Books

American People’s Crisis of Confidence in Big Government And Out of Control Spending and Taxes — Abandoning Both Political Parties — The Coming Of A Third Independent Party — Toppling Two Party Tyranny — The Wealth Creators Will Lead The American Renaissance — Videos

Posted on June 24, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, Health Care, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, IRS, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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: American People’s Crisis of Confidence in Big Government And Out of Control Spending and Taxes — Abandoning Both Political Parties — The Coming Of A Third Independent Party — Toppling Two Party Tyranny — The Wealth Creators Will Lead The American Renaissance — Videos

leave-us-aloneleave us alone bumleave-us-alone (1)

confidence in institutions

Free Market Revolution -The Solution to what Ails America Today

The mission of the Financial Policy Council Inc. (FPC), a research think tank and educational institution, is to formulate and promote sound public policy based on the principles of free enterprise and wealth creation as envisioned by the ideals of the American Founding Fathers.

Our goal is to ensure that America, the land of opportunity where freedom and prosperity have flourished, is not derailed by poorly formulated and reactive economic, fiscal and tax policy. In addition, our goal is to retain and reclaim America’s leading role in the global economic community.

Dr. Yaron Brook | Why Be Selfish? | Full Length HD

G. Edward Griffin – The Collectivist Conspiracy

Confidence In Institutions – GBTV

Matt Welch Tackles Two Party Tyranny on Stossel

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Milton Friedman on Classical Liberalism

Milton Friedman Speaks – Is Capitalism Humane?

Milton Friedman Speaks –

Myths That Conceal Reality

  • Americans’ confidence in presidency up four points, at 33%
  • Thirty-two percent have confidence in the Supreme Court
  • Congress retains the least confidence, at 8%

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Americans’ confidence in each of the three branches of the U.S. government remains low, with confidence in Congress and the Supreme Court near their all-time lows reached last year. Currently, 33% of Americans have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the presidency, 32% are this confident in the Supreme Court, and Congress is still well behind, at 8%.

Trend: Americans' Level of Confidence in the Three Branches of Government

While Congress has consistently received the lowest confidence rating of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court and the presidency usually track each other closely. This is apart from times when the incumbent president has been extremely popular, as in 1991 and 2002, or exceptionally unpopular, as in 2007 and 2008.

Gallup’s June 2-7 poll found confidence in the presidency rising slightly to 33% from 29% last year, which in turn was just four percentage points above the historical low of 25% in 2007. The uptick in confidence in the presidency this year is consistent with Americans’ higher job approval ratings of President Barack Obama since last fall.

Meanwhile, ratings of the Supreme Court and Congress, which had dropped to record lows in 2014, have barely moved.

Confidence in the Presidency in Obama’s Seventh Year Exceeds Bush’s

The president in office is not mentioned by name in the confidence in the presidency question, but Americans’ evaluations of the sitting president at the time are strongly related to how much confidence Americans place in the presidency as an institution.

Confidence in the presidency as an institution during each year of Obama’s presidency has generally been lower than the comparable year in the presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush. An exception is Obama’s first year, when Americans had greater confidence in the institution than in the first years of either Bush or Clinton. Also, in Obama’s current year in office, his seventh, confidence in the presidency is higher than the 25% found in Bush’s seventh year — the record low — but lower than the 49% in Clinton’s seventh year.

Americans' Level of Confidence in the U.S. Presidency, by Term Year

The highest confidence rating the presidency has ever received is 72%, in March 1991 during the administration of George H.W. Bush shortly after he had succeeded in pushing Iraq out of Kuwait in the Gulf War. However, by October of that same year, after the Gulf War was over, confidence in the presidency had dropped to 50%.

Average Confidence in the Three Branches Is Low, but Has Been Lower

The average confidence rating for the three branches of government combined is 24%, lower than most previous averages since 1991 and well below the high of 50% that year.

But the average of confidence ratings for the three branches of government has been lower — including in 2008 (23%) and 2014 (22%).

Trend: Average of Americans' Confidence Ratings of the Three Branches of Government

Bottom Line

Americans’ confidence in two of the three institutions that make up the U.S. government — Congress and the Supreme Court — remains near their all-time lows reached in 2014, while confidence in the presidency, although low, is up marginally compared with last year.

For Congress, low confidence in the institution is nothing new to members of the Senate and the House of Representatives, who have also seen low job approval ratings in recent years. Individual members likely aren’t as interested in Americans’ collective opinions as they are in the views of the voters they must appeal to back home. But the public’s extremely low confidence no doubt weighs on Congress at some level.

The Supreme Court, meanwhile, is not directly accountable to the public — and often defies public opinion completely. Although its unelected members serve indefinite terms, confidence in the court is not unsusceptible to a drop in confidence in government as a whole.

Survey Methods

Results for this Gallup poll are based on telephone interviews conducted June 2-7, 2015, with a random sample of 1,527 adults, aged 18 and older, living in all 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. For results based on the total sample of national adults, the margin of sampling error is ±3 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. All reported margins of sampling error include computed design effects for weighting.

Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50% cellphone respondents and 50% landline respondents, with additional minimum quotas by time zone within region. Landline and cellular telephone numbers are selected using random-digit-dial methods.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/183605/confidence-branches-government-remains-low.aspx?utm_source=Politics&utm_medium=newsfeed&utm_campaign=tiles

Americans Have Lost Confidence … in Everything

It’s not just Congress and the economy that have Americans concerned these days.

Stock image of the U.S. Capitol on the back of a U.S. $20 bill.

Americans expressed a lack of confidence in banks and Congress, among other institutions.

By June 17, 2015 | 7:20 a.m. EDT+ More

Americans have little confidence in most of their major institutions including Congress, the presidency, the Supreme Court, banks and organized religion, according to the latest Gallup poll.

“Americans’ confidence in most major U.S. institutions remains below the historical average for each one,” a Gallup spokesman said in a news release. Only the military, in which 72 percent of Americans express confidence, up from a historical average of 68 percent, and small business, with 67 percent confidence, up from 63, are currently rated higher than their historical norms. This is based on the percentage expressing “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in these institutions, the Gallup spokesman said.

Only 8 percent have confidence in Congress, down by 16 points from a long-term average of 24 percent – the lowest of all institutions rated. The rating is about the same as last year’s 7 percent, the lowest Gallup has ever measured for any institution.

Kanishka Berashk currently lives in Kabul. His U.S. citizen wife asked the Supreme Court to force greater explanation for his visa denial.

Thirty-three percent have confidence in the presidency, a drop from a historical average of 43 percent.

Thirty-two percent have confidence in the Supreme Court, down from 44.

All in all, it’s a picture of a nation discouraged about its present and worried about its future, and highly doubtful that its institutions can pull America out of its trough. In a political context, the findings indicate that the growing number of presidential candidates for 2016 will have a difficult time instilling confidence in a skeptical electorate that they have the answers to the country’s problems.

“Americans’ confidence in most major institutions has been down for many years as the nation has dealt with prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a major recession and sluggish economic improvement, and partisan gridlock in Washington,” the Gallup spokesman said. “In fact, 2004 was the last year most institutions were at or above their historical average levels of confidence. Perhaps not coincidentally, 2004 was also the last year Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States averaged better than 40 percent. Currently, 28 percent of Americans are satisfied with the state of the nation.”

The Gallup spokesman added: “From a broad perspective, Americans’ confidence in all institutions over the last two years has been the lowest since Gallup began systematic updates of a larger set of institutions in 1993.”

Twenty-eight percent have confidence in banks, down from 40 percent.

Twenty-one percent have confidence in big business, down from 24 percent.

Twenty-four percent have confidence in organized labor, down from 26.

Twenty-four percent have confidence in newspapers, down from 32 percent. Twenty-one percent have confidence in television news, down from 30 percent.

The police also have experienced a drop in public esteem, with 52 percent of Americans saying they are confident in the police compared with 57 percent who have been confident in the police historically. Police have been widely criticized in recent months for abusive tactics toward African-Americans, which resulted in the deaths of several black men.

Forty-two percent express confidence in organized religion, down from 55.

“Americans continue to show lower levels of confidence in most of the major institutions central to U.S. society, with only the military and small business getting ratings in 2015 that are above their historical averages,” the Gallup spokesman said. “That speaks to the broader dissatisfaction Americans have with the state of the nation more generally over the past decade as the U.S. has faced serious economic, international and political challenges. Americans have tended to be more confident in U.S. institutions when the economy has been strong, such as in the mid-1980s and the late 1990s and early 2000s. Although Americans are now more upbeat about the economy than they were in 2008-2013, they are not yet convinced that the economy is good, given that their assessments of national economic conditions remain more negative than positive.”

AMERICANS LOSE CONFIDENCE IN EVERYTHING

Poll shows views turning negative on banks, government, religion, police, media

An explosive new Gallup poll shows Americans have lost confidence in almost every major institution – from the U.S. presidency, Congress and the Supreme Court to banks and organized religion.

“Americans’ confidence in most major U.S. institutions remains below the historical average for each one,” a Gallup spokesman said.

Only the military (72 percent) and small business (67 percent) have Americans’ increasing confidence, both of which are now rated 4 percentage points higher than their historical norms, according to the poll.

Congress – which plunged 16 points from its average of 24 points – is the lowest ranking institution at just 8 percent.

Just as numerous presidential candidates attempt to convince America that they have the answers to the nation’s problems, the poll shows only one-third, or 33 percent, of Americans have confidence in the presidency, a nosedive from the historical average of 43 percent.

Likewise, just 32 percent said they have confidence in the Supreme Court, which is down from an average of 44 just before the court announces its decisions on landmark issues such as same-sex marriage and Obamacare subsidies to states without insurance-exchange websites.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/gallup_2015.jpg

gallup_2015

“Americans’ confidence in most major institutions has been down for many years as the nation has dealt with prolonged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, a major recession and sluggish economic improvement, and partisan gridlock in Washington,” a Gallup spokesman said. “In fact, 2004 was the last year most institutions were at or above their historical average levels of confidence. Perhaps not coincidentally, 2004 was also the last year Americans’ satisfaction with the way things are going in the United States averaged better than 40 percent. Currently, 28 percent of Americans are satisfied with the state of the nation.”

In 2004, President George W. Bush was re-elected and the U.S. transferred sovereignty and control of Iraq back to the Iraqi people.

At the beginning of 2004, the U.S. economy was booming. Four middle-class tax cuts were extended, including a $1,000-per-couple child tax credit, expansion of the lowest (10 percent) tax bracket, exceptions for the alternative minimum tax, and relief from the “marriage penalty” for two-income families. Another $140 billion in tax relief was granted to U.S. business. Unemployment dropped from 5.7 percent to 5.4 percent.

Regarding the latest poll numbers, the Gallup spokesman added, “From a broad perspective, Americans’ confidence in all institutions over the last two years has been the lowest since Gallup began systematic updates of a larger set of institutions in 1993.”

In the last two years, Americans have seen President Obama begin his second term of office. Amid an explosion of legalized same-sex marriage in numerous U.S. states, the Supreme Court declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.

Americans witnessed the debt-ceiling crisis in October 2013, which resulted in the shutdown of the federal government and furlough of federal workers.

By 2014, the Obama administration had announced its plan to shrink the military budget to $522 billion and slash the Army to a size unseen since before World War II. The nation also saw Americans impacted by a West African Ebola outbreak and revelations that the Veterans Administration had covered up exceedingly long wait times for veterans seeking medical attention.

The year 2014 also saw the rise of terrorist group ISIS and racial riots in Ferguson, Missouri, and St. Louis after the fatal police shooting of Michael Brown in August. By 2015, riots had broken out in Baltimore, Maryland, over the shooting of Freddie Gray.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/06/Gallup_2015b.jpg

Gallup_2015b

According to the Gallup poll, 28 percent of Americans now have confidence in banks, compared to the historical average of 40 percent.

Twenty-one percent said they have confidence in big business, down from 24 percent.

Twenty-four percent have confidence in organized labor, down from 26 percent.

Twenty-four percent have confidence in newspapers, down from 32 percent.

Twenty-one percent have confidence in TV news, down from 30 percent.

Fifty-two percent have confidence in police, down from 57 percent.

Forty-two percent have confidence in organized religion, down from 55.

“Americans continue to show lower levels of confidence in most of the major institutions central to U.S. society, with only the military and small business getting ratings in 2015 that are above their historical averages,” the Gallup spokesman said.

“That speaks to the broader dissatisfaction Americans have with the state of the nation more generally over the past decade as the U.S. has faced serious economic, international and political challenges. Americans have tended to be more confident in U.S. institutions when the economy has been strong, such as in the mid-1980s and the late 1990s and early 2000s.”

While Americans are more confident in the economy than they were from 2008 to 2013, the Gallup spokesman said, “[T]hey are not yet convinced that the economy is good, given that their assessments of national economic conditions remain more negative than positive.”

http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/poll-americans-lose-confidence-in-everything/

List of political parties in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is a list of political parties in the United States, both past and present.

Parties with federal representation

Current United States Congressional seats

Political Parties House of Representatives Senate
Republican Party 245 54
Democratic Party 188 44
Independent 0 2
Vacant 2 0

Congressional leadership of the House of Representatives

Position Representative
Speaker of the House John Boehner (R)
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R)
Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D)

Congressional leadership of the Senate

Position Senator
President of the Senate Joe Biden (D)
President Pro Tempore Orrin Hatch (R)
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R)
Minority Leader Harry Reid (D)

The Vice President of the United States has the additional duty of President of the Senate. Because the number of seats in the United States Senate is an even number (two senators per state), it is the Vice President’s duty as President of the Senate to cast a tie-breaking vote in the event that “they be equally divided”—an equal number of Senators voting both for and against a motion.

Parties with state representation

Political Parties State Lower Chamber Seats State Upper Chamber Seats
Republican Party 3,044 1,134
Democratic Party 2,344 832
Vermont Progressive Party 6 3
Working Families Party 1 1
Conservative Party of New York State 1 0
Independence Party of New York 1 0
Independent 13 3
Vacant 4 3
Total 5,411 1,972

Major political parties

A party that has “an independent state organization… in a majority of the states”[1] is listed as a major party. An “independent state organization” is not to be confused with the organization of an Independent Democrat or Independent Republican.

Political Party States* Founded in Former Titles International Affiliations
Democratic Party 50 + DC 1828 Progressive Alliance[2]
Republican Party 50 + DC 1854 International Democrat Union
Libertarian Party 48 + DC[3] 1971 Interlibertarians[4]
Green Party 36 + DC[5] 1991 Global Greens
Constitution Party 26[5] 1992 U.S. Taxpayers’ Party

Minor political parties

This listing of minor parties does not include independents.

Political Party Founded in Former Titles International Affiliations
America First Party 2002
American Conservative Party 2008
American Freedom Party 2010 American Third Position Party
American Populist Party 2009
America’s Party 2008 America’s Independent Party
Christian Liberty Party* 1996 American Heritage Party
Citizens Party of the United States 2004 New American Independent Party
Communist Party USA 1919 International Meeting of Communist and Workers’ Parties
Freedom Socialist Party 1966
Independent American Party 1998
Justice Party 2011
Modern Whig Party 2008
National Socialist Movement 1974 National Socialist American Workers Freedom Movement World Union of National Socialists
Objectivist Party 2008
Party for Socialism and Liberation 2004
Peace and Freedom Party 1967
Pirate Party 2006 Pirate Party International (observer)
Prohibition Party 1869
Reform Party of the United States of America 1995 United We Stand America
Socialist Action 1983 Fourth International
Socialist Alternative 1986 Labor Militant Committee for a Workers’ International
Socialist Equality Party 1966 Workers League International Committee of the Fourth International
Socialist Party USA 1973
Socialist Workers Party 1938 Pathfinder tendency (unofficial)
United States Marijuana Party 2002
United States Pacifist Party 1983
Unity Party of America 2004
Workers World Party 1959

Regional parties

These parties are based only in states or certain regions and rarely, if ever, offer candidates for national offices. These are all parties that are unaffiliated with national parties. Each state has official state chapters of the major parties as well as some of the minor parties.

Alaska

Connecticut

Delaware

Hawaii

Michigan

Minnesota

New York

Northern Mariana Islands[edit]

Ohio

Oregon

Puerto Rico

Rhode Island

U.S. Virgin Islands

Vermont

Wisconsin

Historical parties

The following parties are no longer functioning; they are listed in order of founding.

Non-electoral organizations

These organizations do not nominate candidates for election but otherwise function similarly to political parties. Some of them have nominated candidates in the past.

Political Party Founded in Former Titles International Affiliations
American Falangist Party 1985
American Nazi Party 1959 World Union of Free Enterprise National Socialists
American Reform Party 1997
Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism 1991 Committees of Correspondence
Communist Voice Organization 1995
Democratic Socialists of America 1982 Socialist International
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (freedomroad.org group) 1985
Freedom Road Socialist Organization (frso.org group) 1985 International Communist Seminar
Fourth International Caucus(faction of Solidarity) 1995 Fourth International (USFI)
Greens/Green Party USA 1991
International Socialist Organization 1977
Internationalism 1970 International Communist Current
Internationalist Group 1996 League for the Fourth International
Internationalist Workers’ Group 2002 International Communist Tendency
League for the Revolutionary Party 1976 Communist Organization for the Fourth International
League of Revolutionaries for a New America 1993
News and Letters Committees 1955
Progressive Labor Party 1961 Progressive Labor Movement *
Refoundation and Revolution(faction of Solidarity) 2002 Trotskyist League Coordinating Committee for the Refoundation of the Fourth International
Revolutionary Communist Party, USA 1975 Revolutionary Union
Revolutionary Organization of Labor 1961 Ray O. Light International Communist Seminar, International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations (International Newsletter), International Coordination of Revolutionary Parties and Organizations
Social Democrats, USA 1972
Socialist Organizer 1991 Fourth International (International Center of Reconstruction)
Socialist Workers Organization 2001
Solidarity 1986
Spartacist League 1966 International Communist League (Fourth Internationalist)
The Spark 1971 International Communist Union
U.S. Marxist–Leninist Organization 1981
Workers Party 2003
World Socialist Party of the United States 1916 Socialist Party of the UnitedStatesSocialist Educational SocietyWorkers’ Socialist Party World Socialist Movement

See also

References

Further reading

External links

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

Ambassador Terry Miller and Anthony B. Kim

Since its inception in 1995, the Index of Economic Freedom has chronicled hundreds of examples of government policy changes that have enhanced economic freedom, thereby promoting human progress and greater prosperity. As the Index has catalogued, nations with higher degrees of economic freedom prosper because they capitalize more fully on the ability of the free-market system not only to generate, but also to reinforce dynamic growth through efficient resource allocation, value creation, and innovation. Policies that promote freedom, whether through improvements in the rule of law, the promotion of competition and openness, or suitable restraints on the size and economic reach of government, turn out in practice to offer and advance practical solutions to a wide range of economic and social challenges that face the world’s societies.

The findings of the 2015 Index once again demonstrate the strongly positive linkages between economic freedom and various dimensions of human development. Many of the linkages are straightforward: Higher taxes, for example, reduce investment and hurt job growth. Others, such as the impact on economic growth from the promotion of property rights or the maintenance of a stable monetary system, are more intricate, multidimensional, and nonlinear.

Even in these cases, however, the evidence is strong that adherence to the principles of economic freedom is an unmatched strategy for promoting solutions to human problems and advancing overall well-being. No alternative systems—and many have been tried—come close to the record of free-market capitalism in promoting growth and improving the human condition.

Economic Freedom: Advancing Opportunity

Today’s successful economies are not necessarily geographically large or richly blessed with natural resources. Many economies have managed to expand opportunities for their citizens by enhancing their economic dynamism. In general, the overarching objective of economic policies must be to create an environment that provides the most opportunity for the widest range of activities that can lead to increased prosperity.

The Index results have shown that sustaining such economic dynamism is achievable only when governments adopt economic policies that empower individuals and firms with more choices, encouraging greater entrepreneurship.

It is noteworthy that despite recent policy missteps by many countries in responding to the global economic slowdown, which amounted to a political assault on capitalism in some places, the free-market system is not on the verge of breakdown. In fact, as the negative impact of regulatory and spending mistakes has become apparent, a greater number of people around the world seem to be realizing that the economic damage inflicted by the heavy hand of government—subpar growth, deteriorating entrepreneurial environments, and lower employment growth—is not inevitable, but rather the result of bad policy choices.

Even as the free market has been under challenge in countries such as Venezuela, Bolivia, Russia, and even the United States, many other governments around the world have acknowledged its superiority. Decades of evidence, some presented in the pages of this Index, are hard for even the most ideological governments to ignore. Not only does the free-market system remain viable, but many of its core features, such as private property rights, openness to trade and investment, and fiscal discipline, have entrenched themselves as the policy standard, any deviation from which requires strong justification.

Economic Freedom: Promoting Prosperity

In many respects, economic freedom is merely shorthand for an openness to entrepreneurial activity that increases opportunity for individuals to succeed in their endeavors. Chart 1 shows the close correspondence between economic freedom and entrepreneurial opportunity as measured by the Entrepreneurship and Opportunity sub-index of the Legatum Prosperity Index, which “measures a country’s entrepreneurial environment, its promotion of innovative activity, and the evenness ofopportunity.”

Given such a strong relationship, it should be apparent that a government’s most effective stimulus activity will not be to increase its own spending or increase layers of regulation, both of which reduce economic freedom. The best results are likely to be achieved instead through policy reforms that improve the incentives that drive entrepreneurial activity, creating more opportunities for greater economicdynamism.

Equally notable are the fundamental benefits that stem from the strong positive relationship between economic freedom and levels of per capita income. For countries achieving scores in the Index that reflect even moderate levels of economic freedom (60 or above), the relationship between economic freedom and per capita GDP is highly significant.

As indicated in Chart 2, countries moving up the economic freedom scale show increasingly high levels of average income. Economies rated “free” or “mostly free” in the 2015 Index enjoy incomes that are over twice the average levels in all other countries and more than five times higher than the incomes of “repressed” economies.

Economic Freedom: Antidote to Poverty

By a great many measures, the past two decades during which the Index has been charting the advance of economic freedom have been the most prosperous in the history of humankind. Those countries that have adopted some version of free-market capitalism, with economies supported by efficient regulations and open to the free flow of goods, services, and capital, have participated in an era of globalization and economic integration in which solutions to many of the world’s development problems have taken hold and generated real improvements in living standards.

The free-market system that is rooted in the principles of economic freedom has fueled unprecedented economic growth around the world. As Chart 3 illustrates, as the global economy has moved toward greater economic freedom over the past two decades, real world GDP has increased by about 70 percent, and the global poverty rate has been cut in half, lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty.

Greater economic freedom has had a positive impact not just on the number of people in poverty, but also on the intensity of the poverty still experienced by some. Poverty intensity as measured by the United Nations Development Programme’s Multidimensional Poverty Index, which assesses the nature and intensity of deprivation at the individual level in education, health outcomes, and standard of living, is much lower on average in countries with higher levels of economic freedom. Chart 5 shows that the intensity of poverty in countries whose economies are considered mostly free or moderately free is only about one-fourth the level in countries that are rated less free.

The key driver of poverty reduction is dynamic and resilient economic growth that creates jobs. Not surprisingly, one of the most important goals of economic policy in almost every country in the world has thus been to increase the rate of economic growth.

As Chart 4 demonstrates, there is a robust relationship between improving economic freedom and achieving higher per capita economic growth. Whether long-term (20 years), medium-term (10 years), or short-term (five years), the relationship between changes in economic freedom and changes in economic growth is consistently positive.

Undeniably, countries moving toward greater economic freedom tend to achieve higher rates of per capita GDP growth over time. Whether in the short term or over the long run, the average annual per capita economic growth rates of countries that have grown economic freedom the most are at least 50 percent higher than those of countries where freedom has stagnated or slowed.

Economic Freedom: Societal Development and Democratic Progress

Growing economic freedom is unequivocally about more than financial success. Achieving greater overall prosperity that goes beyond materialistic and monetary dimensions of well-being is equally important. The societal benefits of economic freedom extend far beyond higher incomes or reductions in poverty. Countries with higher levels of economic freedom enjoy higher levels of overall human development as measured by the United Nations Human Development Index, which measures life expectancy, literacy, education, and the standard of living in countries worldwide. As Chart 6 shows, governments that choose policies that increase economic freedom are placing their societies on the pathway to more education opportunities, better health care, and higher standards of living for their citizens.

In some countries, government policies and actions concerning the environment have become more intrusive and economically distortionary. Many governments have pushed programs to tax carbon emissions and increase taxes on gasoline, organized non-transparent and sometimes corrupt exchanges for the buying and selling of carbon emissions, and provided subsidies for “clean” energy to politically favored firms. Such policies impose a huge direct cost on society, and they also retard economic growth—and all for uncertain environmental benefits.

Interestingly, the same free-market principles that have proven to be the key to economic success have also proven to deliver environmental success. Around the world, economic freedom has been shown to increase countries’ capacity for innovation and thus to improve overall environmental performance.

The positive link between economic freedom and higher levels of innovation ensures greater economic dynamism in coping with various developmental challenges, and the most remarkable improvements in clean energy use and energy efficiency over the past decades have occurred not as a result of government regulation, but rather because of advances in technology and trade. A virtuous cycle of investment, innovation (including in greener technologies), and dynamic economic growth has flourished where governments have trusted market forces and competition to spur efficiency. (See Chart 7.)

Greater economic freedom can also provide more fertile ground for effective and democratic governance. Debate over the direction of causality between economic freedom and democracy has become more controversial in recent years because of the multifaceted interaction between the two. Undoubtedly, achieving greater political freedom through well-functioning democracy is a messy and often excruciatingprocess.

However, the positive relationship between economic freedom and democratic governance is undeniable. (See Chart 8.) By empowering people to exercise greater control of their daily lives, economic freedom ultimately nurtures political reform by making it possible for individuals to gain the economic resources necessary to challenge entrenched interests and compete for political power, thereby encouraging the creation of more pluralistic societies.

Pursuit of greater economic freedom is thus an important stepping-stone to democracy. It empowers the poor and builds the middle class. It is a philosophy that encourages entrepreneurship and disperses economic power and decision-making throughout society.

Economic Freedom: The Key to Upward Mobility and Greater Social Progress

The massive improvements in global indicators of income and quality of life largely reflect a paradigm shift in the debate over how societies should be structured to achieve the most optimal outcome. Over the past two decades, this debate has largely been won by capitalism. However, fears that the immediate benefits of capitalism are fading has brought to the forefront concerns about economic mobility and economicfreedom.

At the heart of ensuring upward economic mobility is the task of advancing economic freedom so that dynamic and inclusive growth can meaningfully occur for ordinary people in a free society. Milton and Rose Friedman made a keen observation on the critically intertwined relationship between freedom andmobility:

[S]o long as freedom is maintained, it prevents … positions of privilege from becoming institutionalized. Freedom means diversity, but also mobility. It preserves the opportunity for today’s disadvantaged to become tomorrow’s privileged and, in the process enables almost everyone, from top to bottom, to enjoy a fuller and richer life.1

Economic freedom is critical to generating the broader-based economic growth that brings more opportunities for a greater number of people to work, produce, and save. In other words, ensuring greater economic freedom is directly related to preserving and enhancing dynamic upward mobility.

Also notable is that although some naysayers claim that economic and social progress has been limited in recent years as incomes in some countries have become more unequal as a result of economic freedom, the evidence does not support this contention. Instead, societies based on economic freedom are the ones that have demonstrated the strongest social progress.

As shown in Chart 9, countries that largely embrace economic freedom provide the environments that are most conducive to social progress.2 Countries that improve their competitiveness and open their societies to new ideas, products, and innovations have largely achieved the high levels of social progress that their citizens demand. It is not massive redistributions of wealth or government dictates on income levels that produce the most positive social outcomes. Instead, mobility and progress require lower barriers to entry, freedom to engage with the world, and less government intrusion.

Staying on Course

The 21st edition of the Index of Economic Freedom shows economic freedom once again on the rise, reaching the highest point in the Index’s 21-year history. Behind this record are stories of human progress and the achievements of countries and their citizens—literally billions of people around the world whose lives have measurably improved.

It is no coincidence that the increase of economic liberty over the past decades has coincided with a massive reduction in worldwide poverty, disease, and hunger. The link between economic freedom and development is clear and strong. People in economically free societies live longer. They have better health. They are able to be better stewards of the environment, and they push forward the frontiers of human achievement in science and technology through greater innovation.

A recurring theme of human history has been resilience and revival. The country profiles in the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom include many examples of countries that have accelerated their economic and social progress in the face of difficult challenges and a sometimes harsh international environment. Their successes can be emulated by others. The Index of Economic Freedom charts not just one path to development, but as many as the ingenuity of humans can produce when they are free to experiment andinnovate.

The principles of economic freedom are a sure guide, but only a guide. What truly will matter are the creative solutions to pressing world problems that are certain to flow from people who are, in the words of Milton and Rose Friedman, “free to choose.”

1. Milton Friedman and Rose D. Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979).

2. The Social Progress Index defines social progress as the capacity of a society to meet the basic human needs of its citizens, establish the building blocks that allow citizens and communities to enhance and sustain the quality of their lives, and create the conditions for all individuals to reach their full potential.

http://www.heritage.org/index/book/chapter-2

Country Rankings

Free

rank country overall change rank country overall change
1 Hong Kong 89.6 -0.5 4 Australia 81.4 -0.6
2 Singapore 89.4 0.0 5 Switzerland 80.5 -1.1
3 New Zealand 82.1 +0.9

Mostly Free

rank country overall change rank country overall change
6 Canada 79.1 -1.1 21 Luxembourg 73.2 -1.0
7 Chile 78.5 -0.2 22 Georgia 73.0 +0.4
8 Estonia 76.8 +0.9 23 Sweden 72.7 -0.4
9 Ireland 76.6 +0.4 24 Czech Republic 72.5 +0.3
10 Mauritius 76.4 -0.1 25 United Arab Emirates 72.4 +1.0
11 Denmark 76.3 +0.2 26 Iceland 72.0 -0.4
12 United States 76.2 +0.7 27 Norway 71.8 +0.9
13 United Kingdom 75.8 +0.9 28 Colombia 71.7 +1.0
14 Taiwan 75.1 +1.2 29 South Korea 71.5 +0.3
15 Lithuania 74.7 +1.7 30 Austria 71.2 -1.2
16 Germany 73.8 +0.4 31 Malaysia 70.8 +1.2
17 The Netherlands 73.7 -0.5 32 Qatar 70.8 -0.4
18 Bahrain 73.4 -1.7 33 Israel 70.5 +2.1
19 Finland 73.4 0.0 34 Macau 70.3 -1.0
20 Japan 73.3 +0.9 35 Saint Lucia 70.2 -0.5

Moderately Free

rank country overall change rank country overall change
36 Botswana 69.8 -2.2 64 Portugal 65.3 +1.8
37 Latvia 69.7 +1.0 65 Rwanda 64.8 +0.1
38 Jordan 69.3 +0.1 66 Montenegro 64.7 +1.1
39 Brunei Darussalam 68.9 -0.1 67 Trinidad and Tobago 64.1 +1.4
40 Belgium 68.8 -1.1 68 Panama 64.1 +0.7
41 The Bahamas 68.7 -1.1 69 Kazakhstan 63.3 -0.4
42 Poland 68.6 +1.6 70 Turkey 63.2 -1.7
43 Uruguay 68.6 -0.7 71 Ghana 63.0 -1.2
44 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 68.0 +1.0 72 South Africa 62.6 +0.1
45 Cyprus 67.9 +0.3 73 France 62.5 -1.0
46 Barbados 67.9 -0.4 74 Kuwait 62.5 +0.2
47 Peru 67.7 +0.3 75 Thailand 62.4 -0.9
48 Jamaica 67.7 +1.0 76 Philippines 62.2 +2.1
49 Spain 67.6 +0.4 77 Saudi Arabia 62.1 -0.1
50 Slovakia 67.2 +0.8 78 Samoa 61.9 +0.8
51 Costa Rica 67.2 +0.3 79 Madagascar 61.7 0.0
52 Armenia 67.1 -1.8 80 Italy 61.7 +0.8
53 Macedonia 67.1 -1.5 81 Croatia 61.5 +1.1
54 Hungary 66.8 -0.2 82 Kyrgyz Republic 61.3 +0.2
55 Bulgaria 66.8 +1.1 83 Paraguay 61.1 -0.9
56 Oman 66.7 -0.7 84 Vanuatu 61.1 +1.6
57 Romania 66.6 +1.1 85 Azerbaijan 61.0 -0.3
58 Malta 66.5 +0.1 86 Dominican Republic 61.0 -0.3
59 Mexico 66.4 -0.4 87 Guatemala 60.4 -0.8
60 Cabo Verde 66.4 +0.3 88 Slovenia 60.3 -2.4
61 Dominica 66.1 +0.9 89 Morocco 60.1 +1.8
62 El Salvador 65.7 -0.5 90 Serbia 60.0 +0.6
63 Albania 65.7 -1.2

Mostly Unfree

rank country overall change rank country overall change
91 Swaziland 59.9 -1.3 122 Kenya 55.6 -1.5
92 Uganda 59.7 -0.2 123 Guyana 55.5 -0.2
93 Namibia 59.6 +0.2 124 Egypt 55.2 +2.3
94 Lebanon 59.3 -0.1 125 Mozambique 54.8 -0.2
95 Tonga 59.3 +1.1 126 Malawi 54.8 -0.6
96 Mongolia 59.2 +0.3 127 Niger 54.6 -0.5
97 Bosnia and Herzegovina 59.0 +0.6 128 India 54.6 -1.1
98 Fiji 59.0 +0.3 129 Suriname 54.2 0.0
99 Benin 58.8 +1.7 130 Greece 54.0 -1.7
100 Zambia 58.7 -1.7 131 Bangladesh 53.9 -0.2
101 Sri Lanka 58.6 -1.4 132 Burundi 53.7 +2.3
102 Burkina Faso 58.6 -0.3 133 Yemen 53.7 -1.8
103 Côte d’Ivoire 58.5 +0.8 134 Maldives 53.4 +2.4
104 Gabon 58.3 +0.5 135 Mauritania 53.3 +0.1
105 Indonesia 58.1 -0.4 136 São Tomé and Príncipe 53.3 +4.5
106 Senegal 57.8 +2.4 137 Papua New Guinea 53.1 -0.8
107 Tunisia 57.7 +0.4 138 Togo 53.0 +3.1
108 Nicaragua 57.6 -0.8 139 China 52.7 +0.2
109 Tanzania 57.5 -0.3 140 Tajikistan 52.7 +0.7
110 Cambodia 57.5 +0.1 141 Liberia 52.7 +0.3
111 Moldova 57.5 +0.2 142 Comoros 52.1 +0.7
112 Djibouti 57.5 +1.6 143 Russia 52.1 +0.2
113 The Gambia 57.5 -2.0 144 Guinea 52.1 -1.4
114 Seychelles 57.5 +1.3 145 Guinea-Bissau 52.0 +0.7
115 Bhutan 57.4 +0.7 146 Cameroon 51.9 -0.7
116 Honduras 57.4 +0.3 147 Sierra Leone 51.7 +1.2
117 Belize 56.8 +0.1 148 Vietnam 51.7 +0.9
118 Brazil 56.6 -0.3 149 Ethiopia 51.5 +1.5
119 Mali 56.4 +0.9 150 Laos 51.4 +0.2
120 Nigeria 55.6 +1.3 151 Haiti 51.3 +2.4
121 Pakistan 55.6 +0.4 152 Nepal 51.3 +1.2

Repressed

rank country overall change rank country overall change
153 Belarus 49.8 -0.3 166 Central African Republic 45.9 -0.8
154 Micronesia 49.6 -0.2 167 Timor-Leste 45.5 +2.3
155 Lesotho 49.6 +0.1 168 Democratic Republic of Congo 45.0 +4.4
156 Ecuador 49.2 +1.2 169 Argentina 44.1 -0.5
157 Algeria 48.9 -1.9 170 Republic of Congo 42.7 -1.0
158 Angola 47.9 +0.2 171 Iran 41.8 +1.5
159 Solomon Islands 47.0 +0.8 172 Turkmenistan 41.4 -0.8
160 Uzbekistan 47.0 +0.5 173 Equatorial Guinea 40.4 -4.0
161 Burma 46.9 +0.4 174 Eritrea 38.9 +0.4
162 Ukraine 46.9 -2.4 175 Zimbabwe 37.6 +2.1
163 Bolivia 46.8 -1.6 176 Venezuela 34.3 -2.0
164 Kiribati 46.4 +0.1 177 Cuba 29.6 +0.9
165 Chad 45.9 +1.4 178 North Korea 1.3 +0.3

Not Ranked

rank country overall change rank country overall change
N/A Afghanistan N/A N/A N/A Liechtenstein N/A N/A
N/A Iraq N/A N/A N/A Somalia N/A N/A
N/A Kosovo N/A N/A N/A Sudan N/A N/A
N/A Libya N/A N/A N/A Syria N/A N/A

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

United States

overall score76.2
world rank12
RULE OF LAW

Property Rights80.0

Freedom From Corruption73.0

LIMITED GOVERNMENT

Government Spending51.8

Fiscal Freedom66.2

REGULATORY EFFICIENCY

Business Freedom88.8

Labor Freedom98.5

Monetary Freedom76.6

OPEN MARKETS

Trade Freedom87.0

Investment Freedom70.0

Financial Freedom70.0

Embed This Data

Create a Comparison Chart

See how United States compares to another country using any of the measures in the Index.

vs

Download PDF

QUICK FACTS
  • Population:
    • 316.4 million
  • GDP (PPP):
    • $16.8 trillion
    • 1.9% growth
    • 1.2% 5-year compound annual growth
    • $53,101 per capita
  • Unemployment:
    • 7.5%
  • Inflation (CPI):
    • 1.5%
  • FDI Inflow:
    • $187.5 billion

Embed This Data

The United States’ economic freedom score is 76.2, making its economy the 12th freest in the 2015 Index. Its score is 0.7 point higher than last year, with modest gains in six of the 10 economic freedoms, including control of government spending, outweighing a slight decline in business freedom.

Although the precipitous downward spiral in U.S. economic freedom since 2008 has come to a halt in the 2015 Index, a 1.6-point decline in overall economic freedom over the past five years reflects broad-based deteriorations in key policy areas, particularly those related to upholding the rule of law and limited government. Continuing to trail such comparable economies as Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Canada, America has been ranked “mostly free” since 2010.

The anemic post-recession recovery has been characterized by slow growth, high unemployment, a decrease in the number of Americans seeking work, and great uncertainty that has held back investment. Increased tax and regulatory burdens, aggravated by favoritism toward entrenched interests, have undercut America’s historically dynamic entrepreneurial growth.

BACKGROUND

President Barack Obama’s second-term efforts to expand government spending and regulation have been thwarted to some extent by Republican Party opposition in Congress. Economic policy leadership has devolved by default to the Federal Reserve, whose attempts to use monetary policy to stimulate economic activity have not restored robust growth. Implementation of the 2010 health care law, which has reduced competition in most health insurance markets, remains a drag on job creation and full-time employment. Overall, the U.S. economy continues to underperform, despite a private sector–led energy boom that has made the U.S. the world’s largest producer of oil and natural gas. The weak economic recovery and uncertain responses to foreign policy challenges, particularly in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and along the southern U.S. border, have contributed to a loss of support for the President and his party and Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress as a result of 2014 midterm elections.

RULE OF LAWVIEW METHODOLOGY

Corruption in government and the political process remains a concern. High levels of government spending and the expansion and complexity of the government’s regulatory agenda have increased opportunities for political favoritism and cronyism. The judiciary functions independently. Protection of property rights has been uneven, with instances of regulatory overreach by the executive branch requiring court adjudication.

LIMITED GOVERNMENTVIEW METHODOLOGY

The top individual income tax rate is 39.6 percent, and the top corporate tax rate remains among the world’s highest at 35 percent. Other taxes include a capital gains tax and excise taxes. Tax revenue is equal to 24.3 percent of gross domestic product, and government spending is well over one-third of GDP. Public debt exceeds the value of the economy’s annual production.

REGULATORY EFFICIENCYVIEW METHODOLOGY

The regulatory burden has been mounting. Since 2009, over 150 new major regulations have been imposed at an annual cost of more than $70 billion. As of 2014, 125 new regulations were in the pipeline. The labor market, primarily regulated at the state level, remains flexible. Subsidies for agriculture, health care, and renewable energy have bred economic distortions.

OPEN MARKETSVIEW METHODOLOGY

The average tariff rate is 1.5 percent. Tariffs on clothing are high, sugar imports face tariff-rate quotas, and petroleum and liquefied natural gas exports are restricted. Foreign investment in some sectors is capped. The financial market is well developed, but the 2010 Dodd–Frank Act has instituted more federal regulation, socializing the cost of financial risk-taking and increasing the likelihood of future financial crises and bailouts

http://www.heritage.org/index/country/unitedstates

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-487

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 )

Obama Trade Promotion Authority Put On Hold For Next President? — A Dirty Deal For American People In 38 Business Sectors Under The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) — The Coming Legal Immigration Invasion of United States of America! — Videos

Posted on June 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Communications, Computers, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Television, Video | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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: Obama Trade Promotion Authority Put On Hold For Next President? — A Dirty Deal For American People In 38 Business Sectors Under The Trade In Services Agreement (TISA) — The Coming Legal Immigration Invasion of United States of America! —  Videos

Unholy-Trinity-TISA-TPP-TTIPUS_visaUSA_Visa

SR 379 Fast Track Dead – Until July 31

Milton Friedman – Free Trade Vs Protectionism

Free Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Trade Deal Deadline for TAA Do Over Extended to July 30

Rand Paul wants TPP fast tracked without READING IT.. Corporate shill disguised as FREEDOM LOVER

Ron Paul Opposes Treasonous TPP Trade Deal

Why Is Obama Pushing The TPP?

WikiLeaks exposes new batch of secret US, EU trade negotiations

Mark Levin: Fast Track trade bill massively expands Obama’s executive authority over immigration!

The Glenn Beck Program Beck Blitz: The Trade Agreement w/ Rep. Dave Brat 06 11 15

The history and geopolitics of trade in services

EU Parliament to vote on EU-US trade agreement on June 10

Truthout Interviews with Mike Ludwig Mike Ludwig on TISA and Julian Assange

What’s in the TISA and why it’s a secret?

Trade in Services Agreement Moves Forward, But How Will It Affect Consumers? Pt.1

Who is Behind TISA? Pt. 2

A Plan Only Banksters Will Love: WikiLeaks Reveals Trade Deal Pushing Global Financial Deregulation

TAA To Be Forced Down America’s Throat

What is TTIP?

Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership Negotiations

What is the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership?

TTIP Explained: Understanding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

Why is TTIP more than a trade agreement?

TTIP – good or bad? Hot debate between Philippe Lamberts and Peter Chase

TTIP Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership – secret EU/US legal merger

It’s Illegal to Disclose the Details of “Obamatrade”

Congressman Grayson on The TPP and Its Evil Cousin TISA

What the TiSA Leaked Documents Reveal About Negotiations

Rep. Alan Grayson: ‘88 seconds to Debate the TPP’?

Trade Treachery by Alan Grayson

John Birch Society Predicted 10 Steps To America’s Destruction 55 Years Ago

U.S. House votes to buy more time to revive Obama’s trade plans

McClatchy Washington BureauJune 16, 2015

The U.S. House voted Tuesday to give itself more time to try to salvage President Barack Obama’s faltering trade agenda.

House members will now have until July 30 to reconsider a vote on trade-adjustment assistance that failed last Friday. House leaders originally planned to bring up the issue early this week.

The House voted 236 to 189 for the extension, including it in a rule for debate on the 2016 intelligence authorization bill.

The measure is linked to Obama’s bid to win trade-promotion authority to help him pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed 12-nation trade pact that would rank as the largest in history.

While trade backers said the postponement would give them more time to regroup, opponents said it was unfair to delay a vote for so long and to make it part of an intelligence bill.

“This is one more attempt to play games with the future of hard-working families,” said Connecticut Democratic Rep. Rosa DeLauro, one of the leading opponents of Obama’s trade plans.

Democratic Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas said the delay would allow House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio to bring up the issue for a vote at any time in the next six weeks, with no notice. He said Republicans are looking for “the ideal time to muscle through a broken trade policy.”

Republican Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina said that 95 percent of the world’s customers now live overseas and that 1.2 million jobs in her state rely on trade. She said that passing trade-promotion authority, or TPA, is in the best economic interests of her state.

“The allegations that TPA is something for President Obama is false,” she said.

In a big loss for Obama, the House voted overwhelming last week to reject trade-adjustment assistance for American workers who lose their jobs as a result of global trade.

A majority of House Democrats fell in line behind House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California, who said that voting against trade-adjustment assistance was the only way to defeat trade-promotion authority.

The Senate passed trade-promotion authority, also known as fast-track authority, last month.

Under fast-track rules, Congress could not amend or filibuster a trade pact once it’s negotiated and submitted for approval.

Critics say that would give too much authority to Obama, while backers of trade-promotion authority say it would be the best way to gain concessions from foreign governments at the negotiating table.

Boehner told reporters Tuesday that he has talked with Obama several times, “trying to find a way to move ahead.”

“No decisions have been made, but when we have one, we’ll let you know,” he said.

TiSA: A Secret Trade Agreement That Will Usurp America’s Authority to Make Immigration Policy

Proponents of Trade Promotion Authority (aka fast-track trade negotiating authority), which the House of Representatives will likely vote on soon, have made an unequivocal promise that future trade agreements like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will explicitly exclude any provisions that would require a change to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practices. Many members of Congress in both parties have expressed concern that trade agreements might limit America’s ability to set immigration policy. Republican congressmen Paul Ryan and Robert Goodlatte have responded by explicitly assuring members of their party that there will be no immigration provisions in any trade bill.

U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman has stated in an interrogatory with Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and via letter that nothing is being negotiated in the TPP that “would require any modification to U.S. immigration law or policy or any changes to the U.S. visa system.”

Furthermore, just a few weeks ago, the Senate Finance Committee released a statement titled “TPA Drives High-Quality Trade Agreements, Not Immigration Law: The Administration Has No Authority Under TPA or Any Pending Trade Agreement to Unilaterally Change U.S. Immigration Laws,” and the committee’s May 12 report on the Fast Track bill that was eventually passed by the full Senate contained this relevant language:

For many years, Congress has made it abundantly clear that international trade agreements should not change, nor require any change, to U.S. immigration law and practice…

The Committee continues to believe that it is not appropriate to negotiate in a trade agreement any provision that would (1) require changes to U.S. immigration law, regulations, policy, or practice; (2) accord immigration-related benefits to parties to trade agreements; (3) commit the United States to keep unchanged, with respect to nationals of parties to trade agreements, one or more existing provisions of U.S. immigration law, policy, or practice; or (4) expand to additional countries immigration-related commitments already made by the United States in earlier trade agreements.

Congress’ intent could not be any clearer, but there’s strong evidence to doubt that these assurances will be upheld. If you read these statements closely, you’ll see that most of them concern only the TPP and its lack of impact on immigration policy. But the Trade in Services Agreement, or “TiSA”—another trade deal being negotiated in secret by the Obama administration—is another story; there is little doubt that it will constrain the future ability of the United States Congress to regulate U.S. immigration policy. In fact, deregulating the U.S. work visa system, and therefore opening it up to foreign corporations that provide services (as opposed to goods) is the explicit purpose of an entire annex (section) in TiSA, entitled “Movement of Natural Persons.” The text was heretofore secret until Wikileaks published it on its website last week.

It should be noted that much of the text is a proposed draft for negotiation, and within the text, numerous parts of specific provisions are bracketed to denote which countries support or oppose particular sections or language within sections. But the thrust of the text in the annex is clear. For example, Article 4 is about the schedules (i.e., lists) of commitments that countries will have to put together regarding the “Entry and Temporary Stay of Natural Persons,” and a proposed version of Article 4, Section 2 would prohibit member states from “maintain[ing] or adopt[ing] Economic Needs Tests, including labor market tests, as a requirement for a visa or work permit” in the sectors where commitments are made. (In other words, U.S. laws or regulations limiting guestworkers only to jobs where no U.S. workers were available would violate the terms of the treaty.)

Proposed draft Article 5, Section 1 then requires that “Each Party shall take market access and national treatment commitments for intra-corporate transferees, business visitors and categories delinked from commercial presence: contractual service suppliers and independent professionals.” Section 3 gets more specific about the sectors of the economy where member states will have to allow access to intra-corporate transferees, business visitors, contractual service suppliers, and independent professionals:

3. Subject to any terms, limitations, conditions and qualifications that the Party sets out in its Schedule, Parties shall allow entry and temporary stay of [contractual service suppliers and independent professionals3] for a minimum of [X%] of the following sectors/sub-sectors:

Professional services:

  1. Accounting, auditing and bookkeeping services (CPC 862)
  2. Architectural services (CPC 8671)
  3. Engineering services (CPC 8672)
  4. Integrated engineering services (CPC 8673)
  5. Urban planning and landscape architectural services (CPC 8674)
  6. Medical & dental services (CPC 9312)
  7. Veterinary services (CPC 932)
  8. Services provided by midwives, nurses, physiotherapists and paramedical personnel (CPC 93191)

Computer and related services:

  1. Consultancy services related to the installation of computer hardware (CPC 841)
  2. Software implementation services (CPC 842)
  3. Data processing services (CPC 843)
  4. Data base services (CPC 844)
  5. Other (CPC 845+849)

Research and Development services:

  1. R&D services on natural sciences (CPC 851)
  2. R&D services on social sciences and humanities (CPC 852)
  3. Interdisciplinary R&D services (CPC 853)

Other business services

  1. Advertising services (CPC 871)
  2. Market research and public opinion polling services (CPC 864)
  3. Management consulting services (CPC 865)
  4. Services related to management consulting (CPC 866)
  5. Technical testing & analysis services (CPC 8676)
  6. [CH propose: Services incidental to manufacturing]
  7. Related scientific and technical consulting services (CPC 8675)
  8. Maintenance and repair of equipment (not including maritime vessels, aircraft or other transport equipment) (CPC 633 + 8861-8866)
  9. Specialty design services (CPC 87907)

Construction and related engineering services:

  1. General construction work for buildings (CPC 512)
  2. General construction work for civil engineering (CPC 513)
  3. Installation and assembly work (CPC514+516)
  4. Building completion and finishing work (CPC 517)
  5. Other (CPC 511+515+518)

Environmental services:

  1. Sewage services (CPC 9401)
  2. Refuse disposal services (CPC 9402)
  3. Sanitation and similar services (CPC 9403)
  4. Other

[CH propose: Financial Services]

[CH propose: Financial advisors]

Tourism and travel related services:

  1. Hotels and Restaurants (CPC Ex. 641)
  2. Travel Agencies and Tour Operators services (CPC 7471)
  3. Tourist Guides services (CPC 7472)

[CH propose: Transport services

[CH propose: Other services auxiliary to all modes of transport CPC]

Recreational, cultural and sporting services:

38. Sporting and other recreational services (CPC 964)

In the United States, this means the L-1 intra-company transferee, B-1 business visitor visa programs, and any other applicable visa programs could be used to permit temporary employees from abroad to work in the United States, and no economic needs tests (i.e., testing the labor market) could ever be imposed by Congress. To translate, that means that foreign firms would not be required to advertise jobs to U.S. workers, or to hire U.S. workers if they were equally or better qualified for job openings in their own country. (It should be noted that the L-1 is already restricted in this way, as a result of the United States’ commitments under the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATS).) These visa programs are already under-regulated and abused by employers, but since neither the L-1 nor the B-1 visa program is numerically limited by law, this means that potentially hundreds of thousands of workers could enter the United States every year to work in these 38 sectors.

This is worrying and problematic, not because there shouldn’t be any foreign competition from service-providing companies in the United States, but because the competitive advantage foreign companies will get from TiSA is the ability to provide cheaper services by importing much cheaper labor to supplant American workers. They’ll do this by paying their workers the much lower salaries they would earn in their home countries (as they often already do in the L-1 and B-1 visa programs), and the United States might even be prohibited in future from imposing minimum or prevailing wage standards (at present, neither the L-1 or B-1 visa program has a minimum or prevailing wage rule).

There is clear precedent for this. The multilateral GATS agreement, to which the United States is a party, includes limits on the U.S. government’s ability to change the rules on H-1B and L-1 guestworker visas. That’s why when Congress wants to raise visa fees, as they did in 2010, the Indian government cries foul and threatens to formally complain to the World Trade Organization. The U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore trade deals also included new guestworker programs similar to the H-1B and constraints on the U.S. government’s ability to set rules on L-1 intracompany transfers.

The TiSA draft annex on Movement of Natural Persons would also likely restrict the ability of the current and future administrations to continue some of the basic immigration procedures it currently follows, such as requiring an in-person interview with L-1 applicants. The draft treaty might even prohibit common sense legislative proposals that Congress has considered over the past few years, including minimum wage rules for companies seeking to hire guestworkers in the L-1 visa program. This is particularly disturbing since the L-1 visa program has been a primary vehicle to facilitate the offshoring of high wage jobs and for replacing American workers with cheaper guestworkers.

TiSA has been written in secret by and for major corporations that will benefit greatly if it becomes law. If the House of Representatives grants the Obama administration the fast-track trade promotion authority it seeks, the authority will be valid for six years, which means TiSA (like TPP) would also get an up-or-down vote in Congress without any amendments—making it very likely to pass and become law without the necessary democratic deliberations on immigration that such major changes should have. The leaked TiSA text makes it clear that contrary to the claims by proponents of fast-track trade promotion authority, the reality is that those voting for fast track are ceding key powers to make immigration law and policy to an unelected group of corporations and foreign governments.

http://www.epi.org/blog/tisa-a-secret-trade-agreement-that-will-usurp-americas-authority-to-make-immigration-policy/

TPP/TISA Will Give Barack Obama Vastly Expanded Immigration Powers Experts Say

The Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) is an international trade agreement between the U.S. and 23 other countries including Turkey, Mexico, Canada, Australia, Pakistan, Taiwan and Israel. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.

TISA is the sibling of the TPP and the TTIP. All are being negotiated in absolute secrecy and it appears that TISA is covered by TPP fast-track authority. TISA has immigration requirements that would allow Barack Obama to play fast and loose with our immigration laws.

Breitbart reported that inside the Obamatrade being debated on Friday, is a chapter that vastly expands Barack Obama’s power over immigration.

The documents released by Wikileaks had not been examined thoroughly but Breitbart brought in experts and they uncovered a serious problem with fast track. Their findings agree with VDare and Immigration Reform who reported on this last week.

TISA (The Trade and Services Agreement) is covered by fast track authority under TPA. The “implication” is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. The U.S. would be required to “change its immigration laws”, according to Rosemary Jenks of Numbers USA.

Ten pages of TISA deal exclusively with immigration.

Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, said those 10 pages make it absolutely clear that the administration is negotiating immigration.

Since 2003, a Senate resolution said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements. Hillary Clinton voted for this resolution.

The U.S. Trade Representative who wrote TPA told Congress that the “U.S. is not negotiating immigration– or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws.” That appears to be inaccurate.

On page 4 and 5 of the agreement, about 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.

There would be no requirement to show there aren’t U.S. workers available for the job.

On page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”

There wouldn’t be enough time to vet the visas and the U.S. would end up rubber stamping visa approvals.

The application process has a footnote that says face-to-face interviews are too burdensome, yet we know from experience that they are invaluable and the best opportunity to vet the applicants..

On page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay. That means our 7-year limit would have to change and Obama could do it constitutionally if he has fast-track authority.

TISA also impacts privacy laws.

On June 4th, Immigration Reform also saw red flags throughout the document. In addition to the ones mentioned by Breitbart, they found that the deal creates “a presumption that all spouses of L-1/B-1 visitors who stay for 12 months should also get visas.’

TISA also has “language about “independent professionals” that is very non-specific and it could be an attempt to allow self-petitioning.”

“Finally, the total impact is uncertain because even after the agreement is signed every signatory needs to publish a schedule of industry sectors that they will allow business visitors, contractual service professionals and independent professionals to enter.”

Senator Sessions said that the administration could use the fast-track authority to expand immigration but Paul Ryan said it was an ‘urban legend.” Ryan chairs the House Ways and Means Committee oversees trade. Right now it looks like Senator Sessions was correct.

Barack Obama is a serious and dangerous globalist. If there is any way that he can use these trade agreements to violate our laws and our sovereignty, he will.

TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons

http://www.independentsentinel.com/tpptisa-will-give-barack-obama-vastly-expanded-immigration-powers-experts-say/

REVEALED: THE SECRET IMMIGRATION CHAPTER IN OBAMA’S TRADE AGREEMENT

Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

The mainstream media covered the Wikileaks document dump extensively, but did not mention the immigration chapter contained within it, so Breitbart News took the documents to immigration experts to get their take on it. Nobody has figured how big a deal the documents uncovered by Wikileaks are until now. (See below)

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.

TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

Voting for TPA, of course, would essentially ensure the final passage of each TPP, T-TIP, and TiSA by Congress, since in the history of fast-track any deal that’s ever started on fast-track has been approved.

Roughly 10 pages of this TiSA agreement document leak are specifically about immigration.

“The existence of these ten pages on immigration in the Trade and Services Agreement make it absolutely clear in my mind that the administration is negotiating immigration – and for them to say they are not – they have a lot of explaining to do based on the actual text in this agreement,” Rosemary Jenks, the Director of Government Relations at Numbers USA, told Breitbart News following her review of these documents.

Obama will be able to finalize all three of the Obamatrade deals, without any Congressional input, if Congress grants him fast-track authority by passing TPA. Fast-track lowers the vote thresholds in the Senate and blocks Congress from amending any trade deals—and also, since each of these three deals are pretty much entirely negotiated already, it wouldn’t lead to any more congressional involvement or transparency with each.

The Senate passed the TPA last month, so it is up to the House to put the brakes on Obama’s unilateral power. The House could vote as early as Friday on fast-track, but may head into next week. By all counts, it’s going to be a very tight vote—and may not pass. It remains to be seen what will happen in light of leaks about things like the immigration provisions of TiSA—which deals with 24 separate parties, mostly different nations but also the European Union. It is focused on increasing the free flow of services worldwide—and with that, comes labor. Labor means immigration and guestworkers.

“This Trade and Services Agreement is specifically mentioned in TPA as being covered by fast-track authority, so why would Congress be passing a Trade Promotion Authority Act that covers this agreement, if the U.S. weren’t intended to be a party to this agreement – so at the very least, there should be specific places where the U.S. exempts itself from these provisions and there are not,” explained Jenks.

She emphasized that this is a draft, but at this point “certainly the implication is that the U.S. intends to be a party to all or some of the provisions of this agreement. There is nothing in there that says otherwise, and there is no question in my mind that some of the provisions in this Trade and Services Agreement would require the United States to change its immigration laws.”

In 2003, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution that said no immigration provision should be in trade agreements – and in fact, former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) voted for this resolution.

The existence of these 10 pages is in clear violation of that earlier unanimous decision, and also in violation of the statements made by the U.S. Trade Representative.

“He has told members of Congress very specifically the U.S. is not negotiating immigration – or at least is not negotiating any immigration provisions that would require us to change our laws. So, unless major changes are made to the Trade and Services Agreement – that is not true,” said Jenks.

There are three examples within the 10 pages of areas where the U.S. would have to alter current immigration law.

First, on page 4 and 5 of the agreement, roughly 40 industries are listed where potentially the U.S. visa processes would have to change to accommodate the requirements within the agreement.

Jenks explained that under the agreement, the terms don’t have an economic needs based test, which currently U.S. law requires for some types of visa applications in order to show there aren’t American workers available to fill positions.

Secondly, on page 7 of the agreement, it suggests, “The period of processing applications may not exceed 30 days.”

Jenks said this is a massive problem for the U.S. because so many visa applications take longer than 30 days.

“We will not be able to meet those requirements without essentially our government becoming a rubber stamp because it very often takes more than 30 days to process a temporary worker visa,” she said.

Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.

“The fact that there’s a footnote in this agreement that says that face to face interviews are too burdensome … we’re supposed to be doing face to face interviews with applicants for temporary visas,” she added.

“According to the State Department Consular Officer, it’s the in person interviews that really gives the Consular Officer an opportunity to determine – is this person is a criminal, is this person a terrorist … all of those things are more easily determined when you’re sitting face to face with someone and asking those questions.”

The third issue is present on page 4 of the agreement. It only provides an “[X]” where the number of years would be filled in for the entry or temporary stay.

Jenks explained that for example, with L visas under current U.S. immigration law, the time limit is seven years – so if the agreement were to go beyond seven years, it would change current U.S. law.

This wouldn’t be unconstitutional if Obama has fast-track authority under TPA, as Congress would essentially have given him the power to finalize all aspects of the negotiations, including altering immigration law.

“I think this whole thing makes it very clear that this administration is negotiating immigration – intends to make immigration changes if they can get away with it, and I think it’s that much more critical that Congress ensure that the administration does not have the authority to negotiate immigration,” Jenks said.

Breitbart News’ Matthew Boyle contributed to this report.

TiSA Annex on Movement of Natural Persons

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/10/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

Secret Immigration Provisions of Trade Deal Revealed by Wikileaks

//

// g?c=a+f+c:(g+=f.length,f=a.indexOf(“&”,g),c=0<=f?a.substring(0,g)+c+a.substring(f):a.substring(0,g)+c)}return 2E3<c.length?void 0!==d?r(a,b,d,void 0,e):a:c};var ba=function(){var a=/[&\?]exk=([^& ]+)/.exec(t.location.href);return a&&2==a.length?a[1]:null};var ca=function(a){var b=a.toString();a.name&&-1==b.indexOf(a.name)&&(b+=”: “+a.name);a.message&&-1==b.indexOf(a.message)&&(b+=”: “+a.message);if(a.stack){a=a.stack;var c=b;try{-1==a.indexOf(c)&&(a=c+”\n”+a);for(var d;a!=d;)d=a,a=a.replace(/((https?:\/..*\/)[^\/:]*:\d+(?:.|\n)*)\2/,”$1″);b=a.replace(/\n */g,”\n”)}catch(e){b=c}}return b},u=function(a,b){a.google_image_requests||(a.google_image_requests=[]);var c=a.document.createElement(“img”);c.src=b;a.google_image_requests.push(c)};var v=document,t=window;var da=String.prototype.trim?function(a){return a.trim()}:function(a){return a.replace(/^[\s\xa0]+|[\s\xa0]+$/g,””)},ea=function(a,b){return ab?1:0};var w=null,fa=function(a,b){for(var c in a)Object.prototype.hasOwnProperty.call(a,c)&&b.call(null,a[c],c,a)};function x(a){return”function”==typeof encodeURIComponent?encodeURIComponent(a):escape(a)}var ga=function(){if(!v.body)return!1;if(!w){var a=v.createElement(“iframe”);a.style.display=”none”;a.id=”anonIframe”;w=a;v.body.appendChild(a)}return!0},ha={};var ia=!0,ja={},ma=function(a,b,c,d){var e=ka,f,g=ia;try{f=b()}catch(k){try{var q=ca(k);b=””;k.fileName&&(b=k.fileName);var E=-1;k.lineNumber&&(E=k.lineNumber);g=e(a,q,b,E,c)}catch(l){try{var y=ca(l);a=””;l.fileName&&(a=l.fileName);c=-1;l.lineNumber&&(c=l.lineNumber);ka(“pAR”,y,a,c,void 0,void 0)}catch(ya){la({context:”mRE”,msg:ya.toString()+”\n”+(ya.stack||””)},void 0)}}if(!g)throw k;}finally{if(d)try{d()}catch(ub){}}return f},ka=function(a,b,c,d,e,f){var g={};if(e)try{e(g)}catch(k){}g.context=a;g.msg=b.substring(0,512);c&&(g.file=c);0<d&&(g.line=d.toString());g.url=v.URL.substring(0,512);g.ref=v.referrer.substring(0,512);na(g);la(g,f);return ia},la=function(a,b){try{if(Math.random()c?Math.max(0,a.length+c):c;if(n(a))return n(b)&&1==b.length?a.indexOf(b,c):-1;for(;c<a.length;c++)if(c in a&&a[c]===b)return c;return-1},qa=A.map?function(a,b,c){return A.map.call(a,b,c)}:function(a,b,c){for(var d=a.length,e=Array(d),f=n(a)?a.split(“”):a,g=0;g<d;g++)g in f&&(e[g]=b.call(c,f[g],g,a));return e};var ra=function(a,b){for(var c in a)b.call(void 0,a[c],c,a)},sa=function(a){var b=arguments.length;if(1==b&&”array”==m(arguments[0]))return sa.apply(null,arguments[0]);for(var c={},d=0;dparseFloat(a))?String(b):a}(),Ca={},Da=function(a){if(!Ca[a]){for(var b=0,c=da(String(Ba)).split(“.”),d=da(String(a)).split(“.”),e=Math.max(c.length,d.length),f=0;0==b&&f<e;f++){var g=c[f]||””,k=d[f]||””,q=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”),E=RegExp(“(\\d*)(\\D*)”,”g”);do{var l=q.exec(g)||[“”,””,””],y=E.exec(k)||[“”,””,””];if(0==l[0].length&&0==y[0].length)break;b=ea(0==l[1].length?0:parseInt(l[1],10),0==y[1].length?0:parseInt(y[1],10))||ea(0==l[2].length,0==y[2].length)||ea(l[2],y[2])}while(0==b)}Ca[a]=0<=b}},Ea=h.document,Fa=Aa(),Ga=!Ea||!D||!Fa&&C()?void 0:Fa||(“CSS1Compat”==Ea.compatMode?parseInt(Ba,10):5);var Ha={i:947190538,j:947190541,l:947190542,g:79463068,h:79463069},Ia={f:”ud=1″,o:”ts=1″,m:”sc=1″,c:”gz=1″};if(v&&v.URL)var F=v.URL,ia=!(F&&(0<F.indexOf(“?google_debug”)||0<F.indexOf(“&google_debug”)||0=b)){var d=0,e=function(){a();d++;db;){if(c.google_osd_static_frame)return c;if(c.aswift_0&&(!a||c.aswift_0.google_osd_static_frame))return c.aswift_0;b++;c=c!=c.parent?c.parent:null}}catch(e){}return null},Na=function(a,b,c,d,e){if(10<La)t.clearInterval(L);else if(++La,t.postMessage&&(b.b||b.a)){var f=Ma(!0);if(f){var g={};I(b,g);g[0]=”goog_request_monitoring”;g[6]=a;g[16]=c;d&&d.length&&(g[17]=d.join(“,”));e&&(g[19]=e);try{var k=K(g);f.postMessage(k,”*”)}catch(q){}}}},Oa=function(a){var b=Ma(!1),c=!b;!b&&t&&(b=t.parent);if(b&&b.postMessage)try{b.postMessage(a,”*”),c&&t.postMessage(a,”*”)}catch(d){}};sa(“area base br col command embed hr img input keygen link meta param source track wbr”.split(” “));var M=function(a,b){this.width=a;this.height=b};var Pa;if(!(Pa=!wa&&!D)){var Qa;if(Qa=D)Qa=D&&(C()||9<=Ga);Pa=Qa}Pa||wa&&Da(“1.9.1″);D&&Da(“9″);D&&Da(12);var Sa=function(){var a=t.parent&&t.parent!=t,b=a&&0<=”//tpc.googlesyndication.com”.indexOf(t.location.host);if(a&&t.name&&0==t.name.indexOf(“google_ads_iframe”)||b){var c;a=t||t;try{var d;if(a.document&&!a.document.body)d=new M(-1,-1);else{var e=(a||window).document,f=”CSS1Compat”==e.compatMode?e.documentElement:e.body;d=new M(f.clientWidth,f.clientHeight)}c=d}catch(g){c=new M(-12245933,-12245933)}return Ra(c)}c=t.document.getElementsByTagName(“SCRIPT”);return 0<c.length&&(c=c[c.length-1],c.parentElement&&c.parentElement.id&&0<c.parentElement.id.indexOf(“_ad_container”))?Ra(void 0,c.parentElement):null},Ra=function(a,b){var c=Ta(“IMG”,a,b);return c||(c=Ta(“IFRAME”,a,b))?c:(c=Ta(“OBJECT”,a,b))?c:null},Ta=function(a,b,c){var d=document;c=c||d;d=a&&”*”!=a?a.toUpperCase():””;c=c.querySelectorAll&&c.querySelector&&d?c.querySelectorAll(d+””):c.getElementsByTagName(d||”*”);for(d=0;d<c.length;d++){var e=c[d];if(“OBJECT”==a)a:{var f=e.getAttribute(“height”);if(null!=f&&0<f&&0==e.clientHeight)for(var f=e.children,g=0;g<f.length;g++){var k=f[g];if(“OBJECT”==k.nodeName||”EMBED”==k.nodeName){e=k;break a}}}f=e.clientHeight;g=e.clientWidth;if(k=b)k=new M(g,f),k=Math.abs(b.width-k.width)<.1*b.width&&Math.abs(b.height-k.height)<.1*b.height;if(k||!b&&10<f&&10<g)return e}return null};var Ua,N=0,O=””,P=!1,Q=!1,R=!1,Va=!0,Wa=!1,S=!1,T=0,Xa=[],J=null,Ya=””,Za=[],$a=null,ab=[],bb=!1,U=””,V=””,cb=(new Date).getTime(),db=!1,eb=””,fb=!1,gb=[“1″,”0″,”3″],W=0,X=0,hb=0,ib=””,jb=function(a,b,c){P&&(Va||3!=(c||3)||S)&&Y(a,b,!0);(R||Q&&Wa)&&Y(a,b)},kb=function(){var a=$a;return a?2!=a():!0},Y=function(a,b,c){if((b=b||Ya)&&!bb&&(2==X||c)&&kb()){var d;d=c?”osdim”:R?”osd2″:”osdtos”;var e=[“//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/activeview”,”?id=”,d];”osd2″==d&&Q&&Wa&&e.push(“&ts=1″);O&&e.push(“&avi=”,O);Ua&&e.push(“&cid=”,Ua);e.push(“&ti=1″);e.push(“&”,b);e.push(“&uc=”+hb);db?e.push(“&tgt=”+eb):e.push(“&tgt=nf”);e.push(“&cl=”+(fb?1:0));b=e.join(“”);for(d=0;d<Za.length;d++){try{var f=Za[d]()}catch(g){}e=”max_length”;2<=f.length&&(3==f.length&&(e=f[2]),b=r(b,x(f[0]),x(f[1]),e))}2E3<b.length&&(b=b.substring(0,2E3));u(a,b);c?P=!1:bb=!0}},Z=function(a,b){if(U){try{var c=r(U,”vi”,a);ga()&&u(w.contentWindow,c)}catch(d){}0<=pa(gb,a)&&(U=””);var c=b||Ya,e;e=r(“//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/gen_204?id=sldb”,”avi”,O);e=r(e,”vi”,a);c&&(e+=”&”+c);try{u(t,e)}catch(f){}}},lb=function(){Z(“-1″)},nb=function(a){if(a&&a.data&&n(a.data)){var b;var c=a.data;if(n(c)){b={};for(var c=c.split(“\n”),d=0;d=e)){var f=Number(c[d].substr(0,e)),e=c[d].substr(e+1);switch(f){case 5:case 8:case 11:case 15:case 16:case 18:e=”true”==e;break;case 4:case 7:case 6:case 14:e=Number(e);break;case 3:case 19:if(“function”==m(decodeURIComponent))try{e=decodeURIComponent(e)}catch(g){throw Error(“Error: URI malformed: “+e);}break;case 17:e=qa(decodeURIComponent(e).split(“,”),Number)}b[f]=e}}b=b[0]?b:null}else b=null;if(b&&(c=new H(b[4],b[12]),J&&J.match(c))){for(c=0;cW&&!Q&&2==X&&ob(t,”osd2″,”hs=”+W)},qb=function(){var a={};I(J,a);a[0]=”goog_dom_content_loaded”;var b=K(a);try{Ja(function(){Oa(b)},10,”osd_listener::ldcl_int”)}catch(c){}},rb=function(){var a={};I(J,a);a[0]=”goog_creative_loaded”;var b=K(a);Ja(function(){Oa(b)},10,”osd_listener::lcel_int”);fb=!0},sb=function(a){if(n(a)){a=a.split(“&”);for(var b=a.length-1;0<=b;b–){var c=a[b],d=Ia;c==d.f?(Va=!1,a.splice(b,1)):c==d.c&&(T=1,a.splice(b,1))}ib=a.join(“&”)}},tb=function(){if(!db){var a=Sa();a&&(db=!0,eb=a.tagName,a.complete||a.naturalWidth?rb():G(a,”load”,rb,”osd_listener::creative_load”))}};p(“osdlfm”,z(“osd_listener::init”,function(a,b,c,d,e,f,g,k,q,E){N=a;U=b;V=d;P=f;Ua=E;k&&sb(k);Q=g&&f;1!=q&&2!=q&&3!=q||Xa.push(Ha[“MRC_TEST_”+q]);J=new H(e,ba());G(t,”load”,lb,”osd_listener::load”);G(t,”message”,nb,”osd_listener::message”);O=c||””;G(t,”unload”,pb,”osd_listener::unload”);var l=t.document;!l.readyState||”complete”!=l.readyState&&”loaded”!=l.readyState?(“msie”in ha?ha.msie:ha.msie=-1!=navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase().indexOf(“msie”))&&!window.opera?G(l,”readystatechange”,function(){“complete”!=l.readyState&&”loaded”!=l.readyState||qb()},”osd_listener::rsc”):G(l,”DOMContentLoaded”,qb,”osd_listener::dcl”):qb();-1==N?X=f?3:1:-2==N?X=3:0

GOP LEADERSHIP’S LATEST OBAMATRADE PLOY REVEALED: SMALL BUSINESS TAX HIKE THAT VIOLATES GOP’S ANTI-TAX PLEDGE

Establishment Republicans desperately trying to secure the passage of Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), which would give President Obama fast-track authority to secure congressional approval of at least three secretive trade deals, are now willing to increase taxes on small businesses in a way that would violate a pledge almost every Republican Congressman has taken when elected into office.

To secure final passage through Congress of a package that would include TPA fast-track authority—which would ensure finalization of the secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) and Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA), among other deals—the House would need to pass the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) package that was necessary for Senate passage of TPA. The House voted TAA down 302-126 with widespread bipartisan opposition to last week, but House Ways and Means Committee chairman

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

58%

and his allies in House GOP leadership have pledged that they will try to pass it again early next week. The vote would potentially be on Monday, but more likely on Tuesday—and if there is no vote by Tuesday, it’s unlikely that Ryan will be able to succeed in his ploy to revive TPA.

TAA is a big government program usually favored by Democrats—it increases the size and scope of government, and is essentially viewed by Republicans as a welfare program—so their opposition to it during Friday’s complicated and confusing House vote schedule was not opposition to TAA as a specific concept, but opposition to the full Obamatrade package, especially TPA.

House Minority Leader

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

9%

gave a blistering floor speech against the full Obamatrade deal, causing a Democratic rebellion against TAA—and forcing Ryan to push Republicans to vote for that part of the package.

TAA was originally supposed to be financed with Medicare cuts – which sparked major outrage, and cries of hypocrisy in what would have certainly turned into boldly negative campaign advertisements against Republicans by Democrats this next cycle. But under pressure, Republican leadership, mainly Boehner and Ryan, negotiated with Democrats to remove the Medicare cuts from the financial backing of TAA and instead using direct tax hikes by raising the penalties for misfiled taxes.

“A vote for Obamatrade on Tuesday is a vote to give the IRS more power and more incentives to go after small businesses,” said Curtis Ellis, founder of the Obamatrade.com website, in an exclusive interview with Breitbart News.

Democrats overwhelmingly opposed TAA Friday after Pelosi voiced opposition to giving President Obama fast-track trade authority.

“So while I am a big supporter of TAA, if TAA slows down the fast-track, I am prepared to vote against the TAA because then its defeat, sad to say, is the only way that we will be able to slow down the fast-track,” Pelosi said just minutes before the crucial vote. She concluded: “The facts are these: If TAA fails, the fast-track bill is stopped.”

“It’s pretty outrageous what is called for in this bill that Congress is going to vote on Tuesday – it literally doubles and triples the taxes on small businesses,” explained Ellis.

Ellis spent hours researching this legislation and explained to Breitbart News how it could impact small business taxes if Congress passes the TAA during its vote on Tuesday.

“Small businesses that are already over-burdened with IRS paperwork will be penalized even further if they make a technical mistake on filing informational paperwork,” he said. “There’s a lot of dishonesty going on when the bill is described as raising the fines on tax violations. That’s dishonest because the fines aren’t for people who failed to pay their taxes, the fines are on businesses that for no fault of their own, they forget to fie a piece of paperwork telling the IRS how much someone else owes on their taxes.”

“It’s outrageous that Republicans who complain all the time – rightfully so – about the IRS’s overreach and over burdening small business are actually increasing the incentive for the IRS to spy on people – to spy on small businesses,” he added.

Essentially, as explained by Ellis, any time a small business paid an independent contractor or freelancer a commission or any tips, it must be reported to the IRS with a 1099 form, which a copy is also sent to the contractor or freelancer. If the small business is late in filing this form, then it is fined by the IRS. The proposal Tuesday, as it stands, would double and triple these fines.

“It is the height of cynicism for Congress to plan on paying for a welfare program for unions by increasing the penalties for small businesses,” Ellis reacted.

President of Americans for Limited Government Rick Manning agrees with Ellis about this increasing penalty being a tax increase on small businesses.

“There is no question that raising the penalty on small businesses who commit a paperwork error is a tax increase. It is directly intended to raise revenues, so it can’t be considered anything else. For Republican leadership to ask their members to vote to raise taxes on small business to fund a union bailout that Big Labor doesn’t want is both horrific policy and terrible politics,” Manning told Breitbart News.

This program was so unpopular with both Democrats and Republicans that they removed it from Obamacare.

“This is very similar to one of the ways Obamacare was going to be paid for – as Obamacare was enacted they were looking for revenue to pay for it by increasing the penalties on small businesses who failed to file 1099 forms – that was repealed because it was so unpopular,” Ellis said. “Republicans led the charge in repealing it and now they’re the ones leading the charge to once again increase the penalties in already burdensome paperwork for the IRS.”

Therefore, the Republicans that voted for TAA Friday, essentially voted to finance TAA at the expense of increasing small business taxes – a direct violation of the Grover Norquist tax pledge, which many Republican Congressmen took, pledging to the American public not to raise any more taxes.

Norquist, President of Americans for Tax Reform, a group for taxpayer advocacy to limit size of government, organized the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The pledge asks all politicians for both federal and state office to sign the pledge, committing themselves to oppose tax increases.

“This is clearly a tax increase – and it’s a violation of Grover Norquist’s no tax increase pledge that most of these Congressmen signed,” Ellis said. “This legislation assumes that there are small businesses out there that will fail to file the 1099 form and will therefore have to pay a fine.”

“It assumes small businesses will be forced to pay the IRS and then it goes further and says ‘let’s make them pay more’ – it doubles and triples the fines,” he argued.

Nearly every elected Republican in America—with rare exception—has signed Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. As such, the 86 Republicans who voted to raise small business taxes through the TAA on Friday most likely did as well.

ATR spokesman John Kartch told Breitbart News he doesn’t think TAA as it’s structured now in the House is a tax and that it does not violate the tax pledge—but that ATR is vehemently opposed to the program and is recommending all Republicans vote against it. That means ATR is in agreement with other groups from a more conservative perspective—albeit for slightly different reasons—on this matter, and won’t back down to help Obamatrade across the finish line.

“The Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is, like most government jobs training programs, a well intentioned, but flawed program,” Kartch said in an email on Sunday night.

“Americans for Tax Reform opposes the TAA program and any increase in funding for it. The TAA is tied to the Trade Promotion Authority designed to facilitate trade agreements that reduce tariffs. Tariffs are taxes. For most of our nation’s history our national government was largely funded by tariffs. The increases in fines for not filing 1099s are not tax hikes. Tax increases come from changes in tax law. ATR opposes the increase in the fines. Not every stupid move by government is a tax. Civil asset forfeiture is a vicious misuse of government power — but it is not a tax. Excise taxes are taxes and the bottom line of the drive to expand free trade is that — even with silly ‘bribes’ to Democrats like the TAA –freer trade driven by tariff reductions will reduce the taxes paid by American consumers and increase the nation’s economic strength. As has happened with every tariff reduction in our history.”

This is extraordinarily significant, since Norquist and his organization did support the TPA portion of Obamatrade, but the public opposition to its TAA portion means it’s unlikely any GOP votes will budge if and when leadership brings up TAA again next week. In fact, if any Republicans change their votes, they’re likely to switch from voting in favor of TAA to against it so not to violate their pledge.

Ellis, Manning and Norquist are hardly the only influential right-of-center figures opposing TAA.

“Regardless of how TAA is financed, it is a wasteful ineffective program that undermines the virtues of free trade,” Dan Holler, Communications Director for Heritage Action for America, told Breitbart News.

Heritage Action and Club for Growth – a conservative group – both oppose the TAA program saying it’s a wasteful welfare program. Heritage Action scored against TPA and TAA, but Club For Growth supported—like ATR—TPA but not TAA.

When TAA went down in the House last week, only 86 Republicans voted for it—and they were joined by just 40 Democrats.

A whopping 158 Republicans joined 144 Democrats to oppose TAA. To pass TAA this week, the only way to truly keep Obamatrade alive without having to go through a grueling conference committee strategy that would likely lead to even more lost votes on both the House and Senate side when they would vote on an eventual conference report, the establishment would need to pick up 92 votes to get to 218.

That seems highly unlikely, given that the widespread GOP opposition and the revelation that voting for this TAA portion is technically voting for a tax increase. That alone is likely to keep the 158 Republican noes in their column and probably add GOP opposition as several of the 86 GOP ayes are likely to change their votes to oppose it as Democrat opposition is getting stronger too. On Sunday, former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton—the likely eventual Democrat nominee for president in 2016—urged Democrats to trust Pelosi and oppose granting Obama fast track trade authority until a good deal is assured.

“The president should listen to and work with his allies in Congress, starting with

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)

9%

,” Clinton said in Iowa.

If TAA were to pass—which is even more unlikely now that there’s probably not going to be any Democrat or GOP defections into supporting it—then so does TPA. The bills would move on to President Obama’s desk together, giving him fast-track authority to finalize his trade deals without any amendments to his deals by Congress.

Ryan’s office has not responded to a request for comment in response to these revelations about Obamatrade’s tax increases.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/06/14/gop-leaderships-latest-obamatrade-ploy-revealed-small-business-tax-hike-that-violates-gops-anti-tax-pledge/

 Trade in Services Agreement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) is a proposed international trade treaty between 24 Parties, including the European Union and the United States. The agreement aims at liberalizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, health care and transport.[1] Criticism about the secrecy of the agreement arose after WikiLeaks released in June 2014 a classified draft of the proposal’s financial services annex, dated the previous April.[2]

Origin

Parties to Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)

The process was an initiative of the United States. It was proposed to a group of countries meeting in Geneva and called the Really Good Friends. All negotiating meetings take place in Geneva. The EU and the US are the main proponents of the agreement, and the authors of most joint changes. The participating countries started crafting the proposed agreement in February 2012[3] and presented initial offers at the end of 2013.[4]

Proposed Agreement

The agreement covers about 70% of the global services economy. Its aim is privatizing the worldwide trade of services such as banking, healthcare and transport.[1][5] Services comprise 75% of American economic output; in EU states, almost 75% of its employment and gross domestic product.[6]

Once a particular trade barrier has unilaterally been removed, it cannot be reintroduced. This proposal is known as the ‘ratchet clause’.[7]

European Union

The EU has stated that companies outside its borders will not be allowed to provide publicly funded healthcare or social services.[7]

Market access for publicly-funded health, social services and education, water services, film or TV will not be taken. Therefore, the ‘racket clause’ will not apply.[7]

Parties involved

Initially having 16 members, the TISA has expanded to include 24 parties. Since the European Union represents 28 member states, there are 51 countries represented.[8] The number of countries represented in each continent are: 32 in Europe, 7 in Asia, 5 in North America, 5 in South America, and 2 in Oceania. The 24 TiSA parties in order of their income categories are:[9]

Income Group Parties
High Income Countries  Australia
 Canada
 Chile
 Hong Kong
 Iceland
 Israel
 Japan
 South Korea
 Liechtenstein
 New Zealand
 Norway
  Switzerland
 Taiwan
 United States
 Uruguay
 European Union
Upper Middle Income Countries  Colombia
 Costa Rica
 Mexico
 Panama
 Peru
 Turkey
Lower Middle Income Countries  Pakistan
 Paraguay

Controversy

The agreement has been criticized for the secrecy around the negotiation. The cover page of the negotiating document leaked by Wikileaks says: “Declassify on: Five years from entry into force of the TISA agreement or, if no agreement enters into force, five years from the close of the negotiations.”[2] Because of this practice it is not possible to be informed about the liberalizing rules that the participating countries propose for the future agreement. Only Switzerland has a practice of making public on the Internet all the proposals it submitted to the other parties since June 2012.[3] European Union published its “offer” for TISA only in July 2014,[10]after the Wikileaks disclosure.

Digital rights advocates have also brought attention to the fact that the agreement has provisions which would significantly weaken existing data protection provisions in signatory countries. In particular, the agreement would strip existing protections which aim to keep confidential or personally identifiable data within country borders or which prohibit its movement to other countries which do not have similar data protection laws in place.[11]

The agreement bans government mandates for use of open source software, stating “No Party may require the transfer of, or access to, source code of software owned by a person of another Party, as a condition of providing services related to such software in its territory.”[12] The open source word processing application LibreOffice has been deployed by many local governments throughout the EU to save money.[13][14][15][16]

Analysis

A preliminary analysis of the Financial Services Annex by prominent free trade critic Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealandwas published with the WikiLeaks release.[17]

The Public Services International (PSI) organization described TISA as:

a treaty that would further liberalize trade and investment in services, and expand “regulatory disciplines” on all services sectors, including many public services. The “disciplines,” or treaty rules, would provide all foreign providers access to domestic markets at “no less favorable” conditions as domestic suppliers and would restrict governments’ ability to regulate, purchase and provide services. This would essentially change the regulation of many public and privatized or commercial services from serving the public interest to serving the profit interests of private, foreign corporations.[18]

One concern is the provisions regarding retention of business records. David Cay Johnston said, “It is … hard to make the case that the cost of keeping a duplicate record at the home office in a different country is a burden.” He noted that business records requirements are sufficiently important that they were codified in law even before the Code of Hammurabi.[19]

Impacts of the law may include “whether people can get loans or buy insurance and at what prices as well as what jobs may be available.”[19]

Dr. Patricia Ranald, a research associate at the University of Sydney, said:

“Amendments from the US are seeking to end publicly provided services like public pension funds, which are referred to as ‘monopolies’ and to limit public regulation of all financial services … They want to freeze financial regulation at existing levels, which would mean that governments could not respond to new developments like another global financial crisis.”[20]

Regarding the secrecy of the draft, Professor Kelsey commented: “The secrecy of negotiating documents exceeds even the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement(TPP) and runs counter to moves in the WTO towards greater openness.”[17] Johnston adds, “It is impossible to obey a law or know how it affects you when the law is secret.”[19]

See also

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b Dorling, Philip. “Medical tourism’ plan revealed: Australia leads top secret push for globalisation of healthcare”. The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved6 February 2015.
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Wikileaks (19 June 2014). “Secret Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) – Financial Services Annex”. Wikileaks.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b “Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)”. State Secretariat for Economic Affairs. Retrieved 3 July 2014.
  4. Jump up^ “Trade in Services Agreement (TISA)”. Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada. Retrieved 3 July 2014..
  5. Jump up^ Palmer, Daniel (30 June 2014). “Major banking shake-up ahead”. The Australian. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
  6. Jump up^ “U.S. says basic outline in place for international services trade deal”. Reuters. 18 June 2014. Retrieved 2 July 2014.
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b c “Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) Questions and answers”. European Commission. Retrieved 6 February 2015.
  8. Jump up^ “Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA)”. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade website – http://www.dfat.gov.au. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
  9. Jump up^ Amit Sengupta (27 July 2014). “Trading Away Access to Public Services”.People’s Democracy. Retrieved 27 July 2014.
  10. Jump up^ The EU publishes TiSA position papers, Brussels, 22 July 2014, Retrieved 2014-09-03
  11. Jump up^ “LEAKED: Secret Negotiations to Let Big Brother Go Global”. Wolf Street. Don Quijones. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
  12. Jump up^ Glyn Moody (4 June 2015). “WikiLeaks releases secret TISA docs: The more evil sibling of TTIP and TPP”. Ars Technica.
  13. Jump up^ https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/mayor-munich-eu-laptops-should-have-libreoffice-or-openoffice
  14. Jump up^ “Munich shifts to LibreOffice”. ITworld. 17 October 2013. Retrieved 2 February2014.
  15. Jump up^ “Toulouse saves 1 million euro with LibreOffice”. Joinup. 23 July 2014. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
  16. Jump up^ “Moving to LibreOffice saves Toulouse 1 million”.
  17. ^ Jump up to:a b Professor Jane Kelsey (19 June 2014). “Memorandum on Leaked TISA Financial Services Text”. Wikileaks.
  18. Jump up^ “Meet TISA: Another Major Treaty Negotiated In Secret Alongside TPP And TTIP”. Techdirt. 2014-04-29. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  19. ^ Jump up to:a b c Johnston, David Cay. “Thanks to WikiLeaks, public can debate alarming new trade deal”. Al Jazeera America. Retrieved 2014-07-03.
  20. Jump up^ Hanai, Toru (2014-06-19). “Secret trade agreement covering 68 percent of world services published by WikiLeaks — RT USA”. Russia Today. Retrieved2014-07-03.

External links[edit]

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

Visa policy of the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A US visa specimen

Entry passport stamp for the United States issued to a citizen of Canada by the U.S. Customs and Border Protectionat San Francisco International Airport.

The visa policy of the United States deals with the requirements which a foreign national wishing to enter the United States must meet to obtain a visa, which is a permit to travel to, enter and remain in the country. Visitors to the United States must obtain a visa from one of the United States diplomatic missions unless they come from one of the visa exempt countries or Visa Waiver Program countries. The same rules apply to Puerto Rico and the United States Virgin Islands while slightly different rules apply to Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and American Samoa.[1]

The United States gives a visitor visa exemption to:

Overview

United States Visas were issued to 8.9 million foreign nationals visiting the United States and to 482,000 immigrants in 2012.[2] A foreign national wishing to enter the U.S. must obtain a visa unless he or she is

There are separate requirements for Mexican citizens.[3]

While there are about 185 different types of visas,[4] there are two main categories of U.S. visas:

  • Nonimmigrant visa – for temporary visits such as for tourism, business, work or studying.
  • Immigrant visa – for people to immigrate to the United States. At the port of entry, the immigrant visa holder is processed for a permanent resident card (I-551, a.k.a. green card). Upon endorsement (CBP admission stamp) it serves as temporary I-551 evidencing permanent residence for 1 year.

In order to immigrate, one should either have an immigrant visa or have a dual intent visa, which is one that is compatible with making a concurrent application for permanent resident status, or having an intention to apply for permanent residence.

Entering the U.S. on an employment visa may be described as a three-step process in most cases.[4] First, the employer files an application with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services requesting a particular type of category visa for a specific individual.[4] If the employer’s application is approved, it only authorizes the individual to apply for a visa; the approved application is not actually a visa.[4] The individual then applies for a visa and is usually interviewed at a U.S. embassy or consulate in the native country.[4] ƒIf the embassy or consulate gives the visa, the individual is then allowed to travel to the U.S.[4] At the border crossing, airport, or other point of entry into the U.S., the individual speaks with an officer from U.S. Customs and Border Protection to ask to admission to the U.S.[4] If approved, the individual may then enter the U.S.[4]

Contrary to a popular misconception, a U.S. visa does not authorize the alien‘s entry to the United States, nor does it authorize the alien’s stay in the U.S. in a particular status. A U.S. visa only serves as a preliminary permission given to the alien to travel to the United States and to seek admission to the United States at a designated port of entry.[5] The final admission to the United States in a particular status and for a particular period of time is made at the port of entry by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer. For aliens entering the U.S. in a nonimmigrant visa status these details are recorded by the CBP officer on the alien’sForm I-94 (Form I-94W for citizens of the Visa Waiver Program countries entering the U.S. for short visits), which serves as the official document authorizing the alien’s stay in the United States in a particular non-immigrant visa status and for a particular period of time.[6] Another type of U.S. visa is lottery visa. 50,000 additional visa numbers are available each year under the section of visa lottery. In the last few years more than 9 million people have participated in the visa lottery[7]

Visa exemption

  The United States and its territories
  Visa free countries
  Visa Waiver Program countries

Citizens of the following countries, linked with the USA by theCompacts of Free Association, do not require a visa to enter, reside, study, and work indefinitely in the United States:

Citizens of the following country do not require a visa to visit the United States and can study and work under special simplified procedure:

Visa Waiver Program

Main article: Visa Waiver Program

Currently, 38 countries have been selected by the U.S. government for inclusion in the Visa Waiver Program and their citizens do not need to acquire a US visa (but are required to get an electronic authorization if arriving by air or cruise ship[12]) to visit the United States (including Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands):[13]

Visitors may stay for 90 days in the United States which also includes the time spent in Canada, Mexico, Bermuda, or the islands in the Caribbean if the arrival was through the United States.

The Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA) is not a visa. Rather, obtaining a travel authorization from ESTA is a prerequisite to travelling by air to the US under the Visa Waiver Program.[37] ESTA authorization, once obtained, is valid for two years unless during that time the person obtains a new passport or his/her answers to any of the eligibility questions change.[38]

Other arrangements

Citizens of the following countries and territories can travel without obtaining a visa for the United States under certain circumstances:

  •  BermudaBritish Overseas Territories citizens by virtue of their connection to Bermuda can enter the United States visa-free provided they are bona-fide visitors – no I-94 is required.[39] To qualify, they must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must not be arriving the United States from outside the Western Hemisphere. In addition, they must present a Bermudian passport which fulfils the following criteria: the front cover has printed on it “Government of Bermuda”, the holder’s nationality must be stated as either “British Overseas Territory Citizen” or “British Dependant Territories Citizen”, the passport must contain one of the following endorsement stamps: “Holder is registered as a Bermudian”, “Holder Possesses Bermudian Status” or “Holder is deemed to possess Bermudian status”.
  •  Bahamas – Citizens do not require a visa to enter the United States if they apply for entry at one of the Preclearance Facilities located in Nassau orFreeport International Airports. Bahamian citizens must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must be in possession of valid, unexpired passport or a Bahamian Travel Document indicating that they have Bahamian citizenship. In addition to a passport, all applicants 14 years of age or older must present a police certificate issued by the Royal Bahamas Police Force within the past six months. All Bahamians applying for admission at a port-of-entry other than the Preclearance Facilities located in Nassau or Freeport International Airport are required to be in possession of a valid visa to enter the United States.[40]
  •  British Virgin Islands – British Overseas Territories Citizens by virtue of their connection to the British Virgin Islands may travel without a visa to the United States Virgin Islands. They may also continue travel to other parts of the United States if they present a Certificate of Good Conduct issued by the Royal Virgin Islands Police Department indicating no criminal record.[41]
  •  Cayman Islands – Whilst residents of the Cayman Islands, as British Overseas Territories Citizens, are eligible automatically to register as a full British citizen under Section 4(A) of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, thereby able additionally to enter the United States under the Visa Waiver Program, they can alternatively enter visa-free using their Cayman Islands passports. To qualify under the latter method, their Cayman Islands passports must confirm their British Overseas Territories citizenship and be endorsed by the Cayman Islands Passport and Corporate Services Office with a Cayman-U.S. visa waiver, issued at a cost of $15–25 and valid for one entry.[42][43] They must travel directly between the Cayman Islands and the United States and their Cayman Islands passport must also have a validity of at least six months beyond their intended departure date from the United States.[44] If Cayman Islanders elect to enter the U.S. using the Cayman-U.S. visa waiver, they are not required to apply for an ESTA online, since they are not entering under the VWP.
  •  Turks and Caicos Islands – British Overseas Territories Citizens by virtue of their connection to the Turks and Caicos Islands can enter the United States visa-free for short business and pleasure.[45] To qualify, they must not have had a criminal conviction or ineligibility, not violated U.S. immigration laws in the past and must arrive in the United States on a direct flight from the territory. In addition, they must present a Turks and Caicos Islands passport which states that they are a British Overseas Territory Citizen and have the right to abode in the Turks and Caicos Islands. In addition to a valid, unexpired passport, all travellers 14 years of age or older must present a police certificate issued by the Royal Turks and Caicos Islands Police Force within the past six months. All British Overseas Territories Citizens of the Turks and Caicos Islands who apply for admission at a port-of-entry that does not have direct air service to/from the territory, are required to be in possession of a valid visa to enter the United States.

Guam and Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program]

The U.S. territories of Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands have a specific Guam-Northern Mariana Islands Visa Waiver Program too. Under this program, first enacted in October 1988 and periodically amended, nationals from several additional countries in Asia and the Pacific islands are permitted to enter the Northern Marianas and Guam as tourists without a visa for up to 45 days. Travel is not permitted onwards to the mainland United States, and because of special visa categories for the Northern Mariana Islands foreign workers, traveling between Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands still requires a full immigration inspection.[46] In addition to the citizens of Australia, Brunei, Japan, New Zealand, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and the United Kingdom who are also eligible for the Visa Waiver Program (but do not require ESTA for Guam and Northern Mariana Islands), citizens of the following countries and territories are eligible only for the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program:[47][48]

  •  Russia – despite not being included in the new Guam-CNMI visa waiver program, as part of a parole arrangement, Russian citizens in possession of a machine-readable passport, a completed Form I-736 (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information form) and Form I-94 (Arrival-Departure Record) and a non-refundable and non-transferable return ticket can visit both Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands visa-free for up to 45 days.[49]
  •  ChinaChinese citizens in possession of a machine-readable passport, completed Form I-736 (Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Information form) and Form I-94 (Arrival-Departure Record) may enter the CNMI only visa-free for up to 45 days (travel to Guam still requires applying for a visa in advance).[50]

American Samoa

American Samoa entry stamp

The visa waiver does not apply to American Samoa.

Nationals of the following countries arriving for tourism purposes only do not require a visa (they are issued with a 30 day entry permit on arrival): Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Brunei, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland,Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,Palau, Portugal, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.[51]

Summary of visa exemptions

Country or territory Overland Air/Cruise ship All means of transport
United States
and Puerto Rico
United States
Virgin Islands
Guam Northern Mariana
Islands
American Samoa
 Canada Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Marshall Islands Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Micronesia Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Palau Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
 Bermuda Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No
 Australia Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 Brunei Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 Japan Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 New Zealand Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 Singapore Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 United Kingdom[Note 1] Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes Yes
 South Korea Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes No
 Taiwan[Note 2] Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes Yes No
 Andorra Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Austria Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Belgium Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Denmark Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Finland Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 France Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Germany Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Iceland Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Ireland Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Italy Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Liechtenstein Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Luxembourg Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Monaco Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Netherlands Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Norway Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Portugal Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 San Marino Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Spain Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Sweden Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
  Switzerland Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization Yes
 Chile Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Czech Republic Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Estonia Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Greece Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Hungary Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Latvia Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Lithuania Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Malta Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Slovakia Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Slovenia Yes electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization electronic authorization No
 Bahamas No preclearance preclearance preclearance preclearance No
 British Virgin Islands No police certificate Yes police certificate police certificate No
 Cayman Islands No police certificate police certificate police certificate police certificate No
 Turks and Caicos Islands No police certificate police certificate police certificate police certificate No
 Hong Kong[Note 3] No No No Yes Yes No
 Malaysia No No No Yes Yes No
 Nauru No No No Yes Yes No
 Papua New Guinea No No No Yes Yes No
 Russia No No No Yes Yes No
 China No No No No Yes No

Outlying islands

Visits to the United States Minor Outlying IslandsBaker Island, Howland Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Kingman Reef, Midway Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Wake Island and Navassa Island – are severely restricted. Most of the islands are closed off, and prospective visitors require special permits, usually from the US army.[52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

Qualification process

The typical process for issuing a United States visa, possibly including aVisas Mantis check

Applicants for visitor visas must show that they qualify under provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The presumption in the law is that every nonimmigrant visa applicant (except certain employment-related applicants, who are exempt) is an intending immigrant unless otherwise proven. Therefore, applicants for most nonimmigrant visas must overcome this presumption by demonstrating that:

  • The purpose of their trip is to enter the U.S. for a specific, intended purpose;
  • They plan to remain for a specific, limited period; and
  • They have a residence outside the U.S. as well as other binding ties which will ensure their return at the end of their stay.

All visit, business, transit, student, and exchange visitor visa applicants must pay a US$160 application fee (up from $140 as of April 2012) to a US Consulate in order to be interviewed by a Consular Officer who will determine if the applicant is qualified to receive a visa to travel to the U.S (additionally, the officer may also ask the United States Department of State for a Security Advisory Opinion, which can take several weeks to resolve). The application fee is increased to $190 for most work visas (up from $150 as of April 2012) and can be even higher for certain categories. If the applicant is rejected, the application fee is not refunded. Amongst the items included in the qualification decision are financial independence, adequate employment, material assets and a lack of a criminal record in the applicant’s native country.

The immigration visa process is even more stringent and costly. After all processing fees have been paid, most immigration visa applicants pay well over 1000 U.S. dollars to become permanent residents in the United States and may be forced to wait several years before actually immigrating to the U.S.

Visitor visa statistics

Issued B-1,2 visas in fiscal 2013

  United States
  Visa exempt nationalities
  Over 400 thousand issued visas
  Over 100 thousand issued visas
  Over 50 thousand issued visas
  Over 25 thousand issued visas
  Over 10 thousand issued visas
  Over 5 thousand issued visas
  Under 5 thousand issued visas

In fiscal 2013 most B-1,2 visas were issued to the nationals of the following countries (listed over 40,000 visas):[68]

Nationality Issued B-1,2 visas in 2013
 Mexico[69] 1,324,496
 China 1,146,322
 Brazil 925,678
 Colombia 440,902
 India 376,998
 Argentina 240,653
 Russia 229,040
 Venezuela 204,758
 Israel 102,223
 Ecuador 105,125
 Nigeria 92,773
 Philippines 89,288
 Turkey 71,269
 Chile 70,517
 Poland 62,408
 Saudi Arabia 61,940
 Peru 56,116
 Dominican Republic 50,470
 Vietnam 49,247
 Indonesia 47,480
 South Africa 46,581
 Guatemala 44,764
 Thailand 41,987
 Hong Kong 41,969
 Jamaica 41,183
 Egypt 41,081

In fiscal 2013 most reasons to refuse a visa were cited as “failure to establish entitlement to nonimmigrant status”, “incompatible application” (most overcome), “unlawful presence”, “misrepresentation”, “criminal convictions”, “smugglers” and “controlled substance violators”. Smaller number of applications were rejected for “physical or mental disorder”, “prostitution”, “espionage”, “terrorist activities”, “falsely claiming citizenship” and other grounds for refusal including “presidential proclamation”, “money laundering”, “communicable disease” and “commission of acts of torture or extrajudicial killings”.[70]

Admission statistics

Number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013

  United States
  Over 2 million admissions
  Over 1 million admissions
  Over 500 thousand admissions
  Over 250 thousand admissions
  Over 100 thousand admissions
  Over 15 thousand admissions
  Under 15 thousand admissions

Highest number of non-immigrant admissions for tourists and for business purposes into the United States in fiscal year 2013 was from the following countries (listed over 700,000 admissions):[71]

Country FY 2013
 Mexico 16,925,645
 United Kingdom 4,333,518
 Japan 4,051,814
 Canada 3,003,317
 Germany 2,212,435
 Brazil 2,035,737
 France 1,829,304
 China 1,623,290
 South Korea 1,454,738
 Australia 1,376,715
 Italy 1,133,189
 India 970,416
 Spain 858,402
 Colombia 773,375
 Venezuela 762,313
 Netherlands 741,859
 Argentina 707,863
Total (worldwide) 54,645,551

Classes of nonimmigrant visas

A visa

A visas are issued to representatives of a foreign government traveling to the United States to engage in official activities for that government. A visas are granted to foreign government ambassadors, ministers, diplomats, as well as other foreign government officials or employees traveling on official business (A-1 Visa). The A visa is also granted to immediate family members of such foreign government officials, defined as “the principal applicant’s spouse and unmarried sons and daughters of any age who are not members of some other household and who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien” (A-2 Visa) and which “may also include close relatives of the principal alien or spouse who are related by blood, marriage, or adoption who are not members of some other household; who will reside regularly in the household of the principal alien; and who are recognized as dependents by the sending government (A-3 Visa).[72]

B-1 and B-2

Main article: B visa

The most common non-immigrant visa is the multiple-purpose B-1/B-2 visa, also known as the “visa for temporary visitors for business or pleasure.” Visa applicants sometimes receive either a B-1 (temporary visitor for business) or a B-2 (temporary visitor for pleasure) visa, if their reason for travel is specific enough that the consular officer does not feel they qualify for combined B-1/B-2 status.[73] Holders may also attend short non-credit courses. Mexican citizens are eligible for Border Crossing Cards.[74]

Validity period

US B visa validity period

  United States
  120 months
  60 months
  24-48 months
  12 months
  Under 12 months

Validity of visas by nationality for B-1/B-2 visa:[75]

Adjusted Visa refusal Rate

US B visa refusal rate

  United States
  Visa exempt countries
  Over 50%
  Over 40%
  Over 30%
  Over 20%
  Over 10%
  Over 5%
  Over 3%
  Under 3%

The Adjusted Visa Refusal Rate for fiscal year 2014 for B visas was:[90]

Use for other countries

US tourist visas that are valid for further travel are accepted as substitute visas for national visas in following countries:

  •  Albania — 90 days;
  •  Antigua and Barbuda — 30 days; USD 100 visa waiver fee applies.
  •  Belize — 30 days; USD 50 visa waiver fee applies.
  •  Colombia — 90 days;
  •  Costa Rica — 30 days or less if the visa is about to expire; must hold a multiple entry visa.
  •  Dominican Republic — 90 days;
  •  El Salvador — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
  •  Georgia — 90 days within any 180 day period;
  •  Guatemala — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
  •  Honduras — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
  •  Jamaica — 30 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
  •  Mexico — 180 days;[92][93]
  •  Montenegro — 30 days;
  •  Nicaragua — 90 days; not applicable to all nationalities.
  •  Panama — 30/180 days; must hold a visa valid for at least 2 more entries.
  •  Philippines — 7 days; for nationals of China and India only.
  •  Serbia — 90 days;
  •  Taiwan — certain nationalities can obtain an online travel authority if holding a valid US visa.
  •  Turkey — certain nationalities can obtain an electronic Turkish visa if holding a valid US visa.

C visa

C-1 visa is a transit visa issued to individuals who are travelling in “immediate and continuous transit through the United States enroute to another country”. The only reason to enter the United States must be for transit purposes. A subtype C-2 visa is issued to diplomats transiting to and from the Headquarters of the United Nations and is limited to the vicinity of New York City.[94]

D visa

D visa is issued to crew members of sea-vessels and international airlines in the United States. This includes commercial airline pilots and flight attendants, captain, engineer, or deckhand of a sea vessel, service staff on a cruise ship and trainees on board a training vessel. Usually a combination of a C-1 visa and D visa is required.[95]

E visa

Main article: E visa

Treaty Trader (E-1 visa) and Treaty Investor (E-2 visa) visas are issued to citizens of countries that have signed treaties of commerce and navigation with the United States.[96] They are issued to individuals engaged in substantial trade activities in international banking, insurance, transportation, tourism or communications with significant economic impact in the United States.[97] The variant visa issued only to citizens of Australia is the E-3 visa (E-3D visa is issued to spouse or child of E-3 visa holder and E-3R to a returning E-3 holder).[98]

F visa

Main article: F visa

These visas are issued for foreign students enrolled at accredited US institutions. F-1 visas are for full-time students, F2 visas are for spouses and children of F-1 visa holders and F-3 visas are for “border commuters” who reside in their country of origin while attending school in the United States.[99] They are managed through SEVIS.[100]

G visa

Main article: G visa

The G visas are issued to diplomats, government officials, and employees who will work for international organizations in the United States. The international organization must be officially designated as such.[101] The G-1 visa is issued to permanent mission members, G-2 visa is issued to representatives of a recognized government traveling temporarily to attend meetings of a designated international organization, G-3 visa is issued to individuals representing non-recognized governments, G-4 visa is for those who are taking up an appointment and G-5 visa is issued to personal employees or domestic workers of G1-G4 visa holders.[102]G1-G4 visas are also issued to family members.[103]

Those working specifically for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization require a NATO visa. NATO–1 visa is issued to permanent representatives of NATO and their staff members, NATO-2 visa is issued to a representative of member state to NATO or its subsidiary bodies, advisor or technical expert of the NATO delegation visiting the United States, a member of the NATO military forces component or a staff member of the NATO representative, NATO-3 visa is issued to official clerical staff accompanying the representative of a NATO member state, NATO-4 visa is issued to foreign national recognized as a NATO official, NATO-5 visa is issued to a foreign national recognized as a NATO expert and NATO-6 visa is issued to a member of the civilian component of the NATO. All NATO visas are issued to immediate family members as well. NATO-7 visas are issued to personal employees or domestic workers of a NATO-1 – NATO-6 visa holders.[104]

H visa

H visas are issued to temporary workers in the United States.

Specialty Occupations, DOD Cooperative Research and Development Project Workers, and Fashion Models
Main article: H-1B visa

The H-1B classification is for professional-level jobs that require a minimum of a bachelor’s degree in a specific academic field. In addition, the employee must have the degree or the equivalence of such a degree through education and experience. There is a required wage, which is at least equal to the wage paid by the employer to similarly qualified workers or a prevailing wage for such positions in the geographic regions where the jobs are located. This visa also covers fashion models of distinguished merit and ability.[105][106] H-1B1 visa is the variant issued to citizens of Singapore and Chile.

Temporary Agricultural Workers
Main article: H-2A visa

The H-2A visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[107]

Temporary Non-Agricultural Workers
Main article: H-2B visa

The H-2B visa allows a foreign national entry into the US for temporary or seasonal non-agricultural work for eligible employers under certain conditions (seasonal job, no available US workers).[108]

Nonimmigrant Trainee or Special Education Exchange Visitor
Main article: H-3 visa

The H-3 visa is available to those foreign nationals looking to “receive training in any field of endeavor, other than graduate medical education or training, that is not available in the foreign national’s home country” or ” participate in a special education exchange visitor training program that provides for practical training and experience in the education of children with physical, mental, or emotional disabilities.”.[109]

Family members
Main article: H-4 visa

H-4 visa is issued to immediate family members of H visa holders. They are also eligible for employment.[110]

I visa

Main article: I visa

The I-1 visa is issued to representatives of the foreign media, including members of the press, radio, film, and print industries travelling to temporarily work in the United States in the profession.[111]

J visa

Main article: J-1 visa
See also: J-2 visa

J-1 visa is issued to participants of work-and study-based exchange visitor programs.[112] The Exchange Visitor Program is carried out under the provisions of theFulbright-Hays Act of 1961, officially known as the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (Pub.L. 87–256, 75 Stat. 527). The purpose of the Act is to increase mutual understanding between the people of the United States and the people of other countries by means of educational and cultural exchanges. The Exchange Visitor Program is administered by the Office of Exchange Coordination and Designation in the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Exchange Visitor Program, the Department designates public and private entities to act as exchange sponsors. Spouses and dependents of J-1 exchange visitors are issued a J-2 visa.[113]

Exchange visa categories are:

Exchange Visitor Pilot Programs exist for citizens of Australia,[128] Ireland,[129] New Zealand[130] and South Korea.[131]

K visa

Main article: K-1 visa

A K-1 visa is a visa issued to the fiancé or fiancée of a United States citizen to enter the United States. A K-1 visa requires a foreigner to marry his or her U.S. citizen petitioner within 90 days of entry, or depart the United States. Once the couple marries, the foreign citizen can adjust status to become a lawful permanent residentof the United States (Green Card holder).[132] K-2 visa is issued to unmarried children under the age of 21.[133] Foreign same-sex partners of United States citizens are currently recognized by USCIS and accordingly can be sponsored for K-1 visas and for permanent resident status.[134]

K-3/K-4 visas are issued to foreign spouses and children of US citizens.[135]

L visa

Main article: L-1 visa
See also: L-2 visa

The L-1 classification is for international transferees who have worked for a related organization abroad for at least one continuous year in the past three years and who will be coming to the United States to work in an executive or managerial (L-1A) or specialized knowledge capacity (L-1B).[136] L-2 visa is issued to dependent spouse and unmarried children under 21 years of age of qualified L-1 visa holders.

M visa

Main article: M-1 visa

The M-1 visa is a type of student visa reserved for vocational and technical schools. Students in M-1 status may not work on or off campus while studying, and they may not change their status to F-1. The M-2 visa permits the spouse and minor children of an M-1 vocational student to accompany him or her to the United States.[137]

O visa

Main article: O visa

O visa is a classification of non-immigrant temporary worker visa granted to an alien “who possesses extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics (O-1A visa), or who has a demonstrated record of extraordinary achievement in the motion picture or television industry and has been recognized nationally or internationally for those achievements,” (O-1B visa) and to certain assistants (O-2 visa) and immediate family members of such aliens (O-3 visa).[138]

P visa

Main article: P visa

P visas are issued to individuals or team athletes, or member of an entertainment group including persons providing essential support services (P-1 visa), artists or entertainers (individual or group) under a reciprocal exchange program (P-2 visa) and artists or entertainers (individual or group) visiting to perform, teach or coach under a program that is culturally unique.[139] P-4 visas are issued to spouses, or children under the age of 21, of a P-1, P-2, or P-3 alien and who is accompanying, or following to join.

Q visa

Q visa is issued to participants in an international cultural exchange program.[139]

R visa

Main article: R visa

R-1 visa is issued to temporary religious workers. They must have been a member of a religious denomination having a bona fide non-profit religious organization in the United States for at least 2 years.[140] R-2 visa is issued to dependent family members.[141]

TN visa

Main article: TN status

NAFTA Professional (TN) visa allows citizens of Canada and Mexico whose profession is on the NAFTA list[142] and who must hold a bachelor’s degree to work in the United States on a prearranged job. Canadian citizens usually do not require a visa to work under the TN status (unless they live outside Canada with non-Canadian family members) while Mexican citizens require a TN visa. Spouse and dependent children of a TN professional can be admitted into the United States in the TD status.[143]

U and T visas

U-1 visa is a nonimmigrant visa which is set aside for victims of crimes (and their immediate family members) who have suffered substantial mental or physical abuse and are willing to assist law enforcement and government officials in the investigation or prosecution of the criminal activity.[144] Subtypes of this visa are U-2 issued to spouses of U-1, U-3 issued to children of U-1, U-4 issued to parents of U-1 under the age of 21 and U-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of U-1 who is under 21.

T-1 visa is issued to victims of severe forms of human trafficking. Holders may adjust their status to permanent resident status.[145] Subtypes of this visa are T-2 issued to spouses of T-1, T-3 issued to children of T-1, T-4 issued to parents of T-1 under the age of 21 and T-5 issued to unmarried siblings under the age of 18 of T-1 who is under 21.

V visa

Main article: V visa

The V visa is a temporary visa available to spouses and minor children (unmarried, under 21) of U.S. lawful permanent residents (LPR, also known as green cardholders). It allows permanent residents to achieve family unity with their spouses and children while the immigration process takes its course. It was created by the Legal Immigration Family Equity Act of 2000.[146] The Act is to relieve those who applied for immigrant visas on or before December 21, 2000. Practically, the V visa is currently not available to spouses and minor children of LPRs who have applied after December 21, 2000.[147]

List of US visa types

All US visa types and subtypes are listed below:[148][149]

Immigrants

Symbol Description
Immediate Relatives
IR-1 Spouse of U.S. citizen
IR-2 Child of U.S. citizen
IR-3 Orphan from a non-Hague country (i.e., not a party to the Hague Adoption Convention) adopted abroad by U.S. citizen
IR-4 Orphan from a non-Hague country to be adopted in the United States by U.S. citizen
IR-5 Parent of U.S. citizen at least 21 years of age
IH-3 Orphan from a Hague country adopted abroad by U.S. citizen
IH-4 Orphan from a Hague country to be adopted in the United States by U.S. citizen
CR-1 Spouse of U.S. citizen (conditional status)
CR-2 Child of U.S. citizen (conditional status)
IW-1 Certain spouses of deceased U.S. citizens
IW-2 Child of IW-1 IB-1
IB-2 Self-petition child of U.S. citizen
IB-3 Child of IB-1
VI-5 Parent of U.S. citizen who acquired permanent resident status under the Virgin Islands Nonimmigrant Alien Adjustment Act
Vietnam Amerasian Immigrants
AM-1 Vietnam Amerasian principal
AM-2 Spouse/Child of AM-1
AM-3 Natural mother of AM-1 (and spouse or child of such mother), or person who has acted in effect as the mother, father, or next-of-kin of AM-1 (and spouse or child of such person)
Special Immigrants
SB-1 Returning resident
SC-1 Certain persons who lost U.S. citizenship by marriage
SC-2 Certain persons who lost U.S. citizenship by serving in foreign armed forces
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: First Preference
F11 Unmarried son or daughter of U.S. citizen
F12 Child of F11
B11 Self-petition unmarried son or daughter of U.S. citizen
B12 Child of B11
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Second Preference (Subject to Country Limitations)
F21 Spouse of permanent resident
F22 Child of permanent resident
F23 Child of F21 or F22
F24 Unmarried son/daughter of permanent resident
F25 Child of F24
B21 Self-petition spouse of permanent resident
B22 Self-petition child of permanent resident
B23 Child of B21 or B22
B24 Self-petition unmarried son/daughter of permanent resident
B25 Child of B24
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Second Preference (Exempt from Country Limitations)
FX1 Spouse of permanent resident
FX2 Child of permanent resident
FX3 Child of FX1 or FX2
BX1 Self-petition spouse of permanent resident
BX2 Self-petition child of permanent resident
BX3 Child of BX1 or BX2
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Third Preference
F31 Married son or daughter of U.S. citizen
F32 Spouse of F31
F33 Child of F31
B31 Self-petition married son or daughter of U.S. citizen B32
B33 Child of B31
Family-Sponsored Immigrants: Fourth Preference
F41 Brother or sister of U.S. citizen who is at least 21 years of age
F42 Spouse of F41
F43 Child of F41
Employment-Based Immigrants: First Preference (Priority Workers)
E11 Person with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
E12 Outstanding professor or researcher
E13 Multinational executive or manager
E14 Spouse of E11, E12, or E13
E15 Child of E11, E12, or E13
Employment-Based Immigrants: Second Preference (Professionals Holding Advanced Degrees or Persons of Exceptional Ability)
E21 Professional holding advanced degree or person of exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business
E22 Spouse of E21
E23 Child of E21
Employment-Based Immigrants: Third Preference (Skilled Workers, Professionals, and Other Workers)
E31 Skilled worker
E32 Professional holding baccalaureate degree
E34 Spouse of E31 or E32
E35 Child of E31 or E32
EW3 Other workers (subgroup numerical limit)
EW4 Spouse of EW3
EW5 Child of EW3
Employment-Based Immigrants: Fourth Preference (Certain Special Immigrants)
BC-1 Certain international broadcasters
BC-2 Spouse of BC-1
BC-3 Child of BC-1
SD-1 Minister of religion
SD-2 Spouse of SD-1
SD-3 Child of SD-1
SE-1 Certain employees or former employees of the U.S. Government abroad
SE-2 Spouse of SE-1
SE-3 Child of SE-1
SF-1 Certain former employees of the Panama Canal Company or Canal Zone Government
SF-2 Spouse or child of SF-1
SG-1 Certain former employees of the U.S. Government in the Panama Canal Zone SG-2
SH-2 Spouse or child of SH-1
SJ-2 Spouse or child of SJ-1 (certain foreign medical graduates)
SK-1 Certain retired international organization employees
SK-2 Spouse of SK-1 SK-3
SK-4 Certain surviving spouses of deceased international organization employees SL-1
SM-1 Person recruited outside the United States who has served, or is enlisted to serve, in the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 years (became eligible after October 1, 1991)
SM-2 Spouse of SM-1
SM-3 Child of SM-1
SM-4 Person recruited outside the United States who has served, or is enlisted to serve, in the U.S. Armed Forces for 12 years (eligible as of October 1, 1991)
SM-5 Spouse or child of SM-4
SN-1 Certain retired NATO-6 civilian employees
SN-2 Spouse of SN-1
SN-3 Certain unmarried sons or daughters of NATO-6 civilian employees
SN-4 Certain surviving spouses of deceased NATO-6 civilian employees
SR-1 Certain religious workers (subgroup numerical limit)
SR-2 Spouse of SR-1
SR-3 Child of SR-1
Employment-Based Immigrants: Fifth Preference (Employment Creation – Investors) (Conditional Status)
C51 Employment creation outside targeted area
C52 Spouse of C51
C53 Child of C51
T51 Employment creation in targeted rural/high unemployment area (subgroup numerical set-aside)
T52 Spouse of T51
T53 Child of T51
R51 Investor pilot program, not in targeted area
R52 Spouse of R51
R53 Child of R51
I51
I52 Spouse of I51
I53 Child of I51
Other Numerically Limited Categories: Diversity Immigrants
DV-1 Diversity immigrant
DV-2 Spouse of DV-1
DV-3 Child of DV-1

Nonimmigrants

Symbol Description
A-1 Head of state and immediate family, prime minister and immediate family, government minister, ambassador, career diplomat or consular officer, or immediate family
A-2 Minister of state, other foreign government official or employee, or immediate family
A-3 Attendant, servant, or personal employee of A-1 or A-2, and immediate family
B-1 Temporary visitor for business, domestic employees, academics, researchers and students
B-2 Temporary visitor for holiday, tourism, medical treatment
B1/B2 Temporary visitor for business & pleasure
C-1 Person in transit
C-2 Person in transit to United Nations Headquarters district under Section 11 (3), (4), or (5) of the Headquarters Agreement
C-3 Foreign government official, immediate family, attendant, servant or personal employee, in transit
D Crewmember (sea or air)
E-1* Treaty trader, spouse and children
E-2* Treaty investor, spouse and children
E-3* Treaty traders and investors: Australian Free Trade Agreement
E-3D* Spouse or child of E3
E-3R* Returning E3
F-1 Student (academic or language training program)
F-2 Spouse or child of F-1
F-3 Canadian or Mexican national commuter student in an academic or language training program
G-1 Principal resident representative of recognized foreign member government to international organization, staff, and immediate family
G-2 Other representative of recognized foreign member government to international organization, and immediate family
G-3 Representative of nonrecognized or nonmember foreign government to international organization, and immediate family
G-4 International organization officer or employee, and immediate family
G-5 Attendant, servant, or personal employee of G-1 through G-4, and immediate family
GB Temporary visitors: for business, visa waiver, Guam
GT Temporary visitors: for pleasure, visa waiver, Guam
H-1B* Alien in a specialty occupation (profession)
H1B1* Chilean or Singaporean national to work in a specialty occupation
H-2A Temporary worker performing agricultural services unavailable in the United States
H-2B Temporary worker performing other services unavailable in the United States
H-3 Temporary workers and trainees: industrial trainees
H-4* Temporary workers and trainees: spouses and children of H-1, H-2, and H-3 workers
I Representative of foreign information media, spouse and children
J-1 Exchange visitor
J-2 Spouse or child of exchange visitor
K-1* Fiance(e) of U.S. citizen
K-2* Child of fiance(e) of U.S. citizen
K-3* Spouse of U.S. citizen awaiting availability of immigrant visa
K-4* Child of K-3
L-1* Intracompany transferee (executive, managerial, and specialized personnel continuing employment with international firm or corporation)
L-2* Spouse or child of intracompany transferee
M-1 Vocational student or other nonacademic student
M-2 Spouse or child of M-1
M-3 Border commuter student (vocational or nonacademic)[150]
N-8 Parent of SK-3 special immigrant
N-9 Child of N-8 or of SK-1, SK-2 or SK-4 special immigrant
NATO-1 Principal permanent representative of member state to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies) resident in the U.S. and resident members of official staff; Secretary General, Assistant Secretaries General, and Executive Secretary of NATO; other permanent NATO officials of similar rank, and members of immediate family
NATO-2 Other representatives of member states to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies) including representatives, advisers, and technical experts of delegations, and members of immediate family; dependents of members of a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement or in accordance with provisions of the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters”; members of such a force if issued visas
NATO-3 Official clerical staff accompanying a representative of member state to NATO (including any of its subsidiary bodies), and members of immediate family
NATO-4 Officials of NATO (other than those classifiable as NATO-1), and members of immediate family
NATO-5 Experts, other than officials classifiable as NATO-4, employed in missions on behalf of NATO, and their dependents
NATO-6 Members of a civilian component accompanying a force entering in accordance with the provisions of the NATO Status-of-Forces Agreement; members of a civilian component attached to or employed by an Allied Headquarters under the “Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters” set up pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty; and their dependents
NATO-7 Attendant, servant, or personal employee of NATO-1 through NATO-6 classes, and immediate family
O-1* Person with extraordinary ability in the sciences, arts, education, business, or athletics
O-2* Person accompanying and assisting in the artistic or athletic performance by O-1
O-3* Spouse or child of O-1 or O-2
P-1* Internationally recognized athlete or member of an internationally recognized entertainment group
P-2* Artist or entertainer in a reciprocal exchange program
P-3* Artist or entertainer in a culturally unique program
P-4* Spouse or child of P-1, P-2, or P-3
Q-1 Participant in an international cultural exchange program
R-1 Person in a religious occupation
R-2 Spouse or child of R-1
S-5 Informant possessing information on criminal activity
S-6 Informant possessing information on terrorism
S-7 Spouse, married or unmarried son or daughter, or parent of S-5 or S-6
SIJS Special Immigrant Juvenile Status: Qualifying children present in the U.S. who are declared dependents of a juvenile court and who would be harmed if returned to their home country
TN NAFTA professional
TD Spouse or child of TN
T-1 Victim of a severe form of trafficking in persons
T-2 Spouse of T-1
T-3 Child of T-1
T-4 Parent of T-1 under 21 years of age
T-5 Under-18 unmarried sibling of T-1
U-1 Victim of criminal activity
U-2 Spouse of U-1
U-3 Child of U-1
U-4 Parent of U-1 under 21 years of age
U-5 Under-18 unmarried sibling of U-1 under 21 at time of filing
V-1* Spouse of lawful permanent resident awaiting availability of immigrant visa
V-2* Child of lawful permanent resident awaiting availability of immigrant visa
V-3* Derivative child of V-1 and V-2
WB Temporary visitors: visa waiver, business
WT Temporary visitors: visa waiver, pleasure

[151][152][153]

* Persons with H-1B visas, H-4 visas (as immediate family members of H-1B visa holders), K visas, L visas, and V visas are permitted to have dual intent under the Immigration and Nationality Act. Federal regulations also appear to recognize dual intent O visas, P visas, and E visas.

Visa denial

Section 221(g) of Immigration and Nationality Act defined several classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas.

Grounds for denial may include, but are not limited to:

  • Health grounds
  • Criminal grounds
  • Security grounds
  • Public charge (charge means burden in this context)
  • Illegal entrants or immigration violators
  • Failure to produce requested documents
  • Ineligible for citizenship
  • Previously removed from US
  • The spouse of a US Citizen is almost always denied a visitor’s (B1/B2) visa on grounds that the spouse might want to stay in the United States. However, the spouse of a USC is able to immigrate to the US without much of a hurdle.

Section 214(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (also cited as 8 United States Code § 1184(b))[154] states that most aliens must be presumed to be intending to remain in the US, until and unless they are able to show that they are entitled to nonimmigrant status. This means there are two sides to a 214(b) denial. Either

  1. The applicant didn’t convince the consular officer that he didn’t intend to stay in the US permanently, or
  2. The applicant didn’t convince the consular officer that he was qualified for the visa for which he had applied.

An example of a denial based upon the first ground would be an applicant for an F-1 student visa who the consular officer felt was secretly intending to remain in the US permanently.

An example of a denial based upon the second ground would be an H-1B applicant who couldn’t prove he possessed the equivalent of a US bachelor’s degree in a specialty field—such an equivalency being a requirement for obtaining an H-1B visa.

In order to thereafter obtain a visa applicants are recommended to objectively evaluate their situation, see in what way they fell short of the visa requirements, and then reapply.[155]

In 2005, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (then Chief Minister of Gujarat) was denied a diplomatic visa to the United States. In addition, the B-1/B-2 visa that had previously been granted to him was also revoked, under a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act which makes any foreign government official who was responsible or “directly carried out, at any time, particularly severe violations of religious freedom” ineligible for the visa.[156] Modi is the only person ever denied a visa to the U.S. under this provision.[157]

Exceptions

There are cases when a US visa has been granted to aliens who were technically ineligible. Japanese mafia (yakuza) leader Tadamasa Goto and three others were issued visas for travel between 2000 and 2004 to undergo liver transplant surgery at UCLA Medical Center.[158] The FBI had aided the men in the visa application process hoping that they would provide information regarding yakuza activities in the US.[158]

See also

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

Exports as Share of GDP By Country

This page shows Exports as Share of GDP across various countries.

Click on any country name on this page to see a time series of Exports as Share of GDP for that country, along with options for graphing, downloading and validating the underlying data.

For any country, click on the Country Page icon to see a collection of 65+ economic, demographic and societal indicators for that country.

Countries are grouped by region. A single sortable table showing all the countries of the world is at the bottom of this page.

G-20 Economies

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
USA 13.49% % of GDP 2013 -0.08% 11.01% 9.63% 8.91%
China 26.40% % of GDP 2013 -0.92% 26.72% 34.08% 10.60%
Japan 14.73% % of GDP 2012 -0.40% 17.71% 11.87% 9.76%
Germany 50.67% % of GDP 2013 -1.12% 42.46% 38.55% 24.22%
France 28.28% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 24.07% 25.91% 21.48%
Brazil 12.55% % of GDP 2013 -0.03% 10.98% 16.43% 8.93%
UK 29.84% % of GDP 2013 -0.41% 27.01% 24.36% 22.59%
Italy 28.56% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 22.47% 24.05% 18.57%
Russia 28.37% % of GDP 2013 -1.23% 27.94% 34.42% 21.90%
India 24.82% % of GDP 2013 0.82% 20.05% 17.55% 6.90%
Canada 30.08% % of GDP 2013 0.05% 28.44% 37.46% 25.12%
Australia 19.88% % of GDP 2013 -1.44% 22.53% 17.01% 15.14%
Spain 31.56% % of GDP 2013 1.24% 22.67% 25.18% 16.68%
Mexico 31.75% % of GDP 2013 -0.90% 27.28% 26.23% 19.00%
South Korea 53.92% % of GDP 2013 -2.42% 47.55% 38.30% 28.53%
Indonesia 23.74% % of GDP 2013 -0.55% 24.16% 32.22% 24.29%
Turkey 25.65% % of GDP 2013 -0.65% 23.32% 23.55% 16.20%
Saudi Arabia 51.79% % of GDP 2013 -2.63% 47.09% 50.99% 33.75%
Argentina 14.27% % of GDP 2013 -1.53% 17.40% 21.50% 13.06%
South Africa 31.14% % of GDP 2013 1.22% 27.29% 26.42% 26.69%

Click to download all data for G-20 Economies (csv).

Western Europe

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Austria 57.44% % of GDP 2013 0.25% 50.05% 51.48% 36.37%
Belgium 82.76% % of GDP 2013 0.53% 69.26% 70.68% 62.99%
Cyprus 40.11% % of GDP 2010 -0.15% 48.00% 55.99% 45.04%
Denmark 54.27% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 46.72% 43.80% 35.25%
Finland 38.18% % of GDP 2013 -1.45% 36.27% 38.59% 23.01%
France 28.28% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 24.07% 25.91% 21.48%
Germany 50.67% % of GDP 2013 -1.12% 42.46% 38.55% 24.22%
Greece 30.23% % of GDP 2013 1.99% 19.01% 20.78% 15.87%
Hungary 88.76% % of GDP 2013 1.35% 75.06% 60.02% 36.04%
Iceland 55.73% % of GDP 2013 -0.99% 49.69% 32.60% 32.66%
Ireland 105.30% % of GDP 2013 -0.34% 87.06% 80.43% 58.99%
Italy 28.56% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 22.47% 24.05% 18.57%
Luxembourg 203.32% % of GDP 2013 9.95% 168.17% 153.87% 102.47%
Netherlands 82.94% % of GDP 2013 0.90% 63.91% 63.36% 56.02%
Norway 38.88% % of GDP 2013 -2.02% 40.04% 41.80% 38.01%
Portugal 39.26% % of GDP 2013 1.91% 27.08% 27.25% 29.46%
San Marino n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Spain 31.56% % of GDP 2013 1.24% 22.67% 25.18% 16.68%
Sweden 43.79% % of GDP 2013 -2.53% 44.45% 43.45% 30.46%
Switzerland 72.15% % of GDP 2013 5.09% 57.44% 51.55% 43.42%
Turkey 25.65% % of GDP 2013 -0.65% 23.32% 23.55% 16.20%
UK 29.84% % of GDP 2013 -0.41% 27.01% 24.36% 22.59%

Click to download all data for Western Europe (csv).

Eastern Europe

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Albania 35.05% % of GDP 2013 1.77% 29.60% 21.54% 17.94%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 31.96% % of GDP 2013 1.09% 24.70% 32.24% n.a.
Bulgaria 68.39% % of GDP 2013 3.79% 43.79% 41.33% 46.42%
Croatia 42.94% % of GDP 2013 1.37% 34.52% 39.45% n.a.
Czech Republic 77.20% % of GDP 2013 0.68% 58.81% 57.43% n.a.
Kosovo 17.41% % of GDP 2013 -0.82% 17.07% n.a. n.a.
Macedonia 53.89% % of GDP 2013 0.28% 39.18% 39.94% n.a.
Montenegro 41.78% % of GDP 2013 -2.34% 32.12% 42.02% n.a.
Poland 47.80% % of GDP 2013 1.14% 39.44% 37.49% n.a.
Romania 41.98% % of GDP 2013 1.99% 30.60% 35.84% n.a.
Serbia 40.75% % of GDP 2013 3.82% 26.85% 24.22% n.a.
Slovak Republic 92.95% % of GDP 2013 1.15% 67.64% 68.61% 28.84%
Slovenia 74.69% % of GDP 2013 1.44% 57.24% 54.97% n.a.

Click to download all data for Eastern Europe (csv).

Former Soviet Republics

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Armenia 26.99% % of GDP 2013 2.41% 15.47% 29.73% n.a.
Azerbaijan 48.72% % of GDP 2013 -4.99% 51.64% 48.79% n.a.
Belarus 61.18% % of GDP 2013 -20.16% 50.53% 67.89% n.a.
Estonia 86.08% % of GDP 2013 -2.18% 60.84% 61.53% n.a.
Georgia 44.69% % of GDP 2013 6.54% 29.74% 31.56% 42.36%
Kazakhstan 38.25% % of GDP 2013 -6.83% 41.84% 52.50% n.a.
Kyrgyzstan 47.17% % of GDP 2013 2.76% 54.70% 42.56% n.a.
Latvia 58.84% % of GDP 2011 5.03% 42.35% 40.87% n.a.
Lithuania 77.13% % of GDP 2011 9.31% 53.79% 52.71% n.a.
Moldova 44.12% % of GDP 2013 0.64% 36.87% 50.71% n.a.
Russia 28.37% % of GDP 2013 -1.23% 27.94% 34.42% 21.90%
Tajikistan 19.18% % of GDP 2013 -2.36% 15.15% 58.31% 35.90%
Turkmenistan 73.26% % of GDP 2012 -1.44% 64.06% 62.31% n.a.
Ukraine 46.87% % of GDP 2013 -4.11% 46.38% 61.21% 32.08%
Uzbekistan 27.66% % of GDP 2013 -0.01% 35.59% 40.21% n.a.

Click to download all data for Former Soviet Republics (csv).

East Asia

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Brunei 76.16% % of GDP 2013 -5.21% 72.78% 68.80% 61.81%
Cambodia 65.72% % of GDP 2013 2.93% 49.22% 63.61% n.a.
China 26.40% % of GDP 2013 -0.92% 26.72% 34.08% 10.60%
Hong Kong 229.59% % of GDP 2013 4.03% 191.23% 186.65% 130.13%
Indonesia 23.74% % of GDP 2013 -0.55% 24.16% 32.22% 24.29%
Japan 14.73% % of GDP 2012 -0.40% 17.71% 11.87% 9.76%
Laos 37.22% % of GDP 2013 -1.62% 30.88% 30.55% 12.13%
Malaysia 81.68% % of GDP 2013 -3.57% 91.42% 115.37% 71.38%
Mongolia 45.14% % of GDP 2013 -5.42% 50.28% 60.79% 22.49%
Myanmar 0.18% % of GDP 2004 0.00% 0.49% 0.83% 9.10%
North Korea n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Philippines 27.91% % of GDP 2013 -2.87% 32.23% 48.57% 28.11%
Singapore 190.52% % of GDP 2013 -4.55% 191.88% 216.34% 179.54%
South Korea 53.92% % of GDP 2013 -2.42% 47.55% 38.30% 28.53%
Thailand 73.57% % of GDP 2013 -1.41% 68.35% 70.70% 34.92%
Vietnam 83.88% % of GDP 2013 3.85% 62.97% 54.90% 23.85%

Click to download all data for East Asia (csv).

South Asia

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Afghanistan 6.28% % of GDP 2013 0.77% 14.71% 34.00% n.a.
Bangladesh 19.54% % of GDP 2013 -0.62% 16.94% 15.46% 5.75%
Bhutan 40.85% % of GDP 2013 2.12% 44.70% 31.29% 28.05%
India 24.82% % of GDP 2013 0.82% 20.05% 17.55% 6.90%
Sri Lanka 22.47% % of GDP 2013 -0.36% 21.33% 35.33% 27.26%
Maldives 111.32% % of GDP 2012 2.61% 104.13% 61.47% 75.86%
Nepal 10.70% % of GDP 2013 0.63% 12.42% 16.68% 11.07%
Pakistan 13.22% % of GDP 2013 0.82% 12.40% 15.67% 13.88%

Click to download all data for South Asia (csv).

Middle East and North Africa

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Algeria 33.14% % of GDP 2013 -4.60% 35.37% 40.05% 18.64%
Bahrain 0.00% % of GDP 2013 -74.30% 68.47% 78.61% 98.64%
Djibouti 57.09% % of GDP 2007 17.20% 39.91% 40.45% n.a.
Egypt 17.62% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 24.96% 28.23% 17.89%
Iran 32.18% % of GDP 2007 -0.27% 27.23% 13.63% 15.45%
Iraq n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Israel 32.92% % of GDP 2013 -3.32% 33.50% 39.42% 36.81%
Jordan 42.47% % of GDP 2013 -3.77% 45.88% 52.27% 56.05%
Kuwait 71.56% % of GDP 2013 -3.17% 59.47% 56.92% 52.40%
Lebanon 62.55% % of GDP 2013 6.06% 34.12% 36.22% 18.36%
Libya 67.38% % of GDP 2008 -0.18% 63.26% 23.86% n.a.
Malta 93.61% % of GDP 2011 5.42% 89.22% 83.12% 69.58%
Morocco 33.65% % of GDP 2013 -2.26% 28.70% 29.37% 23.29%
Oman 62.65% % of GDP 2012 -4.46% 58.48% 49.76% 40.01%
Qatar 75.62% % of GDP 2012 3.96% 61.36% 61.70% n.a.
Saudi Arabia 51.79% % of GDP 2013 -2.63% 47.09% 50.99% 33.75%
Syria 37.99% % of GDP 2012 2.66% 36.84% 33.47% 17.15%
Tunisia 46.99% % of GDP 2013 -2.19% 45.83% 42.22% 44.35%
UAE 95.15% % of GDP 2012 4.84% 78.87% 55.92% n.a.
Yemen 30.48% % of GDP 2010 2.26% 41.26% 35.90% n.a.

Click to download all data for Middle East and North Africa (csv).

Sub-Saharan Africa

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Angola 55.78% % of GDP 2013 -6.16% 55.01% 70.14% 33.87%
Burundi 7.40% % of GDP 2013 -1.55% 6.80% 6.95% 9.75%
Benin 18.27% % of GDP 2013 2.97% 15.79% 20.03% 13.50%
Burkina Faso 27.49% % of GDP 2012 6.34% 9.88% 8.71% 11.00%
Botswana 55.12% % of GDP 2013 11.64% 35.35% 49.61% 59.22%
Central African Republic 11.65% % of GDP 2012 0.13% 11.70% 18.24% 17.74%
Cameroon 20.66% % of GDP 2013 1.86% 16.04% 19.40% 20.71%
Congo 55.49% % of GDP 2012 -14.54% 40.21% 24.00% 25.50%
Congo-Brazzaville 76.53% % of GDP 2013 -7.24% 70.42% 80.53% 48.52%
Comoros 16.41% % of GDP 2013 0.26% 14.34% 15.47% 14.88%
Cape Verde 34.92% % of GDP 2012 3.45% 32.10% 31.36% 16.71%
Eritrea 19.53% % of GDP 2012 5.16% 4.43% 6.44% n.a.
Ethiopia 12.49% % of GDP 2013 -1.28% 10.50% 14.75% 6.55%
Gabon 58.72% % of GDP 2013 0.14% 52.50% 62.20% 45.80%
Ghana 42.16% % of GDP 2013 -5.96% 29.29% 39.30% 16.74%
Guinea 28.46% % of GDP 2013 -1.26% 26.54% 24.63% 31.09%
Gambia 36.95% % of GDP 2013 0.98% 22.91% 20.33% 55.06%
Guinea-Bissau 17.32% % of GDP 2012 -9.15% 15.89% 16.25% 12.44%
Equatorial Guinea 88.46% % of GDP 2013 -4.35% 91.31% 110.62% 47.33%
Ivory Coast 45.38% % of GDP 2013 -2.99% 50.70% 48.56% 32.03%
Kenya 17.73% % of GDP 2013 -2.12% 20.03% 26.61% 23.03%
Liberia 32.36% % of GDP 2012 4.86% 34.39% 91.51% n.a.
Lesotho 44.98% % of GDP 2012 -4.10% 56.02% 60.07% 20.91%
Madagascar 30.07% % of GDP 2013 1.06% 22.37% 32.64% 18.45%
Mali 31.26% % of GDP 2012 4.94% 29.20% 26.42% 16.37%
Mozambique 30.18% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 28.65% 30.88% 8.22%
Mauritania 66.71% % of GDP 2013 0.00% 44.90% 29.41% 49.83%
Mauritius 54.31% % of GDP 2013 -0.28% 48.96% 54.02% 63.93%
Malawi 46.33% % of GDP 2013 8.77% 24.65% 24.96% 18.78%
Namibia 43.01% % of GDP 2013 -0.33% 52.35% 39.81% 49.63%
Niger 23.34% % of GDP 2013 -1.27% 20.32% 17.36% 16.60%
Nigeria 18.04% % of GDP 2013 -13.40% 30.77% 30.16% 43.98%
Rwanda 14.41% % of GDP 2013 1.54% 10.18% 11.12% 6.14%
Sudan 9.58% % of GDP 2013 -0.37% 15.97% 17.76% 5.34%
Senegal 26.20% % of GDP 2013 1.91% 24.33% 27.14% 24.46%
Sierra Leone 53.10% % of GDP 2013 17.91% 13.50% 16.67% 23.92%
Somalia 9.79% % of GDP 1990 2.10% 6.96% 24.82% 14.96%
South Sudan 18.19% % of GDP 2013 8.07% 60.31% n.a. n.a.
Sao Tome and Principe 11.01% % of GDP 2013 -1.92% 9.98% 13.61% n.a.
Swaziland 55.30% % of GDP 2013 2.27% 59.15% 84.93% 84.11%
Seychelles 76.32% % of GDP 2013 -13.99% 100.28% 67.74% 11.24%
Chad 32.17% % of GDP 2013 -4.75% 35.14% 51.01% 13.78%
Togo 39.43% % of GDP 2011 -0.73% 37.92% 36.52% 41.37%
Tanzania 24.72% % of GDP 2013 -4.60% 23.23% 19.65% n.a.
Uganda 23.73% % of GDP 2013 0.54% 24.13% 12.70% 7.95%
South Africa 31.14% % of GDP 2013 1.22% 27.29% 26.42% 26.69%
Zambia 41.88% % of GDP 2013 2.46% 29.25% 33.54% 26.81%
Zimbabwe 29.49% % of GDP 2013 -3.24% 22.01% 34.47% 23.34%

Click to download all data for Sub-Saharan Africa (csv).

North America

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
USA 13.49% % of GDP 2013 -0.08% 11.01% 9.63% 8.91%
Canada 30.08% % of GDP 2013 0.05% 28.44% 37.46% 25.12%
Mexico 31.75% % of GDP 2013 -0.90% 27.28% 26.23% 19.00%

Click to download all data for North America (csv).

Caribbean

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Antigua and Barbuda 44.08% % of GDP 2013 -0.88% 46.55% 59.44% 81.00%
The Bahamas 41.95% % of GDP 2013 -3.49% 39.86% 44.55% 53.83%
Barbados 42.48% % of GDP 2012 3.14% 46.03% 42.15% 48.71%
Cuba 19.96% % of GDP 2011 -2.21% 20.34% 11.53% 32.90%
Dominica 32.83% % of GDP 2013 1.68% 29.62% 34.82% 47.14%
Dominican Republic 25.52% % of GDP 2013 1.20% 21.13% 42.33% 33.47%
Grenada 25.10% % of GDP 2013 -0.71% 24.28% 33.00% 40.28%
Haiti 18.24% % of GDP 2013 1.33% 15.71% 15.35% n.a.
Jamaica 30.43% % of GDP 2012 0.04% 41.95% 36.61% 43.63%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 34.25% % of GDP 2012 2.94% 31.31% 35.82% 59.33%
Saint Lucia 45.99% % of GDP 2013 -0.38% 46.23% 52.44% 80.19%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27.35% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 28.49% 35.35% 65.34%
Trinidad and Tobago 63.15% % of GDP 2013 7.50% 52.35% 56.04% 42.64%

Click to download all data for Caribbean (csv).

Central America

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Belize 60.85% % of GDP 2013 -1.60% 51.62% 50.56% 59.74%
Costa Rica 35.14% % of GDP 2013 -2.06% 42.28% 46.26% 30.27%
El Salvador 26.39% % of GDP 2013 0.80% 23.20% 26.96% 13.24%
Guatemala 23.66% % of GDP 2013 -1.21% 23.98% 26.98% 17.31%
Honduras 47.93% % of GDP 2013 -2.46% 39.53% 58.42% 31.00%
Nicaragua 40.52% % of GDP 2013 -2.52% 30.89% 23.06% 32.54%
Panama 71.01% % of GDP 2013 -8.78% 75.53% 67.61% 78.90%

Click to download all data for Central America (csv).

South America

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Argentina 14.27% % of GDP 2013 -1.53% 17.40% 21.50% 13.06%
Bolivia 44.18% % of GDP 2013 -3.08% 35.72% 31.14% 22.50%
Brazil 12.55% % of GDP 2013 -0.03% 10.98% 16.43% 8.93%
Chile 32.56% % of GDP 2013 -1.68% 37.17% 37.86% 35.39%
Colombia 17.83% % of GDP 2013 -0.43% 16.03% 16.77% 18.00%
Ecuador 29.18% % of GDP 2013 -0.85% 25.25% 24.55% 20.28%
Guyana 84.62% % of GDP 2005 -11.17% 94.99% 102.62% 68.92%
Paraguay 49.38% % of GDP 2013 -0.54% 51.54% 54.42% 35.70%
Peru 23.74% % of GDP 2013 -2.86% 25.19% 22.49% 9.67%
Suriname 58.66% % of GDP 2012 28.24% n.a. 19.74% 29.31%
Uruguay 24.00% % of GDP 2013 -2.66% 28.16% 32.11% 23.49%
Venezuela 26.17% % of GDP 2012 -3.77% 30.82% 33.85% 20.57%

Click to download all data for South America (csv).

Australia and Oceania

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Australia 19.88% % of GDP 2013 -1.44% 22.53% 17.01% 15.14%
Fiji 58.79% % of GDP 2013 -3.87% 49.51% 53.81% 62.67%
Kiribati 10.51% % of GDP 2013 -0.70% 14.34% 11.62% 18.59%
New Zealand 29.65% % of GDP 2013 0.01% 29.32% 29.81% 26.42%
Papua New Guinea 51.00% % of GDP 2012 -2.23% 74.57% 69.42% 43.25%
Samoa 30.64% % of GDP 2013 2.99% 30.16% 28.20% n.a.
Solomon Islands 54.54% % of GDP 2013 -9.63% 39.30% 30.93% 28.98%
Timor-Leste n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Tonga 17.81% % of GDP 2012 0.29% 13.71% 19.31% 22.74%
Tuvalu n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Vanuatu 47.82% % of GDP 2013 -1.26% 49.11% 45.60% 37.40%

Click to download all data for Australia and Oceania (csv).

World

Country Level Units As Of 1Y Chg ~5Y Ago ~10Y Ago ~25Y Ago Country Page
Afghanistan 6.28% % of GDP 2013 0.77% 14.71% 34.00% n.a.
Albania 35.05% % of GDP 2013 1.77% 29.60% 21.54% 17.94%
Algeria 33.14% % of GDP 2013 -4.60% 35.37% 40.05% 18.64%
Angola 55.78% % of GDP 2013 -6.16% 55.01% 70.14% 33.87%
Antigua and Barbuda 44.08% % of GDP 2013 -0.88% 46.55% 59.44% 81.00%
Argentina 14.27% % of GDP 2013 -1.53% 17.40% 21.50% 13.06%
Armenia 26.99% % of GDP 2013 2.41% 15.47% 29.73% n.a.
Australia 19.88% % of GDP 2013 -1.44% 22.53% 17.01% 15.14%
Austria 57.44% % of GDP 2013 0.25% 50.05% 51.48% 36.37%
Azerbaijan 48.72% % of GDP 2013 -4.99% 51.64% 48.79% n.a.
Bahrain 0.00% % of GDP 2013 -74.30% 68.47% 78.61% 98.64%
Bangladesh 19.54% % of GDP 2013 -0.62% 16.94% 15.46% 5.75%
Barbados 42.48% % of GDP 2012 3.14% 46.03% 42.15% 48.71%
Belarus 61.18% % of GDP 2013 -20.16% 50.53% 67.89% n.a.
Belgium 82.76% % of GDP 2013 0.53% 69.26% 70.68% 62.99%
Belize 60.85% % of GDP 2013 -1.60% 51.62% 50.56% 59.74%
Benin 18.27% % of GDP 2013 2.97% 15.79% 20.03% 13.50%
Bhutan 40.85% % of GDP 2013 2.12% 44.70% 31.29% 28.05%
Bolivia 44.18% % of GDP 2013 -3.08% 35.72% 31.14% 22.50%
Bosnia and Herzegovina 31.96% % of GDP 2013 1.09% 24.70% 32.24% n.a.
Botswana 55.12% % of GDP 2013 11.64% 35.35% 49.61% 59.22%
Brazil 12.55% % of GDP 2013 -0.03% 10.98% 16.43% 8.93%
Brunei 76.16% % of GDP 2013 -5.21% 72.78% 68.80% 61.81%
Bulgaria 68.39% % of GDP 2013 3.79% 43.79% 41.33% 46.42%
Burkina Faso 27.49% % of GDP 2012 6.34% 9.88% 8.71% 11.00%
Burundi 7.40% % of GDP 2013 -1.55% 6.80% 6.95% 9.75%
Cambodia 65.72% % of GDP 2013 2.93% 49.22% 63.61% n.a.
Cameroon 20.66% % of GDP 2013 1.86% 16.04% 19.40% 20.71%
Canada 30.08% % of GDP 2013 0.05% 28.44% 37.46% 25.12%
Cape Verde 34.92% % of GDP 2012 3.45% 32.10% 31.36% 16.71%
Central African Republic 11.65% % of GDP 2012 0.13% 11.70% 18.24% 17.74%
Chad 32.17% % of GDP 2013 -4.75% 35.14% 51.01% 13.78%
Chile 32.56% % of GDP 2013 -1.68% 37.17% 37.86% 35.39%
China 26.40% % of GDP 2013 -0.92% 26.72% 34.08% 10.60%
Colombia 17.83% % of GDP 2013 -0.43% 16.03% 16.77% 18.00%
Comoros 16.41% % of GDP 2013 0.26% 14.34% 15.47% 14.88%
Congo 55.49% % of GDP 2012 -14.54% 40.21% 24.00% 25.50%
Congo-Brazzaville 76.53% % of GDP 2013 -7.24% 70.42% 80.53% 48.52%
Costa Rica 35.14% % of GDP 2013 -2.06% 42.28% 46.26% 30.27%
Croatia 42.94% % of GDP 2013 1.37% 34.52% 39.45% n.a.
Cuba 19.96% % of GDP 2011 -2.21% 20.34% 11.53% 32.90%
Cyprus 40.11% % of GDP 2010 -0.15% 48.00% 55.99% 45.04%
Czech Republic 77.20% % of GDP 2013 0.68% 58.81% 57.43% n.a.
Denmark 54.27% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 46.72% 43.80% 35.25%
Djibouti 57.09% % of GDP 2007 17.20% 39.91% 40.45% n.a.
Dominica 32.83% % of GDP 2013 1.68% 29.62% 34.82% 47.14%
Dominican Republic 25.52% % of GDP 2013 1.20% 21.13% 42.33% 33.47%
Ecuador 29.18% % of GDP 2013 -0.85% 25.25% 24.55% 20.28%
Egypt 17.62% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 24.96% 28.23% 17.89%
El Salvador 26.39% % of GDP 2013 0.80% 23.20% 26.96% 13.24%
Equatorial Guinea 88.46% % of GDP 2013 -4.35% 91.31% 110.62% 47.33%
Eritrea 19.53% % of GDP 2012 5.16% 4.43% 6.44% n.a.
Estonia 86.08% % of GDP 2013 -2.18% 60.84% 61.53% n.a.
Ethiopia 12.49% % of GDP 2013 -1.28% 10.50% 14.75% 6.55%
Fiji 58.79% % of GDP 2013 -3.87% 49.51% 53.81% 62.67%
Finland 38.18% % of GDP 2013 -1.45% 36.27% 38.59% 23.01%
France 28.28% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 24.07% 25.91% 21.48%
Gabon 58.72% % of GDP 2013 0.14% 52.50% 62.20% 45.80%
Gambia 36.95% % of GDP 2013 0.98% 22.91% 20.33% 55.06%
Georgia 44.69% % of GDP 2013 6.54% 29.74% 31.56% 42.36%
Germany 50.67% % of GDP 2013 -1.12% 42.46% 38.55% 24.22%
Ghana 42.16% % of GDP 2013 -5.96% 29.29% 39.30% 16.74%
Greece 30.23% % of GDP 2013 1.99% 19.01% 20.78% 15.87%
Grenada 25.10% % of GDP 2013 -0.71% 24.28% 33.00% 40.28%
Guatemala 23.66% % of GDP 2013 -1.21% 23.98% 26.98% 17.31%
Guinea 28.46% % of GDP 2013 -1.26% 26.54% 24.63% 31.09%
Guinea-Bissau 17.32% % of GDP 2012 -9.15% 15.89% 16.25% 12.44%
Guyana 84.62% % of GDP 2005 -11.17% 94.99% 102.62% 68.92%
Haiti 18.24% % of GDP 2013 1.33% 15.71% 15.35% n.a.
Honduras 47.93% % of GDP 2013 -2.46% 39.53% 58.42% 31.00%
Hong Kong 229.59% % of GDP 2013 4.03% 191.23% 186.65% 130.13%
Hungary 88.76% % of GDP 2013 1.35% 75.06% 60.02% 36.04%
Iceland 55.73% % of GDP 2013 -0.99% 49.69% 32.60% 32.66%
India 24.82% % of GDP 2013 0.82% 20.05% 17.55% 6.90%
Indonesia 23.74% % of GDP 2013 -0.55% 24.16% 32.22% 24.29%
Iran 32.18% % of GDP 2007 -0.27% 27.23% 13.63% 15.45%
Iraq n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Ireland 105.30% % of GDP 2013 -0.34% 87.06% 80.43% 58.99%
Israel 32.92% % of GDP 2013 -3.32% 33.50% 39.42% 36.81%
Italy 28.56% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 22.47% 24.05% 18.57%
Ivory Coast 45.38% % of GDP 2013 -2.99% 50.70% 48.56% 32.03%
Jamaica 30.43% % of GDP 2012 0.04% 41.95% 36.61% 43.63%
Japan 14.73% % of GDP 2012 -0.40% 17.71% 11.87% 9.76%
Jordan 42.47% % of GDP 2013 -3.77% 45.88% 52.27% 56.05%
Kazakhstan 38.25% % of GDP 2013 -6.83% 41.84% 52.50% n.a.
Kenya 17.73% % of GDP 2013 -2.12% 20.03% 26.61% 23.03%
Kiribati 10.51% % of GDP 2013 -0.70% 14.34% 11.62% 18.59%
Kosovo 17.41% % of GDP 2013 -0.82% 17.07% n.a. n.a.
Kuwait 71.56% % of GDP 2013 -3.17% 59.47% 56.92% 52.40%
Kyrgyzstan 47.17% % of GDP 2013 2.76% 54.70% 42.56% n.a.
Laos 37.22% % of GDP 2013 -1.62% 30.88% 30.55% 12.13%
Latvia 58.84% % of GDP 2011 5.03% 42.35% 40.87% n.a.
Lebanon 62.55% % of GDP 2013 6.06% 34.12% 36.22% 18.36%
Lesotho 44.98% % of GDP 2012 -4.10% 56.02% 60.07% 20.91%
Liberia 32.36% % of GDP 2012 4.86% 34.39% 91.51% n.a.
Libya 67.38% % of GDP 2008 -0.18% 63.26% 23.86% n.a.
Lithuania 77.13% % of GDP 2011 9.31% 53.79% 52.71% n.a.
Luxembourg 203.32% % of GDP 2013 9.95% 168.17% 153.87% 102.47%
Macedonia 53.89% % of GDP 2013 0.28% 39.18% 39.94% n.a.
Madagascar 30.07% % of GDP 2013 1.06% 22.37% 32.64% 18.45%
Malawi 46.33% % of GDP 2013 8.77% 24.65% 24.96% 18.78%
Malaysia 81.68% % of GDP 2013 -3.57% 91.42% 115.37% 71.38%
Maldives 111.32% % of GDP 2012 2.61% 104.13% 61.47% 75.86%
Mali 31.26% % of GDP 2012 4.94% 29.20% 26.42% 16.37%
Malta 93.61% % of GDP 2011 5.42% 89.22% 83.12% 69.58%
Mauritania 66.71% % of GDP 2013 0.00% 44.90% 29.41% 49.83%
Mauritius 54.31% % of GDP 2013 -0.28% 48.96% 54.02% 63.93%
Mexico 31.75% % of GDP 2013 -0.90% 27.28% 26.23% 19.00%
Moldova 44.12% % of GDP 2013 0.64% 36.87% 50.71% n.a.
Mongolia 45.14% % of GDP 2013 -5.42% 50.28% 60.79% 22.49%
Montenegro 41.78% % of GDP 2013 -2.34% 32.12% 42.02% n.a.
Morocco 33.65% % of GDP 2013 -2.26% 28.70% 29.37% 23.29%
Mozambique 30.18% % of GDP 2013 0.30% 28.65% 30.88% 8.22%
Myanmar 0.18% % of GDP 2004 0.00% 0.49% 0.83% 9.10%
Namibia 43.01% % of GDP 2013 -0.33% 52.35% 39.81% 49.63%
Nepal 10.70% % of GDP 2013 0.63% 12.42% 16.68% 11.07%
Netherlands 82.94% % of GDP 2013 0.90% 63.91% 63.36% 56.02%
New Zealand 29.65% % of GDP 2013 0.01% 29.32% 29.81% 26.42%
Nicaragua 40.52% % of GDP 2013 -2.52% 30.89% 23.06% 32.54%
Niger 23.34% % of GDP 2013 -1.27% 20.32% 17.36% 16.60%
Nigeria 18.04% % of GDP 2013 -13.40% 30.77% 30.16% 43.98%
North Korea n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Norway 38.88% % of GDP 2013 -2.02% 40.04% 41.80% 38.01%
Oman 62.65% % of GDP 2012 -4.46% 58.48% 49.76% 40.01%
Pakistan 13.22% % of GDP 2013 0.82% 12.40% 15.67% 13.88%
Panama 71.01% % of GDP 2013 -8.78% 75.53% 67.61% 78.90%
Papua New Guinea 51.00% % of GDP 2012 -2.23% 74.57% 69.42% 43.25%
Paraguay 49.38% % of GDP 2013 -0.54% 51.54% 54.42% 35.70%
Peru 23.74% % of GDP 2013 -2.86% 25.19% 22.49% 9.67%
Philippines 27.91% % of GDP 2013 -2.87% 32.23% 48.57% 28.11%
Poland 47.80% % of GDP 2013 1.14% 39.44% 37.49% n.a.
Portugal 39.26% % of GDP 2013 1.91% 27.08% 27.25% 29.46%
Qatar 75.62% % of GDP 2012 3.96% 61.36% 61.70% n.a.
Romania 41.98% % of GDP 2013 1.99% 30.60% 35.84% n.a.
Russia 28.37% % of GDP 2013 -1.23% 27.94% 34.42% 21.90%
Rwanda 14.41% % of GDP 2013 1.54% 10.18% 11.12% 6.14%
Saint Kitts and Nevis 34.25% % of GDP 2012 2.94% 31.31% 35.82% 59.33%
Saint Lucia 45.99% % of GDP 2013 -0.38% 46.23% 52.44% 80.19%
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 27.35% % of GDP 2013 0.20% 28.49% 35.35% 65.34%
Samoa 30.64% % of GDP 2013 2.99% 30.16% 28.20% n.a.
San Marino n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Sao Tome and Principe 11.01% % of GDP 2013 -1.92% 9.98% 13.61% n.a.
Saudi Arabia 51.79% % of GDP 2013 -2.63% 47.09% 50.99% 33.75%
Senegal 26.20% % of GDP 2013 1.91% 24.33% 27.14% 24.46%
Serbia 40.75% % of GDP 2013 3.82% 26.85% 24.22% n.a.
Seychelles 76.32% % of GDP 2013 -13.99% 100.28% 67.74% 11.24%
Sierra Leone 53.10% % of GDP 2013 17.91% 13.50% 16.67% 23.92%
Singapore 190.52% % of GDP 2013 -4.55% 191.88% 216.34% 179.54%
Slovak Republic 92.95% % of GDP 2013 1.15% 67.64% 68.61% 28.84%
Slovenia 74.69% % of GDP 2013 1.44% 57.24% 54.97% n.a.
Solomon Islands 54.54% % of GDP 2013 -9.63% 39.30% 30.93% 28.98%
Somalia 9.79% % of GDP 1990 2.10% 6.96% 24.82% 14.96%
South Africa 31.14% % of GDP 2013 1.22% 27.29% 26.42% 26.69%
South Korea 53.92% % of GDP 2013 -2.42% 47.55% 38.30% 28.53%
South Sudan 18.19% % of GDP 2013 8.07% 60.31% n.a. n.a.
Spain 31.56% % of GDP 2013 1.24% 22.67% 25.18% 16.68%
Sri Lanka 22.47% % of GDP 2013 -0.36% 21.33% 35.33% 27.26%
Sudan 9.58% % of GDP 2013 -0.37% 15.97% 17.76% 5.34%
Suriname 58.66% % of GDP 2012 28.24% n.a. 19.74% 29.31%
Swaziland 55.30% % of GDP 2013 2.27% 59.15% 84.93% 84.11%
Sweden 43.79% % of GDP 2013 -2.53% 44.45% 43.45% 30.46%
Switzerland 72.15% % of GDP 2013 5.09% 57.44% 51.55% 43.42%
Syria 37.99% % of GDP 2012 2.66% 36.84% 33.47% 17.15%
Tajikistan 19.18% % of GDP 2013 -2.36% 15.15% 58.31% 35.90%
Tanzania 24.72% % of GDP 2013 -4.60% 23.23% 19.65% n.a.
Thailand 73.57% % of GDP 2013 -1.41% 68.35% 70.70% 34.92%
The Bahamas 41.95% % of GDP 2013 -3.49% 39.86% 44.55% 53.83%
Timor-Leste n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
Togo 39.43% % of GDP 2011 -0.73% 37.92% 36.52% 41.37%
Tonga 17.81% % of GDP 2012 0.29% 13.71% 19.31% 22.74%
Trinidad and Tobago 63.15% % of GDP 2013 7.50% 52.35% 56.04% 42.64%
Tunisia 46.99% % of GDP 2013 -2.19% 45.83% 42.22% 44.35%
Turkey 25.65% % of GDP 2013 -0.65% 23.32% 23.55% 16.20%
Turkmenistan 73.26% % of GDP 2012 -1.44% 64.06% 62.31% n.a.
Tuvalu n.a. % of GDP n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a.
UAE 95.15% % of GDP 2012 4.84% 78.87% 55.92% n.a.
Uganda 23.73% % of GDP 2013 0.54% 24.13% 12.70% 7.95%
UK 29.84% % of GDP 2013 -0.41% 27.01% 24.36% 22.59%
Ukraine 46.87% % of GDP 2013 -4.11% 46.38% 61.21% 32.08%
Uruguay 24.00% % of GDP 2013 -2.66% 28.16% 32.11% 23.49%
USA 13.49% % of GDP 2013 -0.08% 11.01% 9.63% 8.91%
Uzbekistan 27.66% % of GDP 2013 -0.01% 35.59% 40.21% n.a.
Vanuatu 47.82% % of GDP 2013 -1.26% 49.11% 45.60% 37.40%
Venezuela 26.17% % of GDP 2012 -3.77% 30.82% 33.85% 20.57%
Vietnam 83.88% % of GDP 2013 3.85% 62.97% 54.90% 23.85%
Yemen 30.48% % of GDP 2010 2.26% 41.26% 35.90% n.a.
Zambia 41.88% % of GDP 2013 2.46% 29.25% 33.54% 26.81%
Zimbabwe 29.49% % of GDP 2013 -3.24% 22.01% 34.47% 23.34%

https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/exports-as-share-of-gdp-by-country

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-486

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 )

Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos

Posted on June 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, College, Comedy, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, Music, National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Non-Fiction, Nuclear Power, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Speech, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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: Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos

Be it or be it not true that Man is shapen in iniquity and conceived in sin, it is unquestionably true that Government is begotten of aggression, and by aggression.

~Herbert Spencer, 1850

This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State; that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies.

~Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922

It [the State] has taken on a vast mass of new duties and responsibilities; it has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret; it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion; its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose, and their thumbs in every pot. But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men.

~Henry L. Mencken, 1926

 

Election 2016 Presidential Polls

Monday, June 15
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Morning Consult Walker 18, Rubio 7, Huckabee 10, Paul 10, Bush 10, Carson 5, Cruz 4, Santorum, Trump 5, Christie 6, Perry, Fiorina 2, Kasich, Jindal Walker +8
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Morning Consult Clinton 54, Sanders 12, Biden 9, O’Malley 1, Webb 1, Chafee Clinton +42
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary Morning Consult Bush 14, Walker 10, Paul 9, Rubio 8, Trump 8, Christie 7, Cruz 4, Carson 6, Huckabee 6, Fiorina 5, Perry, Jindal, Santorum, Kasich Bush +4
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary Morning Consult Clinton 44, Sanders 32, Biden 8, O’Malley 2, Webb 1, Chafee Clinton +12
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Morning Consult Bush 11, Walker 10, Graham 14, Cruz 6, Carson 12, Huckabee 7, Rubio 8, Paul 5, Christie 5, Trump 2, Perry, Santorum Graham +2
South Carolina Democratic Presidential Primary Morning Consult Clinton 56, Biden 15, Sanders 10, O’Malley 3, Webb 2, Chafee 1 Clinton +41
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Monmouth Bush 9, Walker 10, Rubio 9, Carson 11, Huckabee 8, Paul 6, Cruz 5, Christie 4, Trump 2, Perry 4, Santorum 3, Fiorina 2, Kasich 1, Graham 2, Jindal 1 Carson +1

 

Wednesday, June 10
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Ohio Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Kasich 19, Walker 13, Carson 13, Bush 12, Rubio 12, Paul 9, Huckabee 6, Cruz 5, Christie 4, Jindal, Perry Kasich +6
Ohio Democratic Presidential Primary PPP (D) Clinton 61, Biden, Sanders 13, Chafee 2, O’Malley 2, Webb 1 Clinton +48
Ohio: Bush vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Bush 43 Clinton +2
Ohio: Walker vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Walker 43 Clinton +1
Ohio: Rubio vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Rubio 44 Tie
Ohio: Carson vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Carson 43 Clinton +1
Ohio: Paul vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 41, Paul 44 Paul +3
Ohio: Huckabee vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 45, Huckabee 42 Clinton +3
Ohio: Cruz vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Cruz 43 Clinton +1
Ohio: Christie vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 44, Christie 41 Clinton +3
Ohio: Kasich vs. Clinton PPP (D) Clinton 40, Kasich 47 Kasich +7

 

APRIL 7, 2015

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014

For more than 70 years, with few exceptions, more Americans have identified as Democrats than Republicans. But the share of independents, which surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans several years ago, continues to increase. Currently, 39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling. Report: A Deep Dive Into Party Affiliation

% of Americans who say they are …

Note: 1939-1989 yearly averages from the Gallup Organization interactive website. 1990-2014 yearly totals from Pew Research Center aggregate files. Based on the general public. Data unavailable for 1941. Independent data unavailable for 1951-1956.

presidents-budget Tax-foundation-Distribution-of-Federal-TaxesTaxes-and-the-Poor-updated-graph1-Average-Effective-July-2011

Historical_Mariginal_Tax_Rate_for_Highest_and_Lowest_Income_Earners

 

One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest – Randal back in action scene

i want my cigarettes

The Beatles – Can’t Buy Me Love (Live)

Hillary Clinton Announces Her Bid For President. Again.

This Aug. 24, 2012 photo provided by FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, shows the New York City memorial park, honoring President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that has been completed 40 years after the original design was created. The Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on the southern tip of 2-mile-long Roosevelt Island  - between Manhattan and Queens -  is being dedicated Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, in a ceremony to be attended by dignitaries including former President Bill Clinton and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (AP Photo/FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, Paul Warchol)

This Aug. 24, 2012 photo provided by FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, shows the New York City memorial park, honoring President Franklin D. Roosevelt, that has been completed 40 years after the original design was created. The Franklin D. Roosevelt Four Freedoms Park on the southern tip of 2-mile-long Roosevelt Island – between Manhattan and Queens – is being dedicated Wednesday, Oct. 17, 2012, in a ceremony to be attended by dignitaries including former President Bill Clinton and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. (AP Photo/FDR Four Freedoms Park LLC, Paul Warchol)

roosevelt-island

roosevelt island

hillary logo 2

roosevelt island hillary launchhillary clinton

hillary speech

Clinton touts shared prosperity in campaign kick-off speech

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Candidacy Announcement Expected on Sunday

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement (OFFICIAL)

Malzberg | Raffi Williams discusses Hillary Clinton’s Saturday “Re-Launch” of her Campaign

Hillary Clinton Launches Presidential Campaign In Nyc FULL SPEECH

Hillary the Scandals

Exposed: Hillary Clinton’s Sex Scandals

THE CLINTON CONSPIRACY – MUST WATCH

Google “Bill Clinton rape”

The Alex Jones Show (1st HOUR-VIDEO Commercial Free) Sunday June 14 2015: News

CNN Poll Shows Hillary Clinton “Shine Has Tarnished” And She Is Losing Support Of Independents

FNC: Hillary Clinton’s Favorability Down 11 Among Independents

jeb bush 2 jeb bush runs
jeb-bush

jeb logo

Jeb LET’S-JUST-LEAVE-LAST-NAMES-OUT-OF-THIS Bush 2016 Presidential Campaign Announcement

Immigration Protesters Disrupt Jeb Bush Campaign Announcement – June 15, 2015

Conservative Heads Explode Over Jeb Bush Immigration Comments

Mark Levin comments on Jeb Bush’s statements about legal and illegal immigration

PJTV: No Jeb Bush and No Third Parties

Glenn Beck – “Jeb Bush is Hillary Clinton LITE”

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

America’s Immigration History

Top 10 Immigrant Countries

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

01_apprehensionsArrests of Illegal Aliens Declines 75 Percentborder-map3-01-01Deportations TableDHS-Statsreturna and removalsus_border_apprehensions_1976_2013

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Presentation by James H. Walsh, Associate General Counsel of the former INS – part 1.

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…

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

Jeb Bush Urges ‘Earned Legal Status’ For 11 Million Illegal Aliens

Did Ann Coulter Save USA with funny & brilliant Immigration CPAC Speech?

Laura Ingraham slams Jeb Bush at CPAC

Jeb Bush to officially announce 2016 presidential run

Jeb Bush Finally Announces He Will Run for President

Jeb Bush – Just Another W?

Raw video: Jeb Bush speaks at Politics and Eggs

Diana Ross – Do You Know Where You’re Going To ( Theme From Soundtrack Mahogany )

Diana Ross It’s My Turn

JEB BUSH HAS OPTIMISTIC MESSAGE, FACES CHALLENGES IN ’16 BID
BY STEVE PEOPLES AND BRENDAN FARRINGTON
ASSOCIATED PRESS

Jeb Bush is launching a Republican presidential bid months in the making Monday with a vow to get Washington “out of the business of causing problems” and to stay true to his beliefs – easier said than done in a bristling primary contest where his conservative credentials will be sharply challenged.

“I will campaign as I would serve, going everywhere, speaking to everyone, keeping my word, facing the issues without flinching,” Bush said in excerpts of a speech released by his campaign before his afternoon announcement. Bush was opening his campaign at a rally near his south Florida home at Miami Dade College, where the institution’s large and diverse student body symbolizes the nation he seeks to lead.

In an unusual twist for a political speech aimed at a national audience, Bush, who is bilingual, planned to speak partly in Spanish. The former Florida governor has made minority outreach a priority.

“In any language,” his speech said, “my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world.”

In a video for the event, showing women, minorities and a disabled child, Bush says “the most vulnerable in our society should be in the front of the line and not the back.” This calls for “new leadership that takes conservative principles and applies them so that people can rise up.”

Neither his father, former President George H.W. Bush, nor his brother, former President George W. Bush, was expected to attend. The family was to be represented instead by Jeb Bush’s mother and former first lady, Barbara Bush, who once said that the country didn’t need yet another Bush as president, and by his son George P. Bush, recently elected Texas land commissioner.

Before the event, the Bush campaign came out with a new logo – Jeb! – that conspicuously leaves out the Bush surname.

Bush joins the race in progress in some ways in a commanding position. Bush has probably raised a record amount of money to support his candidacy and conceived of a new approach on how to structure his campaign, both aimed at allowing him to make a deep run into the GOP primaries.

But on other measures, early public opinion polls among them, he has yet to break out. While unquestionably one of the top-tier candidates in the GOP race, he is also only one of several in a large and capable Republican field that does not have a true front-runner.

In the past six months, Bush has made clear he will remain committed to his core beliefs in the campaign to come – even if his positions on immigration and education standards are deeply unpopular among the conservative base of the party that plays an outsized role in the GOP primaries.

Tea party leader Mark Meckler on Monday said Bush’s positions on education and immigration are “a nonstarter with many conservatives.”

“There are two political dynasties eyeing 2016,” said Meckler, a co-founder of the Tea Party Patriots, one of the movement’s largest organizations, and now leader of Citizens for Self-Governance. “And before conservatives try to beat Hillary, they first need to beat Bush.”

Yet a defiant Bush has showed little willingness to placate his party’s right wing.

“I’m not going to change who I am,” Bush said as he wrapped up a European trip on the weekend. “I respect people who may not agree with me, but I’m not going to change my views because today someone has a view that’s different.”

Bush is one of 11 major Republicans in the hunt for the nomination. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and Ohio Gov. John Kasich are among those still deciding whether to join a field that could end up just shy of 20.

After touring four early-voting states, Bush quickly launches a private fundraising tour with stops in at least 11 cities before the end of the month. Two events alone – a reception at Union Station in Washington on Friday and a breakfast the following week on Seventh Avenue in New York – will account for almost $2 million in new campaign cash, according to invitations that list more than 75 already committed donors.

Jeb Bush Announces GOP Presidential Campaign

Enters crowded Republican field with the party faithful divided over the GOP’s direction

Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally announces his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, June 15, 2015 in Miami.ENLARGE
Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush formally announces his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination on Monday, June 15, 2015 in Miami. PHOTO:REUTERS

“Here’s what it comes down to. Our country is on a very bad course. And the question is: What are we going to do about it? The question for me is: What am I going to do about it?” he said. “And I have decided. I am a candidate for president of the United States.”

Mr. Bush, who becomes the third member of his family to seek the nation’s highest office, spoke while delivering his official campaign speech at Miami-Dade College.

Earlier, he officially kicked off his candidacy by filing paperwork to run for president with the Federal Election Commission.

The son and brother of two U.S. presidents, Mr. Bush enters a presidential field crowded with young up-and-coming Republican talent and an electorate deeply divided about the future direction of both the Republican Party and the nation.

In laying out the case for his candidacy, Mr. Bush promised an uplifting message about the direction and future of the country.

“In any language, my message will be an optimistic one because I am certain that we can make the decades just ahead in America the greatest time ever to be alive in this world,” Mr. Bush said.

And the former Florida governor boasted about job and economic growth and tax cuts in the state over his tenure.

Jeb Bush is not that far off politically from brother George W., but the two have very different personalities and backgrounds. Photo: AP

Though Mr. Bush has built a sizable campaign war chest and attracted veteran operatives for both his campaign and his independent super PAC—polls show him barely registering above 10% in a crowded primary field.

He’ll also face a Republican primary electorate that has grown more conservative since his brother George W. Bush ran for election in 2000 on a platform of what he called compassionate conservatism.

On two issues in particular—immigration andeducation—Mr. Bush finds himself on the opposite side from many grassroots activists in the Republican Party. Mr. Bush has long supported changes to the nation’s immigration system that would allow illegal immigrants a path to legal status. He also has expressed support for national education standards opposed by many conservative activists.

Mr. Bush also faces the challenge of distancing himself in the voters’ eyes from his family name and legacy. His brother, George W. Bush, left office with sagging approval ratings due in part to his role as the architect of a divisive and unpopular war in Iraq.

Jeb Bush has spent months planning his entrance into the 2016 presidential campaign and he will enter with the most name recognition and money of his GOP field. WSJ’s Jerry Seib explains. Photo: AP

Mr. Bush unveiled a campaign logo on Monday that downplays his family’s last name. The stylized red logo contains only Mr. Bush’s first name with an exclamation point. His father, George H.W. Bush, and brother, George W. Bush, aren’t expected to attend his campaign kickoff.

Mr. Bush has been traveling the country in the past few months banking campaign cash for an independent group that is expected to support his efforts. With his deep ties to the Republican donor class and the business community, Mr. Bush has built a formidable operation and a major war chest.

Once he becomes an official candidate, he won’t be able to coordinate with the super PAC, which will be run out of Los Angeles. Mr. Bush’s official campaign is based in Florida.

His announcement comes on his return from a five-day, three-nation European tour aimed at shoring up Mr. Bush’s foreign policy credentials.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/jeb-bush-formally-announces-hell-seek-gop-presidential-nomination-1434388382

Jeb Bush: I cry, I’m introverted, but I want to be president

Third member of the Bush dynasty finally to announce candidacy for Republican nomination

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, departs from the e-Estonia Showroom during his visit to Tallinn, Estonia, on Saturday, June 13, 2015.

Jeb Bush, former Florida governor, in Tallinn, Estonia, on Saturday Photo: Bloomberg

Jeb Bush will finally end months of speculation and announce he is running for the American presidency on Monday, in a campaign carefully calibrated to portray himself as a natural heir to the family dynasty and at the same time distance himself from his brother George W.

In a key-note interview, he described his father, the first President George Bush, as the “greatest man alive” and said the mere thought of him might make him cry.

But by contrast he was careful to differentiate himself from his brother. “Jeb is different from George,” he told CNN. “Jeb is who he is and his life story is different.”

Mr Bush plans to announce he is running for the White House in Miami on Monday, after months of unofficial campaigning.

He unveiled his campaign logo via social media site Twitter on Sunday, and immediately ran into teasing from the public that it is almost identical to the logo he used when he ran, successfully, for the governorship of Florida in 1998.

The logo is simply his first name in bright red with an exclamation mark and 2016 underneath. His governor’s campaign logo was also ‘Jeb!’

In a jab at both President Barack Obama and, seemingly, some of hisyounger Republican rivals such as Marco Rubio, he was keen to project a statesmanlike appearance, touting his “life experience” as a state governor and overseas businessman.

“It’s something that’s been lacking in the presidency, to have someone who’s been tempered by life, and along the way I will get to share that,” said Mr Bush, who at 62 is eighteen years older than Mr Rubio and eight years older even than the departing president.

Polls show the two men, along with Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin, as the current front-runners for the Republican nomination.

• Which Republicans are running for US president in 2016?

Mr Bush will make his campaign announcement in his hometown of Miami and will be joined by his wife Columba, a Mexican-born woman who has largely shied away from the public spotlight.

The story of how they met as teenagers featured prominently in a video Mr Bush released shortly before the announcement.

“I need to share my heart to show a little bit about my life experience,” Mr Bush said in the video.

While it has been clear for months that Mr Bush intended to run he has used the time ahead of his formal announcement to raise funds for a superPAC, a nominally independent group that will support his candidacy.

Mr Bush is said to have already amassed a campaign war chest of more than $100 million, according to the website Politico.

He also travelled to Germany, Poland and Estonia to showcase his foreign policy credentials and has been dieting based on the eating habits of a caveman to shed weight before getting into the race.

Mr Bush will run with a traditionally hawkish Republican approach to foreign policy, arguing for a stronger line against Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant and Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

But he is among the most moderate of the Republican contenders when it comes to domestic policy. Unlike others in his party he has not lashed out at national education standards and has taken a more measured tone on immigration.

• US election 2016: What you need to know

Mr Bush, who speaks fluent Spanish, may be able to attract the votes of Hispanic voters who are an increasingly crucial voting group in US elections.

However, the conservative activists who play a major role in determining the Republican nominee may pressure Mr Bush to take a harsher line on immigration.

He has already backed away from his previous support for a “path to citizenship” for illegal immigrants who have lived and worked in the US for a long time. Mrs Clinton supports such a path, as does President Barack Obama.

Mr Bush has denied he was trying to cut himself off from his famous name, but admitted he had a difficult task to show the man beneath the family.

• Does Jeb Bush even really want to be president?

“I don’t have to dissociate myself from my family, you know, I love them but I know that for me to be successful I’m going to have to share my heart, tell my story,” he added.

“It’s important. It’s something that took a little bit of getting used to for me, personally, to be able to show my heart, because I’m kind of introverted, but it’s important to do,” he said.

He was asked about his father, who turned 91 on June 12 and whether he would be on his mind when he announces his own candidacy to follow in the family footsteps.

“I’m not going to think about that because Bushes are known to cry once in a while. It’s very emotional for me,” he said. “I love my dad. He’s just the greatest man alive,” he said.

Mr Bush said he was looking forward to telling a life story that was “full of warts and full of successes”, where he had had to make “tough decisions”.Most startling is that it completely leaves out the famous family name that has given him a head start in the 2016 presidential race.

Clinton formally launches 2016 campaign with focus on economic equality

Hillary Clinton on Saturday officially launched her 2016 presidential campaign, calling for a return to shared prosperity and asking American workers, students and others to trust her to fight for them.

Clinton made the announcement at an outdoor rally on New York City’s Roosevelt Island, two months after announcing her campaign with an online video.

“You have to wonder: When do I get ahead? I say now,” Clinton told the crowd in a roughly 46-minute speech. “You brought the country back. Now it’s your time to enjoy the prosperity. That is why I’m running for president of the United States.”

The former first lady, U.S. senator from New York and secretary of state is the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 White House race.

Also in the race are Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chaffe.

She lost her 2008 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination to then-Sen. Obama.

Clinton, wearing her signature blue pantsuit, walked through the crowd en route to the stage for her speech.

She remarked that Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms are a “testament to our nation’s unmatched aspirations and a reminder of our unfinished work at home and abroad.”

Clinton also drew into focus what will likely be the key themes of her campaign including support for same-sex marriage, wage equality for women and all Americans, affordable college tuition and free child-care and pre-kindergarten.

“The top-25 hedge fund managers make more than all kindergarten teachers combined,” she said. “And they’re paying lower taxes.”

Clinton attempted to portray herself as a fierce advocate for those left behind in the post-recession economy, detailing a lifetime of work on behalf of struggling families. She said her mother’s difficult childhood inspired what she considers a calling.

“I have been called many things by many people,” Clinton said.” Quitter is not one of them.”

She said that attribute came from her late mother, Dorothy Rodham, in whom she would confide after hard days in the Senate and at the State Department.

“I wish my mother could have been with us longer,” Clinton said. “I wish she could have seen the America we are going to build together … where we don’t leave any one out or any one behind.”

Clinton was joined by her husband, former President Bill Clinton, and their daughter, Chelsea.

She also was critical in her speech of Republicans, suggesting they have reserved economic prosperity for the wealthy, in large part by cutting taxes for the country’s highest wage-earners.

She also accused them of trying to “wipe out tough rules on Wall Street,” take away health insurance from more than 16 million Americans without offering any “credible alternative” and turning their backs on “gay people who love each other.”

The Republican National Committee said in response that Clinton’s campaign was full of hypocritical attacks, partisan rhetoric and ideas from the past.

“Next year, Americans will reject the failed policies of the past and elect a Republican president,” RNC Press Secretary Allison Moore said.

Republicans also argued Clinton devoted only about five minutes of her speech to foreign policy.

Clinton now heads to four early-primary states, starting Saturday night in Iowa where she will talk with volunteers and others about grassroots-campaign efforts for the first-in-the-nation caucus state.

The organizational meeting will be simulcast to Clinton camps across the country and serve as a blueprint for them all 435 congressional districts.

She then travels to New Hampshire on June 15, South Carolina on June 17 and in Nevada on June 18.

Clinton vowed Saturday to roll out specific policy proposals in the coming weeks, including ones on rewriting the tax code and sustainable energy.

In what was her first major speech of her campaign, she also cited President Obama, Roosevelt and her husband, saying they embraced the idea that “real and lasting prosperity must be built by all and shared by all.”

Holding the event on an island between Queens and Manhattan raised some criticism about its accessibility by vehicle and public transportation.

The campaign estimated the event crowd, whose members needed a ticket, at 5,500. However, the number appeared smaller, and the overflow section was empty.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/13/clinton-formally-launches-2016-campaign-with-focus-on-economic-equality/

Hillary Clinton, in Roosevelt Island Speech, Pledges to Close Income Gap

Who Is Running for President (and Who’s Not)?

Mrs. Clinton specified policies she would push for, including universal prekindergarten, paid family leave, equal pay for women, college affordability and incentives for companies that provide profit-sharing to employees. She also spoke of rewriting the tax code “so it rewards hard work at home” rather than corporations “stashing profits overseas.” She did not detail how she would achieve those policies or address their costs.

Mrs. Clinton spoke to the criticism that her wealth makes her out of touch with middle-class Americans, saying her candidacy is for “factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day, for the nurses who work the night shift, for the truckers who drive for hours.”

Uncomfortable with the fiery rhetoric of Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat, Mrs. Clinton offered some stark statistics to address the concerns of the Democratic Party’s restless left. “The top 25 hedge fund managers make more than all of America’s kindergarten teachers combined, often paying a lower tax rate,” she said.

Mrs. Clinton said many Americans must be asking, “When does my family get ahead?” She added: “When? I say now.”

In a campaign in which Republicans have emphasized the growing threat of Islamic terrorism and an unstable Middle East, Mrs. Clinton hardly mentioned foreign policy. She did speak of her experience as a senator from New York after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

“As your president, I’ll do whatever it takes to keep Americans safe,” she said, weaving the skyline and a view of the newly built One World Trade Center into her remarks.

For as much as the content of the speech mattered, the theater of it was equally important. For a campaign criticized for lacking passion, the event gave Mrs. Clinton the ability to create a camera-ready tableau of excitement.

The Brooklyn Express Drumline revved up the crowd assembled on a narrow stretch at the southern tip of the island. And Marlon Marshall, the campaign’s director of political engagement, rattled off statistics about the number of volunteers who have signed up and house parties held in the early nominating states. A section with giant screens set up for an overflow crowd stood nearly empty.

But a crowd of supporters and volunteers from the staunchly Democratic New York area does not exactly represent the electorate writ large. The real test for Mrs. Clinton and how the speech was perceived will be in Iowa, where she was to travel on Saturday evening for several events. Iowa, the first nominating state, shunned her the last time she sought the presidency, in 2008.

“I was disappointed she didn’t challenge Obama four years ago,” said Dominique Pettinato, a 24-year-old parole officer who lives in Brooklyn.

For some members of the skeptical liberal wing of the Democratic Party still concerned that Mrs. Clinton will embrace her husband’s centrist approach, the speech went only so far in convincing them otherwise.

“This was mostly a typical Democratic speech — much better than the direction Republicans offer America,” said Adam Green, a co-founder of Progressive Change Campaign Committee, a liberal advocacy group. But he said the speech had not offered “the bold economic vision that most Americans want and need.”

Mrs. Clinton did not broach one issue that liberals are increasingly frustrated by: trade. On Thursday, Senator Bernie Sanders, a socialist from Vermont who is also seeking the Democratic nomination, pointedly criticized Mrs. Clinton for not taking a position on a controversial trade bill Mr. Obama is pushing, as well as other contentious issues like the proposedKeystone XL oil pipeline and the renewal of the Patriot Act. “What is the secretary’s point of view on that?” Mr. Sanders asked of the act, which he voted against.

Mrs. Clinton had hardly stopped speaking Saturday when Bill Hyers, a senior strategist for Martin O’Malley, the former governor of Maryland, who is also seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, criticized her as vague on trade and other issues. Mr. O’Malley, he said, “has been fearless and specific in the progressive agenda we need.”

If there is one demographic Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is hoping to excite it is young women. It is an obvious connection that her 2008 campaign played down as it tried to present the former first lady as a strong commander in chief.

But on Saturday it was clear that Mrs. Clinton will make gender more central to her campaign this time. In her closing remarks, she called for a country “where a father can tell his daughter yes, you can be anything you want to be, even president of the United States.”

Correction: June 13, 2015
An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a woman who attended Hillary Rodham Clinton’s speech. She is Dominique Pettinato, not Pettin. An earlier version also misstated part of a quote by Allison Moore, a spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee. She said Mrs. Clinton’s speech was “chock-full of hypocritical attacks,” not hypothetical attacks.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/14/us/hillary-clinton-attacks-republican-economic-policies-in-roosevelt-island-speech.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-485

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 )

Christopher Hitchens on H.L. Mencken – Videos

Posted on June 13, 2015. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Education, Literature, Non-Fiction, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , |

Christopher Hitchens – H.L. Mencken

H. L. Mencken Interview

Mencken and Nock on Elitist Individualism

In Defence of Women by H.L Mencken (Part 1 Full) Video / AudioBook

In Defence of Women by H.L Mencken (Part 2 Full) Video / AudioBook

Conversations with History: Christopher Hitchens

Christopher Hitchens – The Best of the Hitchslap

Christopher Hitchens – In Depth

Christopher Hitchens: In Confidence (2011)

Christopher Hitchens on ABC1 Lateline – FULL (one of his last interviews)

Christopher Hitchens

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Christopher Hitchens
Hitchens photographed from profile

Christopher Hitchens speaking at the 2007Amaz!ng Meeting at the Riviera Hotel in Las Vegas
Born Christopher Eric Hitchens
13 April 1949
Portsmouth, Hampshire, England
Died 15 December 2011 (aged 62)
Houston, Texas, United States
Cause of death
Pneumonia (brought on byesophageal cancer)
Nationality British
British and American (2007–11)
Alma mater The Leys School
Balliol College, Oxford
Awards
Signature Christopher Hitchens signature.svg

Christopher Eric Hitchens (13 April 1949 – 15 December 2011) was an Anglo-American[6] author, literary critic and journalist.[7]

He contributed to New Statesman, The Nation, The Atlantic, London Review of Books, The Times Literary Supplement, Slate and Vanity Fair. Hitchens was the author, co-author, editor and co-editor of over thirty books, including five collections of essays, on a range of subjects, including politics, literature and religion. A staple of talk shows and lecture circuits, his confrontational style of debate made him both a lauded and controversial figure. Known for his contrarian stance on a number of issues, Hitchens excoriated such public figures as Mother Teresa; Bill Clinton; Henry Kissinger; Diana, Princess of Wales; and Pope Benedict XVI. He was the elder brother of the conservative journalist and author Peter Hitchens.

Long describing himself as a socialist and a Marxist, Hitchens began his break from the established political left after what he called the “tepid reaction” of the Western left to the controversy over The Satanic Verses, followed by the left’s embrace of Bill Clinton, and the “anti-war” movement’s opposition to intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina. Even though Hitchens did not leave his position writing for The Nation until post-9/11, stating that he felt the magazine had arrived at a position “that John Ashcroft is a greater menace than Osama bin Laden.”[8] The September 11 attacks “exhilarated” him, bringing into focus “a battle between everything I love and everything I hate,” and strengthening his embrace of an interventionist foreign policy which challenged “fascism with an Islamic face“.[9] His numerous editorials in support of the Iraq Warcaused some to label him a neoconservative, although Hitchens insisted he was not “a conservative of any kind”, and his friend Ian McEwan described him as representing the anti-totalitarian left.[10] Hitchens recalls in his memoir having been “invited by Bernard-Henri Levy to write an essay on political reconsiderations for his magazine La Regle du Jeu. I gave it the partly ironic title: ‘Can One Be a Neoconservative?’ Impatient with this, some copy editor put it on the cover as ‘How I Became a Neoconservative.’ Perhaps this was an instance of the Cartesian principle as opposed to the English empiricist one: it was decided that I evidently was what I apparently only thought.”[11] Indeed, in a 2010 BBC interview, he stated that he was “still a Marxist“.[12]

A noted critic of religion and an antitheist, he said that a person “could be an atheist and wish that belief in god were correct”, but that “an antitheist, a term I’m trying to get into circulation, is someone who is relieved that there’s no evidence for such an assertion”.[13] According to Hitchens, the concept of a god or a supreme being is atotalitarian belief that destroys individual freedom, and that free expression and scientific discovery should replace religion as a means of teaching ethics and defining human civilisation. His anti-religion polemic, New York Times Bestseller, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, sold over 500,000 copies.

Hitchens died on 15 December 2011 from complications arising from esophageal cancer, a disease that he acknowledged was more than likely due to his lifelong predilection for heavy smoking and drinking.[14]

Life and caree

Early life and education

Hitchens was born in Portsmouth, Hampshire.[15][16] His parents, Eric Ernest Hitchens (1909–87) and Yvonne Jean Hitchens (née Hickman; 1921–73), met in Scotland when both were serving in the Royal Navyduring World War II.[17] His mother was Jewish, and kept that fact a secret.[18] It was not until late 1987 that Hitchens learned of his Jewish ancestry (though he became a lifelong atheist).[18][19] He said, “My initial reaction, apart from pleasure and interest, was the faint but definite feeling that I had somehow known all along.”[19] His mother was a “Wren” (a member of the Women’s Royal Naval Service),[20] and his father an officer aboard the cruiser HMS Jamaica, which helped sink Nazi Germany’s battleship Scharnhorst in the Battle of the North Cape.[3] His father’s naval career required the family to move a number of times from base to base throughout Britain and its dependencies, including in Malta, where Christopher’s brother Peter was born in Sliema in 1951.[21]

Hitchens’s mother, arguing “if there is going to be an upper class in this country, then Christopher is going to be in it”,[22] sent him to Mount House School in Tavistock in Devon at the age of eight, followed by the independent Leys School in Cambridge. Hitchens then went up to Balliol College, Oxford, where he was tutored by Steven Lukes and Anthony Kenny and read Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Hitchens was “bowled over” in his adolescence by Richard Llewellyn‘s How Green Was My Valley, Arthur Koestler‘s Darkness at Noon, Fyodor Dostoyevsky‘s Crime and Punishment, R. H. Tawney‘s critique on Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, and the works of George Orwell.[20] In 1968, he took part in the TV quiz show University Challenge.[23]

In the 1960s, Hitchens joined the political left, drawn by his anger over the Vietnam War, nuclear weapons, racism, and oligarchy, including that of “the unaccountable corporation”. He expressed affinity with the politically charged countercultural and protest movements of the 1960s and 1970s. He deplored the recreational drug use of the time, which he described as hedonistic.[24]

Hitchens was bisexual during his younger days – until he claimed his looks “declined to the point where only women would go to bed with me.” [25] He claimed to have had sexual relations with two male students at Oxford who would later become Tory ministers during the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher, although he would not reveal their names publicly.[26]

He joined the Labour Party in 1965, but along with the majority of the Labour students’ organisation was expelled in 1967, because of what Hitchens called “Prime Minister Harold Wilson‘s contemptible support for the war in Vietnam”.[27] Under the influence of Peter Sedgwick, who translated the writings of Russian revolutionary and Soviet dissident Victor Serge, Hitchens forged an ideological interest in Trotskyist and anti-Stalinist socialism.[20] Shortly after he joined “a small but growing post-Trotskyist Luxemburgist sect”.[28]

Journalistic career (1970–81

Hitchens began working as a correspondent for the magazine International Socialism,[29] published by the International Socialists, the forerunners of today’s British Socialist Workers Party. This group was broadly Trotskyist, but differed from more orthodox Trotskyist groups in its refusal to defend communist states as “workers’ states“. Their slogan was “Neither Washington nor Moscow but International Socialism“.

Hitchens left Oxford with a third class degree.[30] In 1971 he went to work at the Times Higher Education Supplement where he served as a social science correspondent.[7] Hitchens admitted that he hated the position, and was fired after six months in the job: he recalled, “I sometimes think if I’d been any good at that job, I might still be doing it.”[31] Next he was a researcher for ITV‘s Weekend World.[32] In 1973 he went to work for the New Statesman, where his colleagues included the authors Martin Amis, who he had briefly met at Oxford, Julian Barnes and James Fenton, with whom he had shared a house in Oxford.[32] It was at this time that the legendary Friday lunches began, which were attended by writers including Clive James, Ian McEwan, Kingsley Amis, Terence Kilmartin, Robert Conquest, Al Alvarez, Peter Porter, Russell Davies andMark Boxer. At the New Statesman Hitchens acquired a reputation as a fierce left-winger, aggressively attacking targets such as Henry Kissinger, the Vietnam War, and the Roman Catholic Church.

In November 1973, Hitchens’s mother committed suicide in Athens in a suicide pact with her lover, a defrocked clergyman named Timothy Bryan.[20] The pair overdosed on sleeping pills in adjoining hotel rooms, and Bryan slashed his wrists in the bathtub. Hitchens flew alone to Athens to recover his mother’s body, initially under the impression that his mother had been murdered. Both her children were then independent adults. While in Greece, Hitchens reported on the constitutional crisis of the military junta. It became his first leading article for the New Statesman.[33]

In December 1977, Hitchens interviewed Argentine dictator Jorge Rafaél Videla, a conversation he later described as “horrifying”.[34]

In 1977, unhappy at the New Statesman, Hitchens defected to the Daily Express where he became a foreign correspondent. He returned to the New Statesman in 1979 where he became foreign editor.[32]

American career (1981–2011)

Hitchens went to the United States in 1981, as part of an editor exchange program between The New Statesman and The Nation.[35] After joining The Nation, he penned vociferous critiques of Ronald Reagan,George H. W. Bush and American foreign policy in South and Central America.[36][37][38][39][40][41][42] He became a contributing editor of Vanity Fair in 1992,[43] writing ten columns a year. He left The Nation in 2002 after profoundly disagreeing with other contributors over the Iraq War. There is speculation that Hitchens was the inspiration for Tom Wolfe‘s character Peter Fallow in the 1987 novel The Bonfire of the Vanities,[38]but others—including Hitchens (or he indicated as such while alive)—believe it to be Spy Magazine‍ ’​s “Ironman Nightlife Decathlete” Anthony Haden-Guest.[44][45] In 1987, his father died from cancer of the esophagus; the same disease that would later claim his own life.[46] In April 2007, Hitchens became a U.S. citizen. He became a media fellow at the Hoover Institution in September 2008.[47]

Hitchens spent part of his early career in journalism as a foreign correspondent in Cyprus.[48] Through his work there he met his first wife Eleni Meleagrou, a Greek Cypriot, with whom he had two children, Alexander and Sophia. His son, Alexander Meleagrou-Hitchens, born in 1984, has worked as a policy researcher in London. Hitchens continued writing essay-style correspondence pieces from a variety of locales, includingChad, Uganda[49] and the Darfur region of Sudan.[50] His work took him to over 60 countries.[51] In 1991 he received a Lannan Literary Award for Nonfiction.[52]

Hitchens met Carol Blue for the first time at the Los Angeles airport in 1989, and would marry her in 1991. Hitchens called it love at first sight.[53] In 1999, as harsh critics of Clinton, Hitchens and Carol Blue submitted an affidavit to the trial managers of the Republican Party in the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Therein they swore that their then-friend, Sidney Blumenthal, had described Monica Lewinsky as a stalker. This allegation contradicted Blumenthal’s own sworn deposition in the trial,[54] and it resulted in a hostile exchange of opinion in the public sphere between Hitchens and Blumenthal. Following the publication of Blumenthal’s The Clinton Wars, Hitchens wrote several pieces in which he accused Blumenthal of manipulating the facts.[54][55] The incident ended their friendship and sparked a “personal crisis” for Hitchens who was stridently criticised by friends for a cynical and ultimately politically futile act.[37]

Before Hitchens’s political shift, the American author and polemicist Gore Vidal was apt to speak of Hitchens as his “Dauphin” or “heir”.[56][57][58] In 2010, Hitchens attacked Vidal in a Vanity Fair piece headlined “Vidal Loco”, calling him a “crackpot” for his adoption of 9/11 conspiracy theories.[59][60] On the back of Hitchens’s memoir Hitch-22, among the praise from notable figures, Vidal’s endorsement of Hitchens as his successor is crossed out in red and annotated “NO, C.H.” His strong advocacy of the war in Iraq had gained Hitchens a wider readership, and in September 2005 he was named one of the “Top 100 Public Intellectuals” byForeign Policy and Prospect magazines.[61] An online poll ranked the 100 intellectuals, but the magazines noted that the rankings of Hitchens (5), Noam Chomsky (1), and Abdolkarim Soroush (15) were partly due to supporters publicising the vote.[62]

In 2007 Hitchens’s work for Vanity Fair won him the National Magazine Award in the category “Columns and Commentary”.[63] He was a finalist once more in the same category in 2008 for some of his columns inSlate but lost out to Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone.[64] He won the National Magazine Award for Columns about Cancer in 2011.[65][66] Hitchens also served on the Advisory Board of Secular Coalition for America and offered advice to Coalition on the acceptance and inclusion of nontheism in American life.[67] In December 2011, prior to his death, Asteroid 57901 Hitchens was named after him.[68]

Literature reviews

Hitchens wrote a monthly essay on books in The Atlantic[69] and contributed occasionally to other literary journals. One of his books, Unacknowledged Legislation: Writers in the Public Sphere, is a collection of such works, and Love, Poverty and War contains a section devoted to literary essays. In Why Orwell Matters, he defends Orwell’s writings against modern critics as relevant today and progressive for his time. In the 2008 book Christopher Hitchens and His Critics: Terror, Iraq, and the Left, many literary critiques are included of essays and other books of writers, such as David Horowitz and Edward Said.

During a three-hour In Depth interview on Book TV,[3] he named authors who have had influence on his views, including Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, Evelyn Waugh, P. G. Wodehouse and Conor Cruise O’Brien.

Political views

My own opinion is enough for me, and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, anyplace, anytime. And anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my arse.
– Christopher Hitchens[70]

The San Francisco Chronicle referred to Hitchens as a “gadfly with gusto”.[71] In 2009, Hitchens was listed by Forbes magazine as one of the “25 most influential liberals in the U.S. media”.[72] The same article noted that he would “likely be aghast to find himself on this list”, since it reduces his self-styled radicalism to mere liberalism. Hitchens’s political perspective appears in his wide ranging writings, which include many of the political dialogues he published.

In 2010, Theodore Dalrymple wrote, “Christopher made an early commitment to Trotskyism, but it is difficult to take him very seriously as a revolutionary because he always has been too much of a hedonist. Indeed, he appears to me to have had roughly the same relationship to proletarians as Marie Antoinette had to sheep: They have walk-on parts in his personal drama. There is not much evidence of his having thought deeply, or even at all, about the fate, under a social system he vociferously advocated, of the pleasures he so clearly values, the liking for which I don’t in the least blame him; nor is there evidence of any real reflection on what the world would have been like had his demands been met. Not permanent revolution but permanent adolescence has been his goal, and I think he has achieved it.”[73]

Ideology

Hitchens became a socialist “largely [as] the outcome of a study of history, taking sides … in the battles over industrialism and war and empire.” In 2001, he told Rhys Southan of Reason magazine that he could no longer say “I am a socialist”. Socialists, he claimed, had ceased to offer a positive alternative to the capitalist system. Capitalism had become the more revolutionary economic system, and he welcomed globalisationas “innovative and internationalist“, but added, “I don’t think that the contradictions, as we used to say, of the system, are by any means all resolved.” He stated that he had a renewed interest in the freedom of the individual from the state, but that he still considered libertarianism “ahistorical” both on the world stage and in the work of creating a stable and functional society, adding that libertarians are “more worried about the over-mighty state than the unaccountable corporation” whereas “the present state of affairs … combines the worst of bureaucracy with the worst of the insurance companies.”[38]

In 2006, in a town hall meeting in Pennsylvania debating the Jewish Tradition with Martin Amis, Hitchens commented on his political philosophy by stating, “I am no longer a socialist, but I still am a Marxist“.[74] In a June 2010 interview with The New York Times, he stated that “I still think like a Marxist in many ways. I think the materialist conception of history is valid. I consider myself a very conservative Marxist”.[75] In 2009, in an article for The Atlantic entitled “The Revenge of Karl Marx”, Hitchens frames the late-2000s recession in terms of Marx’s economic analysis and notes how much Marx admired the capitalist system that he called for the end of, but says that Marx ultimately failed to grasp how revolutionary capitalist innovation was.[76] Hitchens was an admirer of Che Guevara, yet in an essay written in 1997, he distanced himself from Che, and referred to the mythos surrounding him as a “cult”.[77] In 2004 he resumed his positive view of Che, commenting that “[Che’s] death meant a lot to me and countless like me at the time. He was a role model, albeit an impossible one for us bourgeois romantics insofar as he went and did what revolutionaries were meant to do—fought and died for his beliefs.”[78]

He continued to regard Leon Trotsky and Vladimir Lenin as great men,[79][80] and the October Revolution as a necessary event in the modernisation of Russia.[28][38] In 2005, Hitchens praised Lenin’s creation of “secular Russia” and his discrediting of the Russian Orthodox Church, describing the church’s power as “absolute warren of backwardness and evil and superstition”.[28]

According to Andrew Sullivan, his last words were “Capitalism, downfall.”[81]

Iraq War and the war on terror

In the years after the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie in response to his novel The Satanic Verses, Hitchens became increasingly critical of what he called “excuse making” on the left. At the same time, he was attracted to the foreign policy ideas of some on the Republican-right that promoted pro-liberalism intervention, especially the neoconservative group that included Paul Wolfowitz.[82] Around this time, he befriended the Iraqi dissident and businessman Ahmed Chalabi.[83] In 2004, Hitchens stated that neoconservative support for US intervention in Iraq convinced him that he was “on the same side as the neo-conservatives” when it came to contemporary foreign policy issues.[84] Hitchens had also been known to refer to his association with “temporary neocon allies”.[85]

Following 11 September attacks, Hitchens and Noam Chomsky debated the nature of radical Islam and the proper response to it. In October 2001, Hitchens wrote criticisms of Chomsky in The Nation.[86][87] Chomsky responded[88] and Hitchens issued a rebuttal to Chomsky[89] to which Chomsky again responded.[8] Approximately a year after 11 September attacks and his exchanges with Chomsky, Hitchens left The Nation, claiming that its editors, readers and contributors considered John Ashcroft a bigger threat than Osama bin Laden,[90] and that they were making excuses on behalf of Islamist terrorism; in the following months he wrote articles increasingly at odds with his colleagues.

Christopher Hitchens argued the case for the Iraq War in a 2003 collection of essays entitled A Long Short War: The Postponed Liberation of Iraq, and participated in public debates on the topic with George Galloway,[91] Scott Ritter,[92] and his brother Peter Hitchens.[93]

Criticism of George W. Bush

Prior to 11 September 2001, and the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, Hitchens was critical of President George W. Bush‘s “non-interventionist” foreign policy. He also criticised Bush’s support of intelligent design[94]and capital punishment.[95]

Although Hitchens defended Bush’s post-11 September foreign policy, he criticised the actions of US troops in Abu Ghraib and Haditha, and the US government’s use of waterboarding, which he unhesitatingly deemed as torture after he was invited by Vanity Fair to voluntarily undergo it.[96][97] In January 2006, Hitchens joined with four other individuals and four organisations, including the American Civil Liberties Unionand Greenpeace, as plaintiffs in a lawsuit, ACLU v. NSA, challenging Bush’s warrantless domestic spying program; the lawsuit was filed by the ACLU.[98][99][100]

Presidential endorsements

Hitchens would elaborate on his political views and ideological shift in a discussion with Eric Alterman on Bloggingheads.tv. In this discussion Hitchens revealed himself to be a supporter of Ralph Nader in the 2000 US presidential election, who was disenchanted with the candidacy of both George W. Bush and Al Gore.[101]

Hitchens speaking at a September 2000 third party protest at the headquarters of the Commission on Presidential Debates

Hitchens made a brief return to The Nation just before the 2004 US presidential election and wrote that he was “slightly” for Bush; shortly afterwards, Slate polled its staff on their positions on the candidates and mistakenly printed Hitchens’s vote as pro-John Kerry. Hitchens shifted his opinion to “neutral”, saying: “It’s absurd for liberals to talk as ifKristallnacht is impending with Bush, and it’s unwise and indecent for Republicans to equate Kerry with capitulation. There’s no one to whom he can surrender, is there? I think that the nature of the jihadist enemy will decide things in the end”.[102]

In the 2008 presidential election, Hitchens in an article for Slate stated, “I used to call myself a single-issue voter on the essential question of defending civilisation against its terrorist enemies and their totalitarian protectors, and on that ‘issue’ I hope I can continue to expose and oppose any ambiguity.” He was critical of both main party candidates,Barack Obama and John McCain, but wrote that Obama would be the better choice. Hitchens went on to call McCain “senile”, and his choice of running mate Sarah Palin“absurd”, calling Palin a “pathological liar” and a “national disgrace”. Hitchens also wrote that “Obama is greatly overrated” and that the Obama-Biden ticket “show[s] some signs of being able and willing to profit from experience”.[103]

Israel–Palestine

Hitchens had said of himself, “I am an Anti-Zionist. I’m one of those people of Jewish descent who believes that Zionism would be a mistake even if there were noPalestinians.”[104]

A review of his autobiography Hitch-22 in The Jewish Daily Forward refers to Hitchens “at the time [that he had learned that his grandparents were Jews, he had been] a prominent anti-Zionist” and says that he viewed Zionism “as an injustice against the Palestinians”.[105] Others have commented on his anti-Zionism as well.[106] At other times for example speaking at 2nd annual Memorial for Daniel Pearl, and in print in an article for The Atlantic he had made comments against the terrorism against Jews in the Middle East. Hitchens stated “But the Jews of the Arab lands were expelled again in revenge for the de