conservative group Heritage Action objected.
Whether the video Tuesday shows illegal activity could ultimately be irrelevant. For years, antiabortion groups promoted their cause by highlighting the sometimes disturbing details of abortion procedures and painting abortion providers as callous and unethical.

They have argued against allowing abortions later in pregnancy by suggesting that older fetuses can feel pain and they are pushing for a federal ban on the procedure at 20 weeks of pregnancy.

The accusation that Planned Parenthood is illegally selling the organs of fetuses is not new among antiabortion advocates. The controversy gained national attention in 2000, after the publication of an undercover investigation by a Texas-based antiabortion group, Life Dynamics, which was also involved in Tuesday’s ­video release.

The investigation’s conclusion, that a Kansas clinic affiliated with Planned Parenthood was participating in a scheme to profit from the sale of fetal tissues, prompted a 20/20 hidden camera investigation on the subject, and a hearing of the Subcommittee on Health and Environment in the House of Representatives.

The FBI also investigated the Kansas clinic for any wrongdoing, but later concluded that it did not break any laws.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/undercover-video-shows-planned-parenthood-exec-discussing-organ-harvesting/2015/07/14/ae330e34-2a4d-11e5-bd33-395c05608059_story.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-505

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Greece Defaults On Debt — Barring Last Minutes Rescue Attempts and Results of Sunday Referendum — No Vote Would Result in Greece Exiting Eurozone And Declaring Debt Odious! — Whose Next? — Videos

Posted on July 2, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Corruption, Crime, Economics, Education, European History, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 497  July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496  June 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 495  June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494 June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Story 1: Greece Defaults On Debt — Barring Last Minutes Rescue Attempts and Results of Sunday Referendum — No Vote Would Result in Greece Exiting Eurozone And Declaring Debt Odious! — Whose Next? — Videos

flagsgreece owesgreec debtGreece-debt
eurozone_chart624x325

Debt-to-GDP-Ratio-chart
Greek-Debt-vs-TARP-BailoutGreek-Debts-Payback-Scheduele

debt gdp

kick the can

Greek PM offers new concessions to creditors

JIM ROGERS – Greece Will Collapse & People Will Be Terrified

Greece faces financial meltdown after IMF loan default

Grexit: The Greek Debt Crisis Explained

Not Much Difference Between U.S. and Greece – Peter Schiff

Why Does Greece Have So Much Debt?

Greece: What Is the Worst-Case Scenario?

Keiser Report: Greece! Start Fresh (E777)

Greece to default on IMF loan on Tuesday as banks close and panic buying begins

Greece formally defaults on its 1.6bn-euro IMF loan

Greece defaults on $1.7 billion payment

GREECE DEBT CRISIS – Obama Claims Greece Crisis Unlikely To Have Major Impact on U.S.

‘Greece should Grexit which is fantastic, they could restart their economy’ – Max Keiser

U.S. Headed Toward Greek Style Debt Default

MM115 Markets Crash on Greece

Keiser Report: We Are All Greeks Now (E764)

Greece Defaults on IMF Loan Despite New Push for Bailout Aid

European finance chiefs shut down Athens’s last-minute request for emergency financial aid

Greece became the first developed country to default on the International Monetary Fund, as the rescue program that has sustained it for five years expired and its creditors rejected a last-ditch effort to buy more time.

The Washington-based fund said the Greek government failed to transfer €1.55 billion ($1.73 billion) by close-of-business on Tuesday—the largest, single missed repayment in the IMF’s history.

The failure to pay the IMF was a dramatic, if anticipated, conclusion to a day full of unexpected twists and turns. On Tuesday morning—with the clock ticking toward the midnight expiration on the European portion of Greece’s €245 billion bailout—officials in Athens said they were working on a new solution to the four-month old impasse with creditors.

By the afternoon, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras had asked for a new rescue program—the country’s third in five years—to help pay for some €29.15 billion ($32.52 billion) in debt coming due between 2015 and 2017.

Late Tuesday, Greek officials were also raising doubts over their plans for a referendum planned for Sunday, in which the government had asked its citizens to vote against pension cuts and sales-tax increases demanded by its creditors.

ENLARGE

Some officials suggested that Mr. Tsipras and his ministers could campaign for a “yes” if a better offer from the rest of the eurozone and the IMF was on the table, while others indicated that the vote might even be called off altogether.

Whether any of these developments would keep Greece from financial meltdown andsecure its spot in Europe’s currency union was still unclear. But the prospect of more rescue loans—however dim—might help buffer some of the effects of the nonpayment to the IMF.

But in Berlin, Chancellor Angela Merkel and other senior officials sought to lower expectations for a quick resolution to Greece’s financial crisis.

Before Greeks have voted on the measures demanded by creditors, “we will not negotiate about anything new at all,” Ms. Merkel said. Her deputy and coalition partner, Sigmar Gabriel of the Social Democrats, urged Greece to cancel the referendum altogether. “Then one could very quickly gather for talks, initial talks. If that’s not the case, then we should certainly do this after the referendum,” Mr. Gabriel said.

European stocks and bonds fell amid the uncertainty and the euro declined against the U.S. dollar.

But most of the moves were smaller than the declines a day earlier in reaction to Athens’s weekend announcement that the government would call a referendum on whether to accept the terms that creditors are offering and the government’s shutdown of its banking system to prevent a financial collapse.

In Washington, President Barack Obama played down the potential impact of Greece’s worsening crisis on the U.S. and broader global economy. “That is not something that we believe will have a major shock to the system,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew has been urging his European counterparts to press ahead with bailout talks to find a “pragmatic compromise” that includes both tough economic overhauls and debt relief, to prevent Europe’s economic problems from dragging on U.S. growth.

Related Video

Greek banks have been heavily dependent on support from the European Central Bank. WSJ’s Charles Forelle explains why the country’s banking sector could turn out to be its Achilles heel.

Eurozone finance ministers are scheduled to discuss Greece’s bailout request, along with new proposals for budget cuts and policy overhauls, in a teleconference Wednesday morning.

Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis told his counterparts Tuesday that these plans would be close to the creditors’ latest demands, Austrian Finance Minister Hans Jörg Schelling said in a television interview.

Mr. Varoufakis also suggested that his government might campaign for a “yes” in the referendum if its new proposals were accepted, Mr. Schelling said.

Other officials were more skeptical that, after four months of at times acrimonious negotiations, Mr. Tsipras’s left-wing government was finally giving in to creditors’ demands.

“The political stance of the Greek government doesn’t appear to have changed,” said Jeroen Dijsselbloem, the Dutch finance minister who presides over the talks with his eurozone counterparts. Mr. Dijsselbloem already said over the weekend that the government would have a hard time convincing creditors and investors that it would implement measures it has to far opposed.

The expiration of the existing bailout and a default on the IMF aren’t expected to have immediate consequences for Greece’s economy. Its banks have already been ordered closed until Monday, after the European Central Bank capped emergency loans to Greek lenders over the weekend. Cash withdrawals by Greeks have been limited to €60 a day for each account-holder since Monday.

On Wednesday, the focus will again be on the ECB, whose governing council is due to meet in Frankfurt.

The council, which includes central bankers from the eurozone’s 19 member states, is reluctant to take any additional steps for now that would inflict more pain on Greek banks—for instance, by forcing them to pay back the outstanding loans just days ahead of the referendum, people familiar with the matter said, despite a growing level of impatience over the central bank’s exposure to Greece.

One largely symbolic option would be for the ECB to raise the amount of collateral that banks have to post in return for the emergency loans, but calibrate the reductions on the face value of assets used for collateral so that Greek lenders would still have enough to cover the existing €89 billion loan pile.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/some-greek-banks-to-open-for-pensioners-1435653433

Greek crisis deepens as loan repayment deadline passes

Kim Hjelmgaard and Marco della Cava,

reece’s midnight deadline passed Tuesday for repaying $1.8 billion to the International Monetary Fund and other international creditors, deepening a financial crisis that threatens the Mediterranean nation’s membership in the European Union.

Despite an eleventh-hour effort by Greek lawmakers Tuesday to secure a new two-year debt deal before the deadline, European finance ministers reviewing Greece’s proposal concluded their conference call without offering a bailout extension.

The ministers agreed to convene again Wednesday to further discuss the details of a new series of loans from the eurozone’s European Stability Mechanism, its $560 billion rescue fund.

After the deadline passed (at 6 pm ET), Greece joined Zimbabwe, Sudan and Somaliain being in arrears to the IMF. Fitch Ratings has downgraded Greece’s government debt further into junk territory.

Standing in the way of any new deal from the IMF and other creditors is Sunday’s Greek referendum on whether to accept the terms that would come with a new aid package, which includes tax increases and spending cutbacks after years of recession. There is some dispute over whether such a referendum could be canceled, with some Greek lawmakers arguing that the vote is now set in stone.

Late Tuesday, thousands of Greeks took to the streets of Athens, many of them in support of accepting new bailout terms. A “no” vote would lead to Greece leaving the European Union and abandoning the euro currency.

The $1.8 billion Greece owes is part of a $270 billion aid plan it received from the IMF, the European Central Bank (ECB) and the European Commission — 19 eurozone governments — during its financial crisis.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel made her position clear Tuesday, telling reporters in Berlin, “We’ll negotiate about absolutely nothing before the planned referendum is held.”

Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has said that his government would step down if “yes” votes prevailed, telling a Greek public broadcasting outlet Monday, “We’ll choose in a sovereign way what our future will be like, we will insist on negotiating.”

President Obama cautioned that a failed Greek economy could have significant ripple effects on markets around the world, adding Tuesday that “what you have here is a country that has gone through some very difficult economic times, and needs to find a path toward growth and a path toward staying in the eurozone.”

But should there be a so-called Grexit — or Greek exit from the European financial community — Obama added that “it is important for us that we plan for any contingency, that we work with the ECB and other international institutions to ensure that some of the bumps that occur in the financial markets are smoothed out.”

Greece had previously indicated it would not be able to make the payment. The IMF said it would not give Greece its customary 30-day grace period before issuing a notice of technical default.

But Athens is not expected to immediately go bankrupt. That would only happen if its non-payment triggers further defaults in its financial system, which is not expected.

Next month, on July 20, Greece is also due to pay the ECB $3.9 billion.

Talks between Greece and its creditors have broken down as Athens has tried to negotiate less onerous repayment terms, mainly centered around austerity measures. Global markets on Monday tumbled over fears that the country’s attempts to strike a better deal could see it forced out of the eurozone. Its membership in the European Union is also at stake.

But markets bounced back Tuesday in Asia, and European indexes moved away from earlier losses after steep sell-offs in those regions helped push the Dow down 350 points in the prior session — its biggest one-day point loss since June 20, 2013.

On Tuesday, U.S. markets edged higher, buoyed by Greece’s new proposal that came against the dominant crisis narrative of the last 48 hours.

Earlier, citing unnamed government sources, Greece’s Ekathimerini newspaper reported Athens was reconsidering a previous proposal by European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. No details were provided.

A Greek eurozone exit, it is feared, would reignite the financial contagion experienced during the sovereign debt crisis of 2009 and beyond when billions of dollars were wiped off the value of European government debt and other assets.

Still, while many analysts and officials have warned that Greece leaving the eurozone could have far-reaching consequences for economies and markets across the world, the specific impact of that possible development remains mostly unclear.

“If Greece leaves the eurozone, there is unlikely to be a big bang moment when the country adopts the drachma (the currency it used prior to adopting the euro in 2001),” said Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, a unit of the ratings firm.

“It will happen over time, as the Greek government issues IOUs that effectively become the new currency,” he said.

Greek Prime Minister Tsipras hinted Monday that he may resign if his nation votes “yes” in the referendum Sunday. Tsipras’ leftist Syriza party insists the vote is being called to strengthen its negotiating mandate with its creditors.

“If the Greek people want to proceed with austerity plans in perpetuity, which will leave us unable to lift our head, we will respect it, but we will not be the ones to carry it out,” he said on Greek television late Monday.

European leaders including Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and French PresidentFrancois Hollande dispute that. They say that Sunday’s vote will effectively be a referendum on whether Greece wants to remain part of the eurozone.

The government has limited cash withdrawals from banks to about $68 per day in a bid to stave off bank runs and keep its financial system from collapsing, triggering protests from groups on both sides of Sunday’s yes or no vote.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/06/30/greek-crisis-deepens-as-loan-repayment-deadline-nears/29518847/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-497

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Gay Hollywood Mafia Money and Propaganda Succeeds — Supreme Court Ignores States Rights, Will of American People, United States Constitution And Bill of Rights and Rules in Favor of Same Sex Gay Marriage — Betrayal of Oath of Office — End The Two Party Tyranny — Videos

Posted on June 29, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, Business, Catholic Church, Comedy, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Faith, Family, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Literacy, media, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Psychology, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Strategy, Supreme Court, Talk Radio, Taxation, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 494 June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Gay Hollywood Mafia Money and Propaganda Succeeds — Supreme Court Ignores States Rights, Will of American People, United States Constitution And Bill of Rights and Rules in Favor of Same Sex Gay Marriage —  Betrayal of Oath of Office — End The Two Party Tyranny — Videos

supreme_courtgaymarriageobama_gay_evolvedObamaObama-Gay-Evolutionobama-gay-marriage-present-cartoonobama_gayshollywood gay mafia and obamabiden  obamaobama_biden_shootgunobama biden honeymoonman holeobama-rainbowgiftjpgImageCartoon-for-no-sex-marriagegary-mccoygay marriage actunemployment

First Amendment

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.  It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.  It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely.  It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/first_amendment

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens.  The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is  “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination),Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).  See more

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2.

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several states according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each state, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4.

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any state shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv

U.S. Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Same Sex Marriage SCOTUS Gay MArriage Ruling

Inside the courtroom for SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

Shields and Gerson on Supreme Court’s gay marriage, Obamacare decisions

Special Report: Supreme Court legalizes same-sex marriage

Supreme Court: States CANNOT Ban Same Sex Marriage

Same-sex marriage ruling divides some GOP candidates

GOP Congress Shows Little Appetite to Fight Gay Marriage Ruling…

US Supreme Court backs gay marriage – BBC News

Supreme Court rules in favor of same-sex marriage. What’s next?

Lead Plaintiff on Supreme Court’s same-sex marriage ruling

Obama hails Supreme Court’s gay marriage ruling

The Equal Protection Clause Does Not Require States To License Same-Sex Marriages

Civil Unions Vs Marriage: Laura Ingraham Weighs In | Larry King Now

Civil Unions or Gay Marriage

Civil Unions: A Love Story

Why aren’t civil unions good enough for YOU?

Rome: Same sex couples celebrate first civil unions

Debate: Does the Constitution require states to recognize same-sex marriage?

GAY MARRIAGE (Virtual Press Conference)

Jim Obergefell responds to Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage

The Marxist/Gay “Takedown” of America

“SIR, I WILL NOT OBEY THAT ORDER.”

Obama Admits Communist “Schooled” him on White Racism

From the Vault • Barack Obama • SEP 1995

22-CityView presents Barack Obama speaking at the Cambridge Public Library. Recorded on September 20,1995, this originally aired on Channel 37 Cambridge Municipal Television as an episode of the show “The Author Series.” In this episode Obama discusses his book “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance,” which at the time had just been released a few months previously.

PJTV: Are You a Homophobe For Not Supporting Gay Marriage?

Megyn Kelly Panel Battles on Whether Clinton & Obama Are Phonies Having Evolved on Gay Marriage

The Real Reason Obama Evolved On Gay Marriage

Biden’s Same-Sex Interview: Is the Obama Administration For-Against Gay Marriage?

VP Joe Biden ENDORSES same-sex marriage

Obama’s Gay Marriage Support: Forced by Biden

Obama Opposed Gay Marriage For The Worst Reason Of All

Axelrod: Obama hid position on gay marriage in 2008

David Axelrod on Obama’s Gay Marriage Stance

Obama LIED…About Opposing Gay Marriage

Barack Obama on Gay Marriage

Obama 2004: “I Am Not A Supporter Of Gay Marriage”

Obama In 2004: “I Don’t Think Marriage Is A Civil Right”

The Daily Show – Rights Courts

Bill Maher: The Gay Mafia Is REAL

Bill Maher: “There is a Gay Mafia, If You Cross Them You Get Wacked”

Hollywood “Gay Mafia” Explored! (2014)

Hollywood Gay Mafia – David Geffen, Barry Diller, Sandy Gallin III

The Gay Mafia Is Upset With ET Williams

CULTURAL MARXISM: The Corruption of America

The Historic Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage

Gay Marriage Backers Win Supreme Court Victory

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/27/us/supreme-court-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0

Supreme Court opinion on same sex marriage

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples. Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

The Supreme Court’s Same-Sex Marriage Decision Is Already Being Used to Sell You Washing Machines

From Miller Lite to Maytag, here’s how popular brands reacted to the SCOTUS ruling this morning.

Not very long ago, even the token gay television character could cause an uproar, and while popular brands may have voiced unequivocal support for some sort of nebulous gay “pride,” many avoided staking a position on the controversial political question of same-sex marriage. Today, with the U.S. Supreme Court declaring “the right of same-sex couples to marry” throughout the country, brands from Miller Lite to Maytag were quick to react in support the decision on social media. It all may be a bit hokey and opportunistic, but the extent to which iconicly American brands aren’t worried about alienating customers with pro-gay-marriage messages perhaps shows us more than anything that America is ready for marriage equality to be the law of the land. Here’s a sampling of brand tweets this morning about the SCOTUS marriage decision:

@MillerLite: As long as you are you, #ItsMillerTime. #LoveWins

@MillerLite/Twitter@MillerLite/Twitter

@TheMaytagMan: Here’s to finding the one who completes you. #SCOTUSMarriage

@TheMaytagMan/Twitter@TheMaytagMan/Twitter

@Cheerios: And now, no one can tell you otherwise. #LoveWins

@Cheerios/Twitter@Cheerios/Twitter

‏@ChipotleTweets: Homo Estas? Very well, thank you. #LoveWins 

@ChipotleTweets/Twitter@ChipotleTweets/Twitter

@VogueMagazine: LoveWins today: http://vogue.cm/1Ja0KIU

@voguemagazine/Twitter@voguemagazine/Twitter

@Staples: MAKE equality HAPPEN #LoveWins

@Staples/Twitter@Staples/Twitter

@CocaCola: It’s now official. Love is love is love. #LoveWins

@CocaCola/Twitter@CocaCola/Twitter

@SubPop: It’s a great day in the USA. #lovewins 

@subpop/Twitter@subpop/Twitter

@Macys: From this day forward… #loveislove

@Macys/Twitter@Macys/Twitter

@Uber_Ohio: Destination: Love #SCOTUSmarriage #LoveWins

@Uber_Ohio@Uber_Ohio

@Motorola: Today #LoveWins and we couldn’t be happier – Now everyone can #ChooseLove

@Motorola/Twitter@Motorola/Twitter

Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a staff editor at Reason.com.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/26/brand-tweets-about-gay-marriage-decision

Supreme Court rules gay couples nationwide have a right to marry

By Robert Barnes

The Supreme Court on Friday delivered a historic victory for gay rights, ruling 5 to 4 that the Constitution requires that same-sex couples be allowed to marry no matter where they live and that states may no longer reserve the right only for heterosexual couples.

The court’s action marks the culmination of an unprecedented upheaval in public opinion and the nation’s jurisprudence. Advocates called it the most pressing civil rights issue of modern times, while critics said the courts had sent the country into uncharted territory by changing the traditional definition of marriage.

“Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. He was joined in the ruling by the court’s liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

All four of the court’s most conservative members — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. — dissented and each wrote a separate opinion, saying the court had usurped a power that belongs to the people.

How same-sex marriage became legal across the country VIEW GRAPHIC
Reading a dissent from the bench for the first time in his tenure, Roberts said, “Just who do we think we are? I have no choice but to dissent.”

In his opinion, Roberts wrote: “Many people will rejoice at this decision, and I begrudge none their celebration. But for those who believe in a government of laws, not of men, the majority’s approach is deeply disheartening.”

[It’s the first time Roberts has had such a bold statement from the bench]

Scalia called the decision a “threat to American democracy,” saying it was “constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine.”

In a statement in the White House Rose Garden, President Obama hailed the decision: “This ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are truly treated as equal, we are more free.”

Obama said change on social issues can seem slow sometimes, but “sometimes there are days like this when that slow and steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt. This morning the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees marriage equality. In doing so they’ve reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to equal protection under the law. . . . Today we can say in no uncertain terms that we have made our union a little more perfect.”

How people outside the court reacted to the gay marriage ruling
View Photos A sea of cheering, rainbow flag-waving people filled the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court to celebrate the decision.
There were wild scenes of celebrations on the sidewalk outside the Supreme Court, as same-sex marriage supporters had arrived early, armed with signs and rainbow flags. They celebrated the announcement of a constitutional right to something that did not legally exist anywhere in the world until the turn of the new century.

Jim Obergefell, who became the face of the case, Obergefell v. Hodges, when he sought to put his name on his husband’s death certificate as the surviving spouse, said: “Today’s ruling from the Supreme Court affirms what millions across the country already know to be true in our hearts: that our love is equal.”

“It is my hope that the term gay marriage will soon be a thing of the past, that from this day forward it will be simply, marriage,” he said. “All Americans deserve equal dignity, respect and treatment when it comes to the recognition of our relationships and families.’’

But Austin R. Nimocks, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, a pro-traditional marriage group, said: “Today, five lawyers took away the voices of more than 300 million Americans to continue to debate the most important social institution in the history of the world. That decision is truly unfortunate. . . . Nobody has the right to say that a mom or a woman or a dad or a man is irrelevant. There are differences that should be celebrated. Millions of Americans still believe that.’’

[Opponents of gay marriage are divided on whether to resist the ruling]

This country’s first legally recognized same-sex marriages took place just 11 years ago, the result of a Massachusetts state supreme court decision. Now, more than 70 percent of Americans live in states where same-sex couples are allowed to marry, according to estimates.

The Supreme Court used cases from Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee, where restrictions about same-sex marriage were upheld by an appeals court last year, to find that the Constitution does not allow such prohibitions.
Kennedy has written the Supreme Court’s most important gay rights cases: overturning criminal laws on homosexual conduct, protecting gays from discrimination and declaring that the federal government could not refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed where they were legal.

He often employs a lofty, writing-for-history tone, and Friday’s decision was no different.

Referring to the couples who brought the cases before the court, Kennedy wrote: “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions.”

Kennedy did not respond directly to the court’s dissenters, but he addressed the argument that the court was creating a new constitutional right. The right to marriage is fundamental, he said. The difference is society’s way of thinking who may marry, he said.

“The limitation of marriage to opposite-sex couples may long have seemed natural and just, but its inconsistency with the central meaning of the fundamental right to marry is now manifest,” he wrote. “With that knowledge must come the recognition that laws excluding same-sex couples from the marriage right impose stigma and injury of the kind prohibited by our basic charter.”

Scalia declared that Kennedy’s writing style was “as pretentious as its content is egotistic.”

And Roberts, in a biting dissent far more harsh than his usual style, said the decision was “an act of will, not legal judgment” with “no basis in the Constitution or this court’s precedent.”

“The court invalidates the marriage laws of more than half the states and orders the transformation of a social institution that has formed the basis of human society for millennia, for the Kalahari Bushmen and the Han Chinese, the Carthaginians and the Aztecs,” Roberts wrote. “Just who do we think we are?”
The questions raised in the cases decided Friday were left unanswered in 2013, when the justices last confronted the issue of same-sex marriage. A slim majority of the court said at the time that a key portion of the Defense of Marriage Act — withholding the federal government’s recognition of same-sex marriages — was unconstitutional. In a separate case, the court said procedural issues kept it from answering the constitutional question in a case from California, but that move allowed same-sex marriages to resume in that state.

Since then, courts across the nation — with the notable exception of the Cincinnati-based federal appeals court that left intact the restrictions in the four states at issue — have struck down a string of state prohibitions on same-sex marriage, many of them passed by voters in referendums.

When the Supreme Court declined to review a clutch of those court decisions in October, same-sex marriage proliferated across the country.

Public attitudes toward such unions have undergone a remarkable change as well. A recent Washington Post-ABC poll showed a record 61 percent of Americans say they support same-sex marriage. The acceptance is driven by higher margins among the young.

[Interactive: See how gay rights have spread around the world over 224 years]

When the justices declined in October to review the string of victories same-sex marriage proponents had won in other parts of the country, it meant the number of states required to allow gay marriages grew dramatically, offering the kind of cultural shift the court often likes to see before approving a fundamental change.

The Obama administration had urged the court to find that the Constitution requires such restrictions be struck down, and Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. made the case on behalf of the administration at the court’s oral arguments in April.

“In a world in which gay and lesbian couples live openly as our neighbors, they raise their children side by side with the rest of us, they contribute fully as members of the community . . . it is simply untenable — untenable — to suggest that they can be denied the right of equal participation in an institution of marriage, or that they can be required to wait until the majority decides that it is ready to treat gay and lesbian people as equals,” he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/gay-marriage-and-other-major-rulings-at-the-supreme-court/2015/06/25/ef75a120-1b6d-11e5-bd7f-4611a60dd8e5_story.html

How each justice came down on same-sex marriage

  • Mark Berman

The Supreme Court’s ruling followed a swell of courts striking down state bans on same-sex marriage and a surge in public support for such marriages. Still, the high court’s 5 to 4 ruling was a historic and narrow victory for gay rights.

The court’s four most conservative members dissented, and each of them wrote a separate opinion decrying the decision. Justice Antonin Scalia, unsurprisingly, wrote the fieriest dissent, needing just two sentences to say that the majority’s decision is a “threat to American democracy.”

He the decision a “judicial Putsch,” says it is delivered in a style “as pretentious as its content is egotistic” and — at one point — follows a quote from the majority opinion with “Really?” and another with “Huh?” In a footnote, Scalia says that if he ever joined an opinion that opens the way the majority opinion does, “I would hide my head in a bag.” He then adds: “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” Scalia was not a fan.

For more on how Scalia explained his decision and how the other justices explained theirs, head to Post Nation.

The paragraph gay marriage supporters will never forget

  • Max Ehrenfreund

The final paragraph of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion holding that couples of the same sex havea constitutional right to wed is a cogent statement of what marriage means.

kennedygraf

Kennedy is responding to opponents of gay marriage who argue that it undermines the traditional sanctity of an ancient institution by redefining it. The point of same-sex unions is not to weaken marriage, he argues, but to expand it in the nation as a whole and honor it more fully in their own lives.

These lines echo the final paragraph of Loving v. Virginia, the case in which the Supreme Court threw out laws banning interracial marriage in 1967.

“Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man,’ fundamental to our very existence and survival,”Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote then.

And the passage is also reminiscent of the conclusion of Griswold v. Connecticut, an important case from 1965 on contraception among married couples.

“Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred,” Justice William O. Douglas argued. “It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-nation-live/liveblog/live-updates-supreme-court-rules-gay-couples-nationwide-have-a-right-to-marry/

SAME SEX MARRIAGE

Kayoun Kim

One issue receiving considerable attention in the popular press is same-sex marriage and the current loosening of social constraints against gay marriage. Same-Sex Marriage , defined as marriage between two people of the same biological sex and/or gender identity, is a new social phenomenon, “leading to a new type of family formation. In modern times same-sex marriage did not exist until the twenty-first century when an increasing number of countries began permitting same-sex couples to marry legally. In addition, beginning in the late twentieth century there has been a growing global movement to regard marriage as a fundamental human right to be extended to same-sex couples. These events are extraordinary given that even during most of the twentieth century, homosexuals were closeted and the concept of same-sex marriage was inconceivable, perceived by nearly all as an oxymoron.” (Chamie, Joshph, and Barry, M. 2011. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Pppulation Council37(3): 529-551)

Marriage equality has made significant gains with public opinion and within state legislature, since Massachusetts legalized same-sex marriage within its borders in 2004. A result of the change in legal status in same-sex marriage is the growth in the marriage industry for gay men and lesbians. “Currently, as of 15 October 2014, 29 states and the District of Columbia, and ten Native American tribal jurisdictions allow and fully recognize same-sex marriages: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. There are 21 states, and 2 territories (Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin islands), that explicitly prohibit same-sex marriages in their constitutions and/or by statute, including: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Wyoming. Of these states banning same-sex marriage, the following states have been declared that same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional, but the rulings have been stayed: Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan and Texas.” (“Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts.” 2014. CNN U.S. October 14. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marrage-fast-facts/))

“As a result of successful legal challenges and related social and policy developments, same-sex marriage is generating a combination of elation, controversy, and opposition in many countries around the world, notably in the United States. Indeed, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage has emerged as one of the most socially, politically, and legally divisive issues of the day. While most reactions to this new form of marriage and family formation have been intense and vocal, many commentators as well as the general public have little factual knowledge about same-sex marriage. All too often, public opinion and attitudes concerning same-sex marriage are based on apprehension, misconception, and hearsay.” (Chamie, Joshph, and Barry, M. 2011. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Pppulation Council37(3): 529-551)

Attitudes Towards Same-Sex Marriage

During the 21st century, public support for same-sex marriage has grown considerably, and national polls conducted since 2011 show that a majority of Americans support legalizing it.
“On May 9, 2012, Barack Obama became the first sitting U.S. president legalize same-sex marriage through popular vote.” ( Stein, Sam. 2012. ” Obama Backs Gay Marriage.” Huff Post Politics, May 5. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html))
“Support for same-sex marriage jumped 21 percent points from 2003, when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize same-sex marriage, to 2014. Currently, a majority (55%) of Americans favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to legally marry, compared to 41% who oppose. In 2003, less than one-third (32%) of Americans supported allowing same-sex couples to legally marry, compared to nearly 6 in 10 (59%) who opposed.” (“Survey A shifting Landscape: A decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues.” 2014. Public Religion Research Institute, January 26. (http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/))

Prevalence of Same-Sex Households

“According to the Census Bureau, the same-sex couples households in the US in 2010 were 646,464.” (Amy Roberts and Caitlin Stark. 2014. “By the numbers: Same-sex marriage.” CNN Politics, October 6. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/) One study demonstrated how using linked micromaps can improve mapping of same-sex couples household data. This study found that “an estimated 1 percent of US couple households, from 2006 through 2010, were same-sex couples households, and the percentage of same-sex couples household is much higher in metropolitan areas than in non-metropolitan areas. It found that the reason that Washington D.C. has the highest percentage of same-sex households because Washington D.C. itself is a central city.” (Mast, Brent, D. 2013. “Visualizing Same-Sex Couple Household Data With Linked Micromaps.” US Department of Housing and Urban Development15(2):267-271.)

Same-Sex Marriage Experience

Aine Marie Humble examined married older same-sex couples’ experiences of transitioning into marriage in order to explore how and why these couples in mid-to later life decided to marry and the characteristics of their weddings and wedding planning. She found that getting married for many older same-sex couples is even harder than for younger same-sex couples, because older cohorts of same-sex couples could not easily dispel the internalized beliefs “such as same-sex couples could never marry and marriage was not for them due to the fact that they have lived most of their lives through years of homophobia and heterosexism, which has affected their worldviews. Moreover, some older same-sex couples, particularly those in long-term relationships, may already view themselves as married and thus do not initially see the need for the legal marriage.” (Humble, Aine, M., 2013. “Moving from Ambivalence to Certainty: Older Same-Sex Couples Marry in Canada.” Canadian Journal on Aging 32(2): 131-144)
Pamela J. Lannutti examined the ways in which legally recognized same-sex marriage has affected the lives of same-sex couples in order to see how same-sex marriage is benefiting and challenging these couples on the individual and interpersonal levels. She found that “all of the couples that she had interviewed with expressed some way in which same-sex marriage improved or strengthened their romantic relationship, and others expressed that it contributed to a closer emotional bond between them. However, some participants expressed that they were stressed out during their marriage decision process or planning their weddings, because they lacked support from their families-of-origin.” (Lannutti, Pamela, J. 2007. “”This is Not a Lesbian Wedding”: Examining Same-Sex Marriage and Bisexual-Lesbian Couples.” Co-published simultaneosly in Journal of Bisexuality 7(3/4): 237-260; and: Bisexuality and Same-Sex Marriage 7(3/4): 237-260.)
Pamela J. Lannutti’s another study examined same-sex couples’ attractions to marriage and obstacles that challenged them when considering marriage. She found that the primary reason why same-sex couples decide to marry is because it would offer greater legal protections and civil benefits for their committed relationship. Another reason is that it would make it easier to bring children into their lives or protect their relationships with the children they already had. In terms of obstacles of same-sex marriage, the majority of these couples (41%) expressed that family disapproval, usually parental disapproval, was an obstacle to their marriage.

Reference Page

Chamie, Joshph, and Barry, M. 2011. “Same-Sex Marriage: A New Social Phenomenon.” Population Council 37(3): 529-551.

“Same-Sex Marriage Fast Facts.” 2014. CNN U.S. October 14. (http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/28/us/same-sex-marriage-fast-facts/)

Stein, Sam. 2012. “Obama Backs Gay Marriage.” Huff Post Politics, May 5. (http:222.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/09/obama-gay-marriage_n_1503245.html)

“Survey A shifting Landscape: A decade of Change in American Attitudes about Same-Sex Marriage and LGBT Issues.” 2014. Public Religion Research Institute, January 26. (http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/)

Amy Roberts and Caitlin Stark. 2014. “By the numbers: Same-sex marriage.” CNN Politics, October 6. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/politics/btn-same-sex-marriage/)

Mast, Brent, D. 2013. “Visualizing Same-Sex Couple Household Data with Linked Micromaps.” US Department of housing and Urban Development 15(2): 267-271.

Humble, Aine, M., 2013. “Moving from Ambivalence to Certainty: Older Same-Sex Couples Marry in Canada.” Canadian Journal on Aging 32(2): 131-144

Lannutti, Pamela, J. 2007. “”This is Not a Lesbian Wedding”: Examining Same-Sex Marriage and Bisexual-Lesbian Couples.” Co-published simultaneously in Journal of Bisexuality 7(3/4): 237-260; and:Bisexuality and Same-Sex Marriage 7(3/4): 237-260.)

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/k/v/kvk5348/essay%20and%20image.html

Obama marriage shift ‘boost’ for donors

President Barack Obama’s public support for gay marriage could be a boon to his campaign war chest.

Supporters of gay marriage predicted the president’s announcement Wednesday that he thinks same-sex couples should be able to marry would energize the gay community.

Democratic donor Steve Elmendorf said he believes Obama’s announcement will “energize people for Obama at all levels. It’s not just about the LGBT community…everybody all the way up to the maximum [donors] will be excited.”

“It’s going to create some real energy for the campaign, not just for the donor community, but among people who care about this issue,” he added.

Obama already had significant financial support from LGBT donors. About one in six of Obama’s top campaign “bundlers” are gay, according to a Washington Post analysis. But the president’s reluctance to publicly come out in favor of gay marriage was a sticking point for some potential donors.

“It’ll be a big boost for donors,” one gay lobbyist said of the Wednesday announcement. “It’s been very frustrating to the gay community that he’s done so much that there is just this one issue. It’s the civil rights issue of our generation.” The lobbyist added that independents are the most likely donors to be swayed by Obama’s new stance, since many gay donors have already been supportive of Obama.

One gay bundler told Capital City New York that it will be “immeasurably easier” for him to raise money for Obama in the LGBT community and among progressives more broadly.

“Whether it’s for shoe leather or whether it’s for financial contributions, I think it will engage people,” said Chuck Wolfe, president of the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, noting that much of the community’s support and financial donations already go to Obama. Obama has helped usher in a new era of gay rights at the federal level, helping pass the controversial repeal of the military “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” repeal.

A heightened enthusiasm for the president in the LGBT community following this announcement could spur donors to shell out big bucks for his campaign, especially given conservative Republicans push on this issue in other states like Minnesota and GOP presumptive nominee Mitt Romney’s opposition to gay marriage.

Obama’s public announcement came just a day after North Carolina, a swing state for the presidential election in November, voted on a state ballot measure that prohibits marriage or rights to same-sex couples.

Elmendorf dismissed critics of Obama’s timing.

“We’re in a presidential campaign so everyone is going to say it’s politically motivated,” Elmendorf said. “I take him at his word. It’s not unusual for people of his age and demographic.”

The vast majority of money from gay and lesbian rights groups goes to Democratic candidates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In the 2010 election cycle, 96 percent of the $1.3 million given to federal candidates by LGBT organizations’ PACs and employees went to Democrats.

Still, some LGBT advocates say there’s been a lull in enthusiasm since last year’s repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for gays in the military.

“There’s been a drop off in participation and enthusiasm and even knowledge that we’re not done,” said Denny Meyer, a spokesman for American Veterans for Equal Rights.

But the shift on gay marriage could energize voters as well as donors who have burned out, he said. “The president making a policy change like that could result in people realizing … you have to make this happen by voting for people who will pass this.”

Obama’s decision to publicly support gay marriage didn’t appease all gay activists, and Republicans accused the White House of trying to have it both ways on the contentious issue.

Clarke Cooper, head of Log Cabin Republicans, wrote in an email that “LGBT Americans are right to be angry that this calculated announcement comes too late to be of any use to the people of North Carolina, or any of the other states that have addressed this issue on his watch.”

Futher, Cooper said that the administration has, “manipulated LGBT families for political gain as much as anybody, and after his campaign’s ridiculous contortions to deny support for marriage equality this week Obama does not deserve praise for an announcement that comes a day late and a dollar short.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76128.html#ixzz3eE1voM5P

See also[edit]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HE8tmj9I-6Q

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-494

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Supreme Court Obamacare Attack On American Consumer Sovereignty and Individual Freedom — Big Government Tyranny and Coercion — Videos

Posted on June 29, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Biology, Blogroll, Chemistry, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Economics, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Inflation, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Literacy, Math, media, Medical, Medicine, Money, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 493 June 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 492 June 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 491 June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490 June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489 June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488 June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487 June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486 June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Supreme Court Obamacare Attack On American Consumer Sovereignty and Individual Freedom — Big Government Tyranny and Coercion — Videos

“The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.”

“Each of us has a natural right, from God, to defend his person, his liberty, and his property.”

~ Frederic Bastiat

“Liberty is always freedom from the government.”

“The fact is that, under a capitalistic system, the ultimate bosses are the consumers.

The sovereign is not the state, it is the people.”

“The common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstention from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality.”

“It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action.

The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation.

And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers.

They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless.

As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend.

Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen.

The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning.

Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.”

~Ludwig von Mises

“In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined —’to say what the law is.’ … That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan. Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them. If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

~Chief Justice John Roberts

“Today’s interpretation is not merely unnatural; it is unheard of. Who would ever have dreamt that ‘Exchange established by the State’ means ‘Exchange established by the State or the Federal Government’? Little short of an express statutory definition could justify adopting this singular reading.”

“We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.”

~Justice Antonin Scalia

TAX 4Obamacare-cartoon         on trial obamacare, obama cartoons      supreme court and obamacare, obama cartoonscartoon-sc-obamacaretaxnancyobamacare-scotusobamacare-ruling-1robertys changesfl-chan-lowe-supreme-court-obamacare-decisionafforerdableObamacare cartoonsupreme-court-obamacare-rulingobama beat up

supreme_courtBefore-After-SCOTUS-funny-obamacare-cartoon-supreme-courtla-tot-cartoons-obamacare-ruling-insurance-industry-wins-either-wayhistoryuninsuredcbogallup_may_uninsuredthe uninsured

Watch: Stunned Judge Napolitano Reveals How Supreme Court Just Pulled The Wool Over America’s Eyes

Some Republicans Relieved by Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare

Cruz Slams ‘Lawless’ Supreme Court After Obamacare Ruling

Rand Paul Warns GOP Leadership: Don’t Give Us ‘Obamacare Lite’

Republicans Plot Next Steps After Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies

Republicans blast Supreme Court’s Obamacare decision

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies

US President Obama on Supreme Court decision on Obamacare | Affordable Care Act here to stay

Newsmax Now | Nick Tate discusses SCOTUS upholding the Obamacare Subsidies

The Hard Line | F.H. Buckley the Supreme Court’s ruling to uphold Obamacare subsidies

Supreme Court upholds Obamacare subsidies in 6-3 ruling

5 Takeaways From Today’s Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare

How Americans are reacting to the Supreme Court’s ACA decision

G. Edward Griffin: The Collectivist Conspiracy

A Powerful Documentary: G Edward Griffin ‒ The Capitalist Conspiracy

The Truth About Obamacare

In Upholding Obamacare’s Subsidies, Justice Roberts Rewrites the Law—Again

Time to start calling the Affordable Care Act SCOTUScare.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has rewritten the law to save Obamacare—again.

Roberts’ majority opinion today in King v. Burwell, which ruled that the Obama administration’s decision to allow health insurance subsidies flow through the law’s federal exchanges, leaves no doubt that Roberts considers it his duty to keep the law afloat.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” he writes. “If at all possible, we must interpret the Act in a way that is consistent with the former, and avoids the latter.”

And so Roberts decided that a law which explicitly and repeatedly states that subsidies are limited to exchanges “established by a State,” and which defines “State” as one of the 50 states or the District of Columbia, actually allows subsidies in exchanges established by a State or the federal government. Roberts’ decision does not interpret Obamacare; it adds to it and reworks it, and in the process transforms it into something that it is not.

Roberts has not merely tweaked the law; he has rewritten it to mean the opposite of what it clearly means. Why include the phrase “established by a State under Section 1311″—the section dealing with state-based exchanges—except to limit the subsidies to those particular exchanges? Roberts’ opinion reconceptualizes this limiting language as inclusive.

The Chief Justice frames his decision as a form of respectful deference to congressional intent. As my colleague Damon Root noted earlier, his opinion cautions that in “every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done. A fair reading of legislation demands a fair understanding of the legislative plan.”

But Roberts’ opinion is far more than a fair reading of the legislative plan; it is a Court-imposed decision as to what that plan must be.

As Justice Antonin Scalia writes in a scathing dissent, Roberts presumes, with no definitive evidence, that his interpretation is the one that Congress intended. “What makes the Court so sure that Congress ‘meant’ tax credits to be available everywhere?” Scalia asks. “Our only evidence of what Congress meant comes from the terms of the law, and those terms show beyond all question that tax credits are available only on state Exchanges.”

Roberts’ opinion declares its intent to uphold the law’s basic policy scheme, arguing that there would be adverse insurance market effects to a decision in favor of the challengers. In other words, there would have been policy implications to a ruling for the plaintiffs. That is almost certainly true, but it is not an excuse to rewrite the clear language of the law.

As Scalia says in the dissent, “The Court protests that without the tax credits, the number of people covered by the individual mandate shrinks, and without a broadly applicable individual mandate the guaranteed-issue and community-rating requirements ‘would destabilize the individual insurance market.’ If true, these projections would show only that the statutory scheme contains a flaw; they would not show that the statute means the opposite of what it says.” The majority has decided how Obamacare’s policy scheme should work, and redrafted the statute accordingly.

If Roberts had truly wanted to defer to Congress, he could have ruled that the law means what says rather than what it does not, and effectively handed the issue back to the legislature, letting Congress decide whether and how to update the law in accordance with its own wishes. Instead, Roberts made the choice for Congress—taking its power to craft law for itself. As Scalia writes, “the Court’s insistence on making a choice that should be made by Congress both aggrandizes judicial power and encourages congressional lassitude.”

This is not the first time that Roberts has rewritten the law in order to uphold it. In 2012, he declared that the law’s individual mandate to purchase insurance was unconstitutional under the Constitution’s Commerce Clause—and yet upheld it by declaring that the law’s penalty was instead permissible as a tax. In the same decision, he also found that the law’s threat to revoke all federal Medicaid funding from states that decline to participate in Obamacare’s expansion of the program was unconstitutionally coercive. But rather than strike the whole thing down, Roberts rewrote it, allowing the Medicaid expansion, and the rest of the law, to continue but without the same threat to state budgets.

In his dissent, Scalia argues that there’s a pattern to these rulings. “Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved.”

If anything, it’s even worse. What Roberts has saved is not the law so much as the Obama administration’s dubious, textually unsupported interpretation and implementation of Obamacare. This is not judicial restraint. It is judicial hubris.

And while it would be overstatement to say that this damages the legitimacy of the Court, it certainly reflects on the legacy and status of the law. As even Roberts admits in his opinion, the law “contains more than a few examples of inartful drafting” and generally “does not reflect the type of care and deliberation that one might expect of such significant legislation.” It is a shoddy, messy piece of legislation, held together, barely, by Supreme Court duct tape.

At this point, then, the law is as much a joint project between the administration and the Roberts court as it is a creation of Congress. As Scalia snarks at the end of his dissent, “we should start calling this law SCOTUScare.” Regardless of what we call it, that’s effectively what it has become.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/25/in-upholding-obamacares-subsidies-justic

Supreme Court Rules Obamacare Subsidies Are Legal

By Krishnadev Calamur

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed the Obama administration a major victory on health care, ruling 6-3 that nationwide subsidies called for in the Affordable Care Act are legal.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” the court’s majority said in the opinion, which was written by Chief Justice John Roberts. But they acknowledged that “petitioners’ arguments about the plain meaning … are strong.”

The majority opinion cited the law’s “more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” but added, “the context and structure of the Act compel us to depart from what would otherwise be the most natural reading of the pertinent statutory phrase.”

Roberts was joined by the court’s liberal justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, as well as by Anthony Kennedy.

In his dissent, Justice Antonin Scalia said: “We should start calling this law SCOTUScare,” an apparent reference to the fact the Supreme Court has now saved the Affordable Care Act twice. Scalia called the majority’s reading of the text “quite absurd, and the court’s 21 pages of explanation make it no less so.”

As NPR’s Nina Totenberg reported in March, opponents of the law contended “that the text of the law does not authorize subsidies to make mandated insurance affordable in 34 states.”

At issue were six words in one section of the law. As Nina pointed out: “Those words stipulate that for people who cannot afford health coverage, subsidies are available through ‘an exchange established by the state.’ ” She added:

“The government [contended] that those words refer to any exchange, whether it is set up by the state itself or an exchange run for the state by the federal government in accordance with individual state insurance laws and regulations. The challengers [said] the statute means what it says and no more.”

The court agreed Thursday with the government’s position.

The decision comes three years after a bitterly divided high court upheld the Affordable Care Act as constitutional by a 5-4 vote.

President Obama made a statement on the ruling late Thursday morning, saying the Affordable Care Act “is here to stay.”

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/06/25/417425091/supreme-court-rules-obamacare-subsidies-are-legal

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare Subsidies in King v. Burwell

SCOTUS rules 6-3 in favor of administration in major defeat for critics of the health law.

Obamacare’s health insurance subsidies will live, thanks to the Supreme Court.

The High Court has ruled 6-3 in favor of the administration to uphold the subsidies in Obamacare’s federal exchanges. The case challenged the administration’s decision, through the Internal Revenue Service, to allow subsidies in the 36 exchanges run by the federal government under the law.

The challengers argued that the plain text of the law, which states that subsidies are only available in an exchange “established by a State,” defining “State” to mean the 50 states or the District of Columbia, prohibited subsidies in the federal exchanges. The administration argued that the IRS rule allowing those subsidies was consistent with the overall structure of the law, and with congressional intent.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the administration’s position, saying that although the health law contains “more than a few examples of inartful drafting,” the Court nevertheless believes that the relevant section of the law “can fairly be read consistent with what we see as Congress’s plan, and that is the reading we adopt.” The complete ruling can be read here.

Basically, the Supreme Court, decided they’d rather squint at the law and look at its general shape rather than bother too much with the plain meaning of the relevant text.

This is a major victory fo the administration and backers of the health law, whose decision to ignore the plain text of the law has been blessed by the Court. It’s also a big loss for critics of Obamacare, who hoped to see the law’s implementation restrained by its legislative text, and for straightforward interpretation of congressional statute.

What it means is that the crazy array of post-King scenarios that many had speculated about over the last few months will never come to pass. Obamacare stays the same, in terms of both policy and politics. It’s a ruling for the status quo.

Reason will have much more on this throughout the day.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/06/25/supreme-court-upholds-obamacare-subsidie

Supreme Court Allows Nationwide Health Care Subsidies

The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that President Obama’s health care law allows the federal government to provide nationwide tax subsidies to help poor and middle-class people buy health insurance, a sweeping vindication that endorsed the larger purpose of Mr. Obama’s signature legislative achievement.

The 6-to-3 ruling means that it is all but certain that the Affordable Care Act will survive after Mr. Obama leaves office in 2017. For the second time in three years, the law survived an encounter with the Supreme Court. But the court’s tone was different this time. The first decision, in 2012, was fractured and grudging, while Thursday’s ruling was more assertive.

“Congress passed the Affordable Care Act to improve health insurance markets, not to destroy them,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for a united six-justice majority. In 2012’s closely divided decision, Chief Justice Roberts also wrote the controlling opinion, but that time no other justice joined it in full.