Education

Robert Bork — Tempting of America — Videos

Posted on February 12, 2017. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Documentary, Education, Elections, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Freedom, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Rants, Raves, Supreme Court, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

~William Butler Yates

Image result for robert bork tempting america

Image result for robert bork tempting america

Image result for robert bork tempting america

time-bork

Robert Bork – Constitutional Precedent

Flashback: Ted Kennedy ‘Borking’ Bork (1987)

Judge Bork Judicial Activism

Thomas Sowell – Congressional Testimony

Published on May 31, 2013

From the Bork Confirmation Hearings, Thomas Sowell responds to Congressional questions regarding affirmative action, judicial activism and other issues. Orrin Hatch, Joe Biden, Howell Heflin, Gordon Humphrey. http://www.LibertyPen.com

Thomas Sowell – Robert Bork Hearings (1987)

Alito on Bork

Robert Bork: Supreme Court Nomination Hearings from PBS NewsHour and EMK Institute

ROBERT’S RULES OF ORDER: A Conversation with Robert Bork

Judicial Philosophy/Originalism-The Tempting of America: The Political Seduction of the Law

A Conversation with Judge Robert H. Bork 6-26-07

Friedrich von Hayek and Robert Bork Part I (U1009) – Full Video

Friedrich von Hayek and Robert Bork Part II (U1040) – Full Video

Friedrich von Hayek and Robert Bork Part III (U1051) – Full Video

“Slouching Towards Gomorrah” with Robert Bork

Robert Bork Interview on Nixon 2008

President Reagan’s Address to the Nation on the Nomination of Judge Bork, October 14, 1987

Bork’s Impact on the Confirmation Process

Supreme Court Justice says ‘Right to Privacy not in Constitution’

Robert Bork Supreme Court Nomination Process Hearings Day 1 Part 1 (1987)

Image result for robert bork tempting america

Why We’re Losing Liberty

Why I Left the Left

Why the Right is Right

Antonin Scalia and Stephen Breyer debate the Constitution

A Conversation on the Constitution: Judicial Interpretation Part 1 Volume 1

Uncommon Knowledge with Justice Antonin Scalia

Robert Bork

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Robert Bork
Robert Bork.jpg
Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
In office
February 9, 1982 – February 5, 1988
Appointed by Ronald Reagan
Preceded by Carl McGowan
Succeeded by Clarence Thomas
United States Attorney General
Acting
In office
October 20, 1973 – December 17, 1973
President Richard Nixon
Preceded by Elliot Richardson
Succeeded by William Saxbe
Solicitor General of the United States
In office
March 21, 1973 – January 20, 1977
President Richard Nixon
Gerald Ford
Preceded by Erwin Griswold
Succeeded by Daniel Friedman(Acting)
Personal details
Born Robert Heron Bork
March 1, 1927
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Died December 19, 2012 (aged 85)
Arlington, Virginia, U.S.
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Claire Davidson (1952–1980)
Mary Ellen Pohl (1982–2012)
Education University of Chicago(BA, JD)

Robert Heron Bork (March 1, 1927 – December 19, 2012) was an American judge and legal scholar who advocated the judicial philosophy of originalism. Bork served as a Yale Law School professor, Solicitor General, Acting Attorney General, and a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[1]

In 1987, President Ronald Reagannominated him to the Supreme Court, but the U.S. Senate rejected his nomination.

Bork is acclaimed also as an antitrust scholar, where his once-idiosyncratic view that antitrust law should focus on maximizing consumer welfare has come to dominate American legal thinking on the subject.[2]

Early career and family

Bork was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. His father was Harry Philip Bork, Jr. (1897–1974), a steel company purchasing agent, and his mother was Elisabeth (née Kunkle; 1898–2004), a schoolteacher.[3] His father was of German and Irish ancestry, while his mother was of Pennsylvania Dutch (German) descent.[4] He was married to Claire Davidson from 1952 until 1980, when she died of cancer. They had a daughter, Ellen, and two sons, Robert and Charles. In 1982 he married Mary Ellen Pohl,[5] a Catholic religious sister turned activist.[6]

Bork attended the Hotchkiss School in Lakeville, Connecticut[7] and earned bachelor’s and law degrees from the University of Chicago. While pursuing his bachelor’s degree he became a brother of the international social fraternity of Phi Gamma Delta. While pursuing his law degree he served on Law Review. At Chicago he was awarded a Phi Beta Kappa key with his law degree in 1953 and passed the bar in Illinois that same year. After a period of service in the United States Marine Corps, Bork began as a lawyer in private practice in 1954 at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP[8] in New York and then was a professor at Yale Law School from 1962 to 1975 and 1977 to 1981. Among his students during this time were Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Anita Hill, Robert Reich, Jerry Brown, John R. Bolton, Samuel Issacharoff, and Cynthia Estlund.[9][10]

Advocacy of originalism

Bork was best known for his theory that the only way to reconcile the role of the judiciary in the U.S. government against what he terms the “Madisonian” or “counter-majoritarian” dilemma of the judiciary making law without popular approval is for constitutional adjudication to be guided by the framers’ original understanding of the United States Constitution. Reiterating that it is a court’s task to adjudicate and not to “legislate from the bench,” he advocated that judges exercise restraint in deciding cases, emphasizing that the role of the courts is to frame “neutral principles” (a term borrowed from Herbert Wechsler) and not simply ad hoc pronouncements or subjective value judgments. Bork once said, “The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else.”[11]

Bork built on the influential critiques of the Warren Court authored by Alexander Bickel, who criticized the Supreme Court under Earl Warren, alleging shoddy and inconsistent reasoning, undue activism, and misuse of historical materials. Bork’s critique was harder-edged than Bickel’s, however, and he has written, “We are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.” Bork’s writings influenced the opinions of judges such as Associate JusticeAntonin Scalia and Chief JusticeWilliam Rehnquist of the U.S. Supreme Court, and sparked a vigorous debate within legal academia about how to interpret the Constitution.

Some conservatives criticized Bork’s approach. Conservative scholar Harry Jaffa criticized Bork (along with Rehnquist and Scalia) for failing to adhere to natural law principles.[12]Robert P. George explained Jaffa’s critique this way: “He attacks Rehnquist and Scalia and Bork for their embrace of legal positivism that is inconsistent with the doctrine of natural rights that is embedded in the Constitution they are supposed to be interpreting.”[12]

Antitrust scholar

At Yale, he was best known for writing The Antitrust Paradox, a book in which he argued that consumers often benefited from corporate mergers, and that many then-current readings of the antitrust laws were economically irrational and hurt consumers. He posited that the primary focus of antitrust laws should be on consumer welfare rather than ensuring competition, as fostering competition of companies within an industry has a natural built-in tendency to allow, and even help, many poorly run companies with methodologies and practices that are both inefficient and expensive to continue in business simply for the sake of competition, to the detriment of both consumers and society. Bork’s writings on antitrust law—with those of Richard Posner and other law and economics and Chicago School thinkers—were influential in causing a shift in the U.S. Supreme Court’s approach to antitrust laws since the 1970s.[13][14]

Solicitor General

Bork served as solicitor general in the U.S. Department of Justice from March 1973[15] to 1977. As solicitor general, Bork argued several high-profile cases before the Supreme Court in the 1970s, including 1974’s Milliken v. Bradley, where Bork’s brief in support of the State of Michigan was influential among the justices. Chief Justice Warren Burger called Bork the most effective counsel to appear before the court during his tenure. Bork hired many young attorneys as assistants who went on to have successful careers, including judges Danny Boggs and Frank H. Easterbrook as well as Robert Reich, later secretary of labor in the Clinton administration.

“Saturday Night Massacre”

On October 20, 1973, Solicitor General Bork was instrumental in the “Saturday Night Massacre“, U.S. President Richard Nixon‘s firing of WatergateSpecial ProsecutorArchibald Cox, following Cox’s request for tapes of his Oval Office conversations. Nixon initially ordered U.S. Attorney General, Elliot Richardson, to fire Cox. Richardson resigned rather than carry out the order. Richardson’s top deputy, Deputy Attorney GeneralWilliam Ruckelshaus, also considered the order “fundamentally wrong”[16] and also resigned, making Bork the Acting Attorney General. When Nixon reiterated his order, Bork complied and fired Cox, an act found illegal in November of that year in a suit brought by Ralph Nader. The Justice Department did not appeal the ruling, and because Cox indicated that he did not want his job back, the issue was considered resolved.[16] Bork remained Acting Attorney General until the appointment of William B. Saxbe on January 4, 1974.[17]

In his posthumously published memoirs, Bork stated that following the firings, Nixon promised him the next seat on the Supreme Court. Nixon was unable to carry out the promise after resigning in the wake of the Watergate scandal, but eventually, in 1987, Ronald Reagan nominated Bork for the Supreme Court.[18]

United States Circuit Judge

Bork was a circuit judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit between 1982 and 1988. He was nominated by President Reagan on December 7, 1981, was confirmed with a unanimous consent voice vote by the Senate on February 8, 1982,[19] and received his commission on February 9, 1982.

One of his opinions while on the D.C. Circuit was Dronenburg v. Zech, 741 F.2d 1388,[20] decided in 1984. This case involved James L. Dronenburg, a sailor who had been administratively discharged from the Navy for engaging in homosexual conduct. Dronenburg argued that his discharge violated his right to privacy. This argument was rejected in an opinion written by Bork and joined by Antonin Scalia, in which Bork critiqued the line of Supreme Court cases upholding a right to privacy.[20]

In rejecting Dronenburg’s suggestion for a rehearing en banc, the D.C. Circuit issued four separate opinions, including one by Bork (again joined by Scalia), who wrote that “no principle had been articulated [by the Supreme Court] that enabled us to determine whether appellant’s case fell within or without that principle.”[21]

In 1986, President Reagan considered nominating Bork to the Supreme Court vacancy created by the promotion of Associate Justice William Rehnquist to Chief Justice. Reagan ultimately chose Bork’s D.C. Circuit colleague, Judge Antonin Scalia, for the position.

U.S. Supreme Court nomination

Bork (right) with President Ronald Reagan, 1987

President Reagan nominated Bork for Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on July 1, 1987 to replace Lewis Powell. A hotly contested United States Senate debate over Bork’s nomination ensued. Opposition was partly fueled by civil rights and women’s rights groups concerned with Bork’s opposition to the authority claimed by the federal government to impose standards of voting fairness upon the states (at his confirmation hearings for the position of Solicitor General, he supported the rights of Southern states to impose a poll tax),[22] and his stated desire to roll back civil rights decisions of the Warren and Burger courts. Bork was one of only three Supreme Court nominees, along with William Rehnquist and Samuel Alito, to ever be opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union.[23] Bork was also criticized for being an “advocate of disproportionate powers for the executive branch of Government, almost executive supremacy”,[16] most notably, according to critics, for his role in the Saturday Night Massacre.

Before Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell’s expected retirement on June 27, 1987, some Senate Democrats had asked liberal leaders to “form a ‘solid phalanx’ of opposition” if President Ronald Reagan nominated an “ideological extremist” to replace him, assuming it would tilt the court rightward.[24] Democrats also warned Reagan there would be a fight if Bork were nominated.[25] Nevertheless, Reagan nominated Bork for the seat on July 1, 1987.

Following Bork’s nomination to the Court, Sen. Ted Kennedy took to the Senate floor with a strong condemnation of Bork declaring:

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy … President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.[26][27]

Bork responded, “There was not a line in that speech that was accurate.”[28] In an obituary of Kennedy, The Economist remarked that Bork may well have been correct, “but it worked.”[28] Bork also contended in his best-selling[29] book, The Tempting of America, that the brief prepared for Sen. Joe Biden, head of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “so thoroughly misrepresented a plain record that it easily qualifies as world class in the category of scurrility.”[30]

Television advertisements produced by People For the American Way and narrated by Gregory Peck attacked Bork as an extremist. Kennedy’s speech successfully fueled widespread public skepticism of Bork’s nomination. The rapid response to Kennedy’s “Robert Bork’s America” speech stunned the Reagan White House, and the accusations went unanswered for two and a half months.[31]

During debate over his nomination, Bork’s video rental history was leaked to the press. His video rental history was unremarkable, and included such harmless titles as A Day at the Races, Ruthless People, and The Man Who Knew Too Much. Writer Michael Dolan, who obtained a copy of the hand-written list of rentals, wrote about it for the Washington City Paper.[32] Dolan justified accessing the list on the ground that Bork himself had stated that Americans only had such privacy rights as afforded them by direct legislation. The incident led to the enactment of the 1988 Video Privacy Protection Act.[33]

To pro-choice rights legal groups, Bork’s originalist views and his belief that the Constitution does not contain a general “right to privacy” were viewed as a clear signal that, should he become a Justice on the Supreme Court, he would vote to reverse the Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Accordingly, a large number of groups mobilized to press for Bork’s rejection, and the resulting 1987 Senate confirmation hearings became an intensely partisan battle.

On October 23, 1987, the Senate denied Bork’s confirmation, with 42 Senators voting in favor and 58 voting against. Two Democratic Senators, David Boren (D-OK) and Ernest Hollings (D-SC), voted in his favor, with 6 Republican Senators (John Chafee (R-RI), Bob Packwood (R-OR), Arlen Specter (R-PA), Robert Stafford (R-VT), John Warner (R-VA), and Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-CT) voting against him.[34]

The vacant court seat Bork was nominated to eventually went to Judge Anthony Kennedy, who was unanimously approved by the Senate, 97–0.[35] Bork, unhappy with his treatment in the nomination process, resigned his appellate-court judgeship in 1988.[36]

Bork as verb

According to columnist William Safire, the first published use of bork as a verb was possibly in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution of August 20, 1987. Safire defines to bork by reference “to the way Democrats savaged Ronald Reagan’s nominee, the Appeals Court judge Robert H. Bork, the year before.”[37] Perhaps the best known use of the verb to bork occurred in July 1991 at a conference of the National Organization for Women in New York City. Feminist Florynce Kennedy addressed the conference on the importance of defeating the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying, “We’re going to bork him. We’re going to kill him politically … This little creep, where did he come from?”[38] Thomas was subsequently confirmed after one of the most divisive confirmation hearings in Supreme Court history.

In March 2002, the Oxford English Dictionary added an entry for the verb bork as U.S. political slang, with this definition: “To defame or vilify (a person) systematically, esp. in the mass media, usually with the aim of preventing his or her appointment to public office; to obstruct or thwart (a person) in this way.”[39]

There was an earlier usage of bork as a passive verb, common among litigators in the D.C. Circuit: to “get borked” was to receive a conservative judicial decision with no justification in the law, reflecting their perception, later documented in the Cardozo Law Review, of Judge Bork’s tendency to decide cases solely according to his ideology.[40]

Later work

Following his failure to be confirmed, Bork resigned his seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and was for several years both a professor at George Mason University School of Law and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, a Washington, D.C., based think tank. Bork also consulted for Netscape in the Microsoft litigation. Bork was a fellow at the Hudson Institute. He later served as a visiting professor at the University of Richmond School of Law and was a professor at Ave Maria School of Law in Ann Arbor, Michigan.[41] In 2011, Bork worked as a legal adviser for the presidential campaign of Republican Mitt Romney.[42]

Works and views

Bork wrote several books, including the two best-sellers The Tempting of America, about his judicial philosophy and his nomination battle, and Slouching Towards Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline, in which he argued that the rise of the New Left in the 1960s in the U.S. undermined the moral standards necessary for civil society, and spawned a generation of intellectuals who oppose Western civilization. Curiously, during the period these books were written, as well as most of his adult life, Bork was an agnostic, a fact used pejoratively behind the scenes by Southern Democrats when speaking to their evangelical constituents during his Supreme Court nomination process.

In The Tempting of America (page 82), Bork explained his support for the Supreme Court’s desegregation decision in Brown v. Board of Education:

By 1954, when Brown came up for decision, it had been apparent for some time that segregation rarely if ever produced equality. Quite aside from any question of psychology, the physical facilities provided for blacks were not as good as those provided for whites. That had been demonstrated in a long series of cases . . . The Court’s realistic choice, therefore, was either to abandon the quest for equality by allowing segregation or to forbid segregation in order to achieve equality. There was no third choice. Either choice would violate one aspect of the original understanding, but there was no possibility of avoiding that. Since equality and segregation were mutually inconsistent, though the ratifiers did not understand that, both could not be honored. When that is seen, it is obvious the Court must choose equality and prohibit state-imposed segregation. The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law, and equality, not separation, was written into the law.

In 1999, Bork wrote an essay about Thomas More and attacked jury nullification as a “pernicious practice”.[43] Bork once quoted More in summarizing his judicial philosophy.[44]

In 2003, he published Coercing Virtue: The Worldwide Rule Of Judges, an American Enterprise Institute book that includes Bork’s philosophical objections to the phenomenon of incorporating international ethical and legal guidelines into the fabric of domestic law. In particular, he focuses on problems he sees as inherent in the federal judiciary of three nations, Israel, Canada, and the United States—countries where he believes courts have exceeded their discretionary powers, and have discarded precedent and common law, and in their place substituted their own liberal judgment.

Bork also advocated modifying the Constitution to allow Congressional super-majorities to override Supreme Court decisions, similar to the Canadian notwithstanding clause. Though Bork had many liberal critics, some of his arguments have earned criticism from conservatives as well. Although an opponent of gun control,[45] Bork denounced what he called the “NRA view” of the Second Amendment, something he described as the “belief that the constitution guarantees a right to Teflon-coated bullets.” Instead, he argued that the Second Amendment merely guarantees a right to participate in a government militia.[46]

Bork converted to Catholicism in 2003.[47]

In October 2005, Bork publicly criticized the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.[48][49]

On June 6, 2007, Bork filed suit in federal court in New York City against the Yale Club over an incident that had occurred a year earlier. Bork alleged that, while trying to reach the dais to speak at an event, he fell, because of the Yale Club’s failure to provide any steps or handrail between the floor and the dais. (After his fall, he successfully climbed to the dais and delivered his speech.)[50] According to the complaint, Bork’s injuries required surgery, immobilized him for months, forced him to use a cane, and left him with a limp.[51] In May 2008, Bork and the Yale Club reached a confidential, out-of-court settlement.[52]

On June 7, 2007, Bork with several others authored an amicus brief on behalf of Scooter Libby arguing that there was a substantial constitutional question regarding the appointment of the prosecutor in the case, reviving the debate that had previously resulted in the Morrison v. Olson decision.[53]

On December 15, 2007, Bork endorsed Mitt Romney for President. He repeated this endorsement on August 2, 2011.

A 2008 issue of the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy collected essays in tribute to Bork. Authors included Frank H. Easterbrook, George Priest, and Douglas Ginsburg.

Death

Bork died of complications from heart disease at the Virginia Hospital Center in Arlington, Virginia, on December 19, 2012.[1][36][54] Following his death, Scalia referred to Bork as “one of the most influential legal scholars of the past 50 years” and “a good man and a loyal citizen”. Mike Lee, Senator from Utah, called Bork “one of America’s greatest jurists and a brilliant legal mind”.[55]

In popular culture

The look of the character Judge Roy Snyder on The Simpsons is modeled on Robert Bork.[56]

In the “cold open” scene from a season 13 episode of Saturday Night Live that parodied a scene from the film The Untouchables (film), President Reagan (Phil Hartman) brutally beats Robert Bork with a baseball bat.

Selected writings

See also

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

Originalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the context of United States constitutional interpretation, originalism is a way to interpret the Constitution‘s meaning as stable from the time of enactment, and which can only be changed by the steps set out in Article Five of the Constitution.[1] The term originated in the 1980s.[2] Originalism is based on formalist theory, and when applied to meaning, is closely related to textualism.

Today, originalism is popular among some political conservatives in the U.S., and is most prominently associated with Justice Clarence Thomas, 2017 Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, Justice Antonin Scalia, and Robert Bork. However, some liberals, such as late Justice Hugo Black and legal scholar Akhil Amar, have also subscribed to the theory.[3]

Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the “fixation thesis”—the notion that an utterance’s semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered.[4]Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning:

  • The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists.
  • The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. It is this view with which most originalists, such as Justice Scalia, are associated.

These theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with a constitution’s or statute’s ratification, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between these theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application.

Originalism and strict constructionism

Bret Boyce described the origins of the term originalist as follows: The term “originalism” has been most commonly used since the middle 1980s and was apparently coined by Paul Brest in The Misconceived Quest for the Original Understanding.[1] It is often asserted that originalism is synonymous with strict constructionism.[5][6][7][8]

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a firm believer in originalism

Both theories are associated with textualist and formalist schools of thought, however there are pronounced differences between them. Justice Scalia differentiated the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that he uses a cane means he walks with a cane (because, strictly speaking, this is not what he uses a cane means).[9] Scalia averred that he was “not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be”; he goes further, calling strict constructionism “a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute”.[10]

Originalism is a theory of interpretation, not construction.[11] However, this distinction between “interpretation” and “construction” is controversial and is rejected by many nonoriginalists as artificial. As Scalia said, “the Constitution, or any text, should be interpreted [n]either strictly [n]or sloppily; it should be interpreted reasonably”; once originalism has told a Judge what the provision of the Constitution means, they are bound by that meaning—however the business of Judging is not simply to know what the text means (interpretation), but to take the law’s necessarily general provisions and apply them to the specifics of a given case or controversy (construction). In many cases, the meaning might be so specific that no discretion is permissible, but in many cases, it is still before the Judge to say what a reasonable interpretation might be. A judge could, therefore, be both an originalist and a strict constructionist—but he is not one by virtue of being the other.

To put the difference more explicitly, both schools take the plain meaning of the text as their starting point, but have different approaches that can best be illustrated with a fictitious example.

Suppose that the Constitution contained (which it obviously does not) a provision that a person may not be “subjected to the punishments of hanging by the neck, beheading, stoning, pressing, or execution by firing squad“. A strict constructionist might interpret that clause to mean that the specific punishments mentioned above were unconstitutional, but that other forms of capital punishment were permissible. For a strict constructionist, the specific, strict reading of the text is the beginning and end of the inquiry.

For an originalist, however, the text is the beginning of the inquiry, and two originalists might reach very different results, not only from the strict constructionist, but from each other. “Originalists can reach different results in the same case” (see What originalism is not—originalism is not always an answer in and of itself, below); one originalist might look at the context in which the clause was written, and might discover that the punishments listed in the clause were the only forms of capital punishment in use at that time, and the only forms of capital punishment that had ever been used at the time of ratification. An originalist might therefore conclude that capital punishment in general, including those methods for it invented since ratification, such as the electric chair, are not constitutional. Another originalist may look at the text and see that the writers created a list. He would assume that the authors intended this to be an exhaustive list of objectionable executions. Otherwise, they would have banned capital punishment as a whole, instead of listing specific means of punishment. He would rule that other forms of execution are constitutional.

Note that originalists would agree that, if the original meaning of the text could be ascertained, that meaning governs. Where they disagree, as in this example, is about exactly how to find that meaning. For example, any originalist or even a strict constructionist might apply the canon of construction expressio unius est exclusio alterius, which presumes that when an author includes one example he intends to exclude others. If that canon is appropriate in the example here, all originalist interpreters would likely reach the same result. Contrast this with a “living constitutional” interpretation, which might find that, although the text itself only prohibits certain methods, those methods are examples of particularly unpleasant methods of execution; therefore, the text invites modern readers to extend its principle to those forms of punishment we now find particularly unpleasant.

Forms of originalism

Originalism is actually a family of related views. Originalism as a movement got off to a slow start in 1971, with Robert Bork’s Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems.[12] It was not until the 1980s, when conservative jurists began to take seats on the Supreme Court, that the debate really began in earnest. “Old originalism” focused primarily on “intent,” mostly by default. But that line was largely abandoned in the early 1990s; as “New originalism” emerged, most adherents subscribed to “original meaning” originalism, though there are some intentionalists within new originalism.

Original intent

Main article: Original intent

The original form of originalism is sometimes called intentionalism, or original intent originalism, and looked for the subjective intent of a law’s enactors. One problem with this approach is identifying the relevant “lawmaker” whose intent is sought. For instance, the authors of the U.S. Constitution could be the particular Founding Fathers that drafted it, such as those on the Committee of Detail. Or, since the Constitution purports to originate from the People, one could look to the various state ratifying conventions. The intentionalist methodology involves studying the writings of its authors, or the records of the Philadelphia Convention, or debates in the state legislatures, for clues as to their intent.

There are two kinds of intent analysis, reflecting two meanings of the word intent. The first, a rule of common law construction during the Founding Era, is functional intent. The second is motivational intent. To understand the difference, one can use the metaphor of an architect who designs a Gothic church with flying buttresses. The functional intent of flying buttresses is to prevent the weight of the roof from spreading the walls and causing a collapse of the building, which can be inferred from examining the design as a whole. The motivational intent might be to create work for his brother-in-law who is a flying buttress subcontractor. Using original intent analysis of the first kind, we can discern that the language of Article III of the U.S. Constitution was to delegate to Congress the power to allocate original and appellate jurisdictions, and not to remove some jurisdiction, involving a constitutional question, from all courts. That would suggest that the decision was wrong in Ex Parte McCardle.[13]

Problems with intentionalism

However, a number of problems are inherent in intentionalism, and a fortiori when that theory is applied to the Constitution. For example, most of the Founders did not leave detailed discussions of what their intent was in 1787, and while a few did, there is no reason to think that they should be dispositive of what the rest thought. Moreover, the discussions of the drafters may have been recorded; however they were not available to the ratifiers in each state. The theory of original intent was challenged in a string of law review articles in the 1980s.[14] Specifically, original intent was seen as lacking good answers to three important questions: whether a diverse group such as the framers even had a single intent; if they did, whether it could be determined from two centuries’ distance; and whether the framers themselves would have supported original intent.[15]

In response to this, a different strain of originalism, articulated by (among others) Antonin Scalia,[16] Robert Bork,[17] and Randy Barnett,[18] came to the fore. This is dubbed original meaning.

Original meaning

Main article: Original meaning

Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes argued that interpreting what was meant by someone who wrote a law was not trying to “get into his mind” because the issue was “not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used.”[19] This is the essential precept of modern Originalism.

The most robust and widely cited form of originalism, original meaning emphasizes how the text would have been understood by a reasonable person in the historical period during which the constitution was proposed, ratified, and first implemented. For example, economist Thomas Sowell[20] notes that phrases like “due process” and “freedom of the press” had a long established meaning in English law, even before they were put into the Constitution of the United States.” Applying this form involves studying dictionaries and other writings of the time (for example, Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England; see “Matters rendered moot by originalism”, infra) to establish what particular terms meant. See Methodology, infra).

Justice Scalia, one of the most forceful modern advocates for originalism, defined himself as belonging to the latter category:

The theory of originalism treats a constitution like a statute, and gives it the meaning that its words were understood to bear at the time they were promulgated. You will sometimes hear it described as the theory of original intent. You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist, and secondly an originalist. If you are a textualist, you don’t care about the intent, and I don’t care if the framers of the Constitution had some secret meaning in mind when they adopted its words. I take the words as they were promulgated to the people of the United States, and what is the fairly understood meaning of those words.[21]

Though there may be no evidence that the Founding Fathers intended the Constitution to be like a statute, this fact does not matter under Scalia’s approach. Adherence to original meaning is explicitly divorced from the intent of the Founders; rather, the reasons for adhering to original meaning derive from other justifications, such as the argument that the understanding of the ratifiers (the people of the several States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution) should be controlling, as well as consequentialist arguments about original meaning’s positive effect on rule of law.

Perhaps the clearest example to illustrate the importance of the difference between original intent and original understanding is to use the Twenty-seventh Amendment. The Twenty-seventh Amendment was proposed as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, but failed to be ratified by the required number of states for two centuries, eventually being ratified in 1992. An original intent inquiry might ask what the framers understood the amendment to mean when it was written, though some would argue that it was the intent of the latter-day ratifiers that is important. An original-meaning inquiry would ask what the plain, public meaning of the text was in 1992 when it was eventually ratified.

Semantic originalism

Semantic-originalism is Ronald Dworkin‘s term for the theory that the original meaning of many statutes implies that those statutes prohibit certain acts widely considered not to be prohibited by the statutes at the time of their passages. This type of originalism contrasts with expectations originalism, which adheres to how the statutes functioned at the times of their passages, without any expectation that they would function in any other particular ways.[22]

Justice Antonin Scalia and other originalists often claim that the death penalty is not “cruel and unusual punishment” because at the time of the Eighth Amendment‘s passage, it was a punishment believed to be neither cruel nor unusual. Dworkin and the semantic-originalists assert, however, that if advances in moral philosophy (presuming that such advances are possible) reveal that the death penalty is in fact “cruel and unusual”, then the original meaning of the Eighth Amendment implies that the death penalty is unconstitutional. All the same, Justice Scalia purported to follow semantic originalism, although he conceded that Dworkin does not believe Scalia was true to that calling.[23]

Framework originalism

Framework Originalism is an approach developed by Jack Balkin, a professor of law at Yale Law School. Framework Originalism, or Living Originalism, is a blend of primarily two constitutional interpretive methods: originalism and Living Constitution. Balkin holds that there is no inherent contradiction between these two, aforementioned, interpretive approaches—when properly understood. Framework Originalists view the Constitution as an “initial framework for governance that sets politics in motion.” This “framework” must be built-out or filled-out over time, successive generations, by the various legislative and judicial branches. This process is achieved, primarily, through building political institutions, passing legislation, and creating precedents (both judicial and non-judicial).[24] In effect, the process of building out the Constitution on top of the framework of the original meaning is living constitutionalism, the change of and progress of law over time to address particular (current) issues. The authority of the judiciary and of the political branches to engage in constitutional construction comes from their “joint responsiveness to public opinion” over long stretches of time, while operating within the basic framework of the original meaning. Balkin claims that through mechanisms of social influence, both judges and the political branches inevitably come to reflect and respond to changing social mores, norms, customs and (public) opinions.

According to Framework originalism, interpreters should adhere to the original meaning of the Constitution, but are not necessarily required to follow the original expected application (although they may use it to create doctrines and decide cases). For example, states should extend the equal protection of the laws to all peoples, in cases where it would not originally or normally be applied to. Contemporary interpreters are not bound by how people in 1868 would have applied these words and meanings to issues such as racial segregation or (sexual) discrimination, largely due to the fact the fourteenth amendment is concerned with such issues (as well as the fact that the fourteenth amendment was not proposed or ratified by the founders). When the Constitution uses or applies principles or standards, like “equal protection” or “unreasonable searches and seizures,” further construction is usually required, by either the judiciary, the executive or legislative branch. Therefore, Balkin claims, (pure, unadulterated) originalism is not sufficient to decide a wide range of cases or controversies. Judges, he posits, will have to “engage in considerable constitutional construction as well as the elaboration and application of previous constructions.” For example, originalism (in and of itself), is not sufficient enough to constrain judicial behavior. Constraint itself does not just come from doctrine or canons, it also comes from institutional, political, and cultural sources. These constraints include: multi-member or panel courts (where the balance of power lies with moderate judges); the screening of judges through the federal judicial appointment process; social and cultural influences on the judiciary (which keep judges attuned and attentive to popular opinions and the political will of the people); and prevailing professional legal culture and professional conceptions of the role of the judiciary (which produce social norms or mores). These constraints ensure that judges try to behave; to act as impartial arbiters of the law and to try to behave in a principled manner, as it applies to decision making.

Methodology

In “The Original Meaning of the Recess Appointments Clause”, Prof. Michael B. Rappaport described the methodology associated with the “Original Meaning” form of originalism as follows:

  • “The task is to determine the original meaning of the language … that is, to understand how knowledgeable individuals would have understood this language…when it was drafted and ratified. Interpreters at the time would have examined various factors, including text, purpose, structure, and history.”
  • “The most important factor is the text of the Clause. The modern interpreter should read the language in accord with the meaning it would have had in the late 1780s. Permissible meanings from that time include the ordinary meanings as well as more technical legal meanings words may have had.”
  • “If the language has more than one interpretation, then one would look to purpose, structure, and history to help to clarify the ambiguity. Purpose, structure, and history provide evidence for determining which meaning of the language the authors would have intended.”
    • “The purpose of a Clause involves the objectives or goals that the authors would have sought to accomplish in enacting it. One common and permissible way to discern the purpose is to look to the evident or obvious purpose of a provision. Yet, purpose arguments can be dangerous, because it is easy for interpreters to focus on one purpose to the exclusion of other possible purposes without any strong arguments for doing so.”
    • “Historical evidence can reveal the values that were widely held by the Framers’ generation and that presumably informed their purposes when enacting constitutional provisions. History can also reveal their practices, which when widely accepted would be evidence of their values.”
    • “The structure of the document can also help to determine the purposes of the Framers. The decision to enact one constitutional clause may reveal the values of the Framers and thereby help us understand the purposes underlying a second constitutional clause.”
  • “One additional source of evidence about the meaning of constitutional language is early constitutional interpretations by government officials or prominent commentators. …Such interpretations may provide evidence of the original meaning of the provisions, because early interpreters would have had better knowledge of contemporary word meanings, societal values, and interpretive techniques. Of course, early interpreters may also have had political and other incentives to misconstrue the document that should be considered.” (Id. at 5–7). Historians[who?] of course reject the last point, arguing that discerning original meaning requires access to many different evidence—such as statements from many people—that the people at the time did not have access to. Furthermore, most of the evidence that would clarify the original meaning has been lost—only fragments remain in the form of materials that were written down and happen to survive for hundreds of years[citation needed]. Whenever there is ambiguity there probably is also a paucity of evidence to resolve that ambiguity.

Discussion

Philosophical underpinnings

Originalism, in all its various forms, is predicated on a specific view of what the Constitution is, a view articulated by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison:

[T]he constitution organizes the government, and assigns to different departments their respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments.

The government of the United States is of the latter description. The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing; if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?

Originalism assumes that Marbury is correct: the Constitution is the operating charter granted to government by the people, as per the preamble to the United States Constitution, and its written nature introduces a certain discipline into its interpretation. Originalism further assumes that the need for such a written charter was derived from the perception, on the part of the Framers, of the abuses of power under the (unwritten) British Constitution, under which the Constitution was essentially whatever Parliament decided it should be. In writing out a Constitution which explicitly granted the government certain authorities, and withheld from it others, and in which power was balanced between multiple agencies (the Presidency, two chambers of Congress and the Supreme Court at the national level, and State governments of the United States with similar branches), the intention of the Framers was to restrain government, originalists argue, and the value of such a document is nullified if that document’s meaning is not fixed. As one author stated, “If the constitution can mean anything, then the constitution is reduced to meaninglessness.”[25]

Function of constitutional jurisprudence

Dissenting in Romer v. Evans, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote:

Since the Constitution of the United States says nothing about this subject, it is left to be resolved by normal democratic means, including the democratic adoption of provisions in state constitutions. This Court has no business imposing upon all Americans the resolution favored by the elite class from which the Members of this institution are selected.

This statement summarizes the role for the court envisioned by Originalists, that is, that the Court parses what the general law and constitution says of a particular case or controversy, and when questions arise as to the meaning of a given constitutional provision, that provision should be given the meaning it was understood to mean when ratified. Reviewing Steven D Smith’s book Law’s Quandary, Justice Scalia applied this formulation to some controversial topics routinely brought before the Court:

It troubles Smith, but does not at all trouble me—in fact, it pleases me—that giving the words of the Constitution their normal meaning would “expel from the domain of legal issues … most of the constitutional disputes that capture our attention”, such as “Can a macho military educational institution dedicated to what is euphemistically called the ‘adversative’ method admit only men? Is there a right to abortion? Or to the assistance of a physician in ending one’s life?” If we should read English as English, Smith bemoans, “these questions would seemingly all have received the same answer: ‘No law on that one.'”

That is precisely the answer they should have received: The federal Constitution says nothing on these subjects, which are therefore left to be governed by state law.[26]

In Marbury, Chief Justice Marshall established that the Supreme Court could invalidate laws which violated the Constitution (that is, judicial review), which helped establish the Supreme Court as having its own distinct sphere of influence within the Federal Government. However, this power was itself balanced with the requirement that the Court could only invalidate legislation if it was unconstitutional. Originalists argue that the modern court no longer follows this requirement. They argue that—since U.S. v. Darby, in which Justice Stone (writing for a unanimous Court) ruled that the Tenth Amendment had no legal meaning—the Court has increasingly taken to making rulings[27] in which the Court has determined not what the Constitution says, but rather, the Court has sought to determine what is “morally correct” at this point in the nation’s history, in terms of “the evolving standards of decency” (and considering “the context of international jurisprudence”), and then justified that determination through a “creative reading” of the text. This latter approach is frequently termed “the Living constitution“; Justice Scalia inveighed that “the worst thing about the living constitution is that it will destroy the constitution”.[28]

Matters rendered moot by originalism

Originalists are sharply critical of the use of the evolving standards of decency (a term which first appeared in Trop v. Dulles) and of reference to the opinions of courts in foreign countries (excepting treaties to which the United States is a signatory, per Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution) in Constitutional interpretation.

In an originalist interpretation, if the meaning of the Constitution is static, then any ex post facto information (such as the opinions of the American people, American judges, or the judiciaries of any foreign country) is inherently valueless for interpretation of the meaning of the Constitution, and should not form any part of constitutional jurisprudence. The Constitution is thus fixed and has procedures defining how it can be changed.

The exception to the use of foreign law is the English common law, which originalists regard as setting the philosophical stage for the US Constitution and the American common and civil law. Hence, an originalist might cite Blackstone‘s Commentaries to establish the meaning of the term due process as it would have been understood at the time of ratification.

What originalism is not

Originalism is not the theory of original intent

As discussed previously, original intent is only one theory in the Originalist family of theories. Many of the criticisms that are directed at original intent do not apply to other Originalist theories.

Originalism is not conservatism

It is not accurate to say that originalism rejects change or that originalists necessarily oppose the use of “the evolving standards of decency” in determining what the Constitution ought to say; rather, originalism rejects the concept that the courts should consider what the Constitution ought to say but instead rule solely on what it said as understood at the time of its enactment. Originalists argue that the business of determining what the Constitution and the law ought to say is within the purview of the Congress, that changes to the law should come through the legislature, and changes to the constitution should be made per the amendment process outlined in Article V. Sometimes this approach yields results that please conservatives (see, for example, Justice Scalia’s dissents in Roper v. Simmons or Romer), and sometimes it yields results that do not (see, for example, Justice Scalia’s dissents in BMW v. Gore or Hamdi v. Rumsfeld).

Originalism is not always an answer in and of itself

Originalism is a means of constitutional interpretation, not constitutional construction; whenever “to describe [a] case is not to decide it”,[29] it can only serve as a guide for what the Constitution says, not how that text applies to a given case or controversy. Thus, Originalists can reach different results in the same case; see, for example, United States v. Fordice; McIntyre; Hamdi, Gonzales v. Raich; National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. v. Brand X Internet Services. According to an article in The New Republic, although Scalia admits that Thomas “is really the only justice whose basic approach to the law is the same as mine”, the author contends that “during the court’s 2003–2004 term, Scalia and Thomas voted together in only 73 percent of cases, and six other pairs of justices agreed with each other more often than Thomas and Scalia did.”[citation needed]

Pros and cons

Arguments for and against Originalism should be read in conjunction with alternative views and rebuttals, presented in footnotes.

Arguments favoring originalism

  • If a constitution no longer meets the exigencies of a society’s evolving standard of decency, and the people wish to amend or replace the document, there is nothing stopping them from doing so in the manner which was envisioned by the drafters: through the amendment process. The Living Constitution approach would thus only be valuable in the absence of an amendment process.
  • Originalism deters judges from unfettered discretion to inject their personal values into constitutional interpretation. Before one can reject originalism, one must find another criterion for determining the meaning of a provision, lest the “opinion of this Court [rest] so obviously upon nothing however the personal views of its members”.[30] Scalia has averred that “there is no other” criterion to constrain judicial interpretation.[31]
  • Originalism helps ensure predictability and protects against arbitrary changes in the interpretation of a constitution; to reject originalism implicitly repudiates the theoretical underpinning of another theory of stability in the law, stare decisis.
  • If a constitution as interpreted can truly be changed at the decree of a judge, then “[t]he Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please,” said Thomas Jefferson. Hence, the purpose of the constitution would be defeated, and there would be no reason to have one.
  • If a constitution is to be interpreted in light of the evolving standards of decency, why, in most democratic countries, should the highest authority of judicial branch (e.g., the Supreme Court in U.S.) be the ones to have the final say over its interpretation? Is not the legislative branch which is elected, thereby more likely to be in touch with the current standards of decency, and therefore better placed to make such judgments? If originalism is wrong, then Marbury v. Madison—which holding underpins judicial review of constitutionality, that is, the meaning of the constitution—was wrongly decided, and two centuries of jurisprudence relying on it is thereby on shaky ground.
  • Sometimes the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution is cited as an example by originalism critics to attack Originalism. Self-described originalists have been at least as willing as judges of other schools to give the Ninth Amendment no substantive meaning or to treat it as surplusage duplicative of the Tenth Amendment. Bork described it as a Rorshach blot and claimed that the courts had no power to identify or protect the rights supposedly protected by it. Scalia held similarly: “[T]he Constitution’s refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even afarther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” Troxel v. Granville 530 U.S. 57 (2000) (Scalia, J. Dissenting). Scalia’s interpretation renders the Ninth Amendment entirely unenforcable and moot, which is clearly contrary to its original intent. However, this is a criticism of specific originalists—and a criticism that they are insufficiently originalist—not a criticism of originalism. The theory of originalism as a whole is entirely compatible with the Ninth Amendment. Alternative theories of originalism have been argued by Randy Barnett that give the Ninth Amendment more practical effect than many other schools of legal thought do.
  • Contrary to critics of originalism, originalists do not always agree upon an answer to a constitutional question, nor is there any requirement that they have to. There is room for disagreement as to what original meaning was, and even more as to how that original meaning applies to the situation before the court. But the originalist at least knows what he is looking for: the original meaning of the text. Usually, that is easy to discern and simple to apply. Sometimes there will be disagreement regarding the original meaning; and sometimes there will be disagreement as to how that original meaning applies to new and unforeseen phenomena. How, for example, does the First Amendment of the U.S. constitution guarantee of “the freedom of speech” apply to new technologies that did not exist when the guarantee was codified—to sound trucks, or to government-licensed over-the-air television? In such new fields the Court must follow the trajectory of the First Amendment, so to speak, to determine what it requires, and that enterprise is not entirely cut-and-dried, but requires the exercise of judgment. But the difficulties and uncertainties of determining original meaning and applying it to modern circumstances are negligible compared with the difficulties and uncertainties of the philosophy which says that the constitution changes; that the very act which it once prohibited it now permits, and which it once permitted it now forbids; and that the key to that change is unknown and unknowable. The originalist, if he does not have all the answers, has many of them.[32]
  • If the people come to believe that the constitution is not a text like other texts; if it means, not what it says or what it was understood to mean, but what it should mean, in light of the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society, they will look for qualifications other than impartiality, judgment, and lawyerly acumen in those whom they elect to interpret it. More specifically, they will look for people who agree with them as to what those evolving standards have evolved to; who agree with them as to what the constitution ought to be. If the courts are free to write the constitution anew, they will write it the way the majority wants; the appointment and confirmation process will see to that. This suggests the end of the Bill of Rights, whose meaning will be committed to the very body it was meant to protect against: the majority. By trying to make the constitution do everything that needs doing from age to age, we shall have caused it to do nothing at all.[32]

Arguments opposing originalism

  • If one is then to look at the interpretation (or, meaning), which inheres at the particular time period, the question becomes: why is that reading the essential one?. Or, restated, an essential reading, then, is owing to whom? Is it owing, then, to the meaning derived by the average person at that time? The collective intent of the voters who passed it? Or is it possible that they indeed entrusted the framers with the authority to draft the constitution; i.e., that the intent of the drafters should remain relevant? Originalism faces hermeneutic difficulties in understanding the intentions of the Founding Fathers, who lived 200 years ago (original intent), or the context of the time in which they lived (original meaning). Justice Scalia accepted this problem: “It’s not always easy to figure out what the provision meant when it was adopted…I do not say [originalism] is perfect. I just say it’s better than anything else”.[33]
  • Legal controversy rarely arises over constitutional text with uncontroversial interpretations. How, then, does one determine the original “meaning” of an originally broad and ambiguous phrase? Thus, originalists often conceal their choice between levels of generality or possible alternative meanings as required by the original meaning when there is considerable room for disagreement.
  • It could be argued (as, for example, Justice Breyer has) that constitutions are meant to endure over time, and in order to do so, their interpretation must therefore be more flexible and responsive to changing circumstances than the amendment process.
  • The Ninth Amendment is the exception in that it does establish a rule of constitutional interpretation (“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”). When interpreted using original intent or original meaning, it clearly protects rights which the founders had not thought to list explicitly—this could be interpreted as a direct rebuke to all Textualist or Formalist legal schools including originalism.
  • Originalism allows the dead hand of prior generations to control important contemporary issues to an extraordinary and unnecessary level of detail. While everyone agrees that broad constitutional principles should control, if the question is whether abortion is a fundamental right, why should past centuries-old intentions be controlling? The originalist’s distinction between original meaning and original intention here is unclear due to the difficulty of discussing meaning in terms of specific details that the Constitutional text does not clarify.
  • In writing such a broad phrase such as “cruel and unusual”, it is considered implausible by some that the framers intended for its very specific meaning at that time to be permanently controlling. The purpose of phrases such as “cruel and unusual,” rather, is specifically not to specify which punishments are forbidden, but to create a flexible test that can be applied over future centuries. Stated alternatively, there is no reason to think the framers have a privileged position in making this determination of what is cruel and unusual; while their ban on cruel punishment is binding on us, their understanding of the scope of the concept “cruel” need not be.
  • If applied scrupulously, originalism requires the country either to continually reratify the Constitution in order to retain contemporary standards for tests such as “cruel and unusual punishment” or “unreasonable searches and seizures,” or to change the language to specifically state that these tests shall be administered according to the standards of the society administering the test. Critics of originalism believe that the first approach is too burdensome, while the second is already inherently implied.
  • Originalists often argue that, where a constitution is silent, judges should not read rights into it. Rights implicating abortion, sex and sexual orientation equality, and capital punishment are often thus described as issues that the Constitution does not speak to, and that hence should not be recognized by the judiciary. However, the Ninth Amendment provides that “[t]he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people”. Original intent thus calls for just the opposite of what the text of the Constitution and original intent of the founders arguably affirm, creating an inconsistency in the practice of at least one branch of Originalism. The subsequent Tenth Amendment, detailing non-enumerated rights as the sole property of the states and the people, is often cited as the clarification for this inconsistency and the reason why the federal courts have no say in affirming or denying said rights per the Ninth Amendment. Another example is the centrality of the concept of “Person” to the Constitution and the fact that any claim by originalists such as Bork, Scalia, or Thomas that the Constitution does not speak to human rights and gender equality a fortiori reflects a judicial effort to legislate meaning into the term Person; for example, Justice Scalia’s assertion that women’s equality is entirely up to the political branches[34] ignores the use of the term “Person” rather than “Man” in the Constitution, and the common meaning of the term at the time,[35] and instead interprets the Constitution to say that only heterosexual men and male fetuses are “Persons” thus reading silence into the Constitution on a matter on which it is not silent for the purpose of narrowing the Constitution’s meaning. The device of “originalism” is thus used to replace the original intent, the original meaning, and the text itself with Justice Scalia’s subjective view or desires.

Arguments against some of the proponents of Originalism

  • Critics argue that originalism, as applied by its most prominent proponents, is sometimes pretext (or, at least, the “rules” of originalism are sometimes “bent”) to reach desired ends, no less so than the Living Constitution. For example, Prof. Jack Balkin has averred that neither the original understanding nor the original intent of the 14th Amendment is compatible with the result implicitly reached by the Originalist Justices Thomas and Scalia in their willingness to join Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). Furthermore, while both Scalia and Thomas have objected on originalist grounds to the use of foreign law by the court (see, respectively, Thompson v. Oklahoma, 487 U.S. 815, 868 (1988), and Knight v. Florida, 528 U.S. 990 (1999)), both have allowed it to seep into their opinions at one time or another (see, respectively, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Committee, 514 U.S. 334, 381 (1995) and Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874, 904 (1994))

See also

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

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

The Case of Kermit Gosnell — Big Lie Media Did Not Really Cover The Kermit Gosnell Trial — Videos

Posted on January 30, 2017. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Books, College, Corruption, Crime, Drug Cartels, Education, Employment, Fraud, Homicide, Non-Fiction | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for Gosnell: The Untold Story of America's Most Prolific Serial Killer

Image result for kermit gosnell

Image result for kermit gosnell

New book details Kermit Gosnell’s grisly crimes

Ann Mcaleer and Phelim Mcaleer discuss their movie about Kermit Gosnell.

Published on Mar 3, 2015

Mike talks with film makers Ann McElhinney & Phelim Mcakeer about their documentary concerning the abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell and the atrocities he committed at his clinic. They discuss Gosnell’s trial and why the media was so quiet about it.

PJTV: ZoNation: Left-Wing Media Ignore the Gosnell House of Horrors

“See No Evil” – the case of Kermit Gosnell (45 minutes)

Doctor Kermit Gosnell’s ‘House of Horrors’ (Warning Very Graphic) Casa de horror

Dr. Kermit Gosnell Verdict: Guilty on three counts of first-degree murder (May 13, 2013)

‘Gosnell’ The Movie: Is America Ready for a Pro-Life Film?

Megyn Kelly’s heated debate with Kermit Gosnell’s attorney

Gosnell Trial – House of Horrors: Why The Media Has Avoided The Story

!!!Disturbing!!! MARK LEVIN on Abortion Dr. Kermit GUILTY Gosnell PLOPPED PARENTHOOD PLANNED

Gosnell 2010 interview

“Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer” Is A Disgusting, Disturbing Book. You Need To Read It.

Christine Rousselle

|
Posted: Jan 30, 2017 12:01 AM
"Gosnell: The Untold Story of America's Most Prolific Serial Killer" Is A Disgusting, Disturbing Book. You Need To Read It.

Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer manage to both grip the reader and utterly horrify them in their retelling of the trial of abortionist Kermit Gosnell. Gosnell is currently serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole. Officially, he was convicted of three counts of murder and one count of involuntary manslaughter, but his actual death toll is estimated to be in the hundreds, if not thousands. Through a technique described as “snipping,” Gosnell would sever the spinal cords of infants who survived his (illegal) late-term abortions to “ensure fetal demise.”

Imagine the most disgusting place possible–something straight out of an episode of Hoarders, or one of Stephen King’s more twisted works, perhaps. Gosnell’s clinic in Philadelphia was worse. Through interviews with police officers who initially busted the clinic for being a pill mill, former patients, and former clinic employees, McElhinney and McAleer manage to paint a vivid yet utterly disturbing picture of just how disgusting the conditions were at the office. Dirty, broken equipment. Disposable equipment being re-used. Bloodstains everywhere. Girls getting STDs from procedures. Unqualified staffers administering anesthesia. A pair of cats roaming around freely. Just when you think things can’t get any more disturbing, they somehow do. It’s a miracle more women weren’t killed.

Throughout the book, the major feeling conveyed is a sense of utter despair and confusion that this was allowed to happen for as long as it did. Thanks to regulations that were designed to ensure that women had easy access to safe abortion, the clinic was not inspected for a period of 17 years. Until the police raided the place in 2010 after a tip that Gosnell was supplying drug dealers with opiates, the clinic had last been inspected in 1993. To put things into comparison, nail salons in Pennsylvania are inspected at least every other year. Yet, nobody did anything about Gosnell’s clinic for nearly two decades–even after two women died after their abortions and another came very close to being a third. Nothing.

McElhinney and McAleer do an excellent job of describing the horrors of Gosnell’s crimes without being overly preachy. McElhinney has written about how she had previously been annoyed by pro-life activists, and her writing comes off as about as objective as a person can be when confronted with crimes of this magnitude. The authors do not shy away from graphic descriptions of both the scene and of Gosnell’s victims–even if the reader may prefer they do as such.

It’s important that the utter evil is confronted head on–which in the chapter Media Malpractice, the authors outline how this story was almost swept entirely under the rug. Their effort to correct this wrong culminated in this book, and in their upcoming film.

In short: This is the most disgusting, upsetting, and utterly disturbing book I’ve ever read. Yet, in order to prevent something like this from happening ever again, it’s one that absolutely needs to be read.

Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer is available on Amazon and wherever books are sold.

Kermit Gosnell

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kermit Gosnell
Born Kermit Barron Gosnell
February 9, 1941 (age 75)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S.
Criminal charge
  • State charges (Pennsylvania): First-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter (7 counts total)
  • Federal charges: Conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, distribution and aiding and abetting the distribution of oxycodone, and maintaining a place for the illegal distribution of controlled substances (12 counts total)
Criminal penalty Life without parole plus 30 years
Criminal status In custody at SCI Huntingdon
Spouse(s) Pearl Gosnell[1]
Children 6
Conviction(s) Convicted on 3 counts of first-degree murder, 1 count involuntary manslaughter, pled guilty to federal charges
Killings
Victims Convicted on four state counts, hundreds of similar incidents reported
Country United States of America
State(s) Pennsylvania

Kermit Barron Gosnell (born February 9, 1941) is an American former abortion-provider[2] who was convicted of murdering three infants who were born alive during attempted abortion procedures.[3][4][5][6][7]

Gosnell owned and operated the Women’s Medical Society clinic in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and he was a prolific prescriber of OxyContin.[8] In 2011, Gosnell and various co-defendant employees were charged with eight counts of murder, 24 felony counts of performing illegal abortions beyond the state of Pennsylvania’s 24-week time limit, and 227 misdemeanor counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. The murder charges related to an adult patient, Karnamaya Mongar, who died following an abortion procedure, and seven newborns said to have been killed by having their spinal cords severed with scissors after being born alive during attempted abortions. In May 2013, Gosnell was convicted of first degree murder in the deaths of three of the infants and involuntary manslaughter in the death of Karnamaya Mongar. Gosnell was also convicted of 21 felony counts of illegal late-term abortion, and 211 counts of violating the 24-hour informed consent law. After his conviction, Gosnell waived his right to appeal in exchange for an agreement not to seek the death penalty. He was sentenced instead to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[9][10]

Background and early career

Kermit Gosnell was born on February 9, 1941, in Philadelphia, the only child of a gas station operator and a government clerk[11] in an African-American family.[12] He was a top student at the city’s Central High School from which he graduated in 1959.[13] Gosnell graduated from Dickinson College in Carlisle, PA with a bachelor’s degree.[14] Gosnell received his Medical Degree at the Jefferson Medical School in 1966.[13] It has been reported that he spent four decades practising medicine among the poor, including opening the Mantua Halfway House, a rehab clinic for drug addicts in the impoverished Mantua neighborhood of West Philadelphia near where he grew up, and a teen aid program.[13] He became an early proponent of abortion rights in the 1960s and 1970s and, in 1972, he returned from a stint in New York City to open up an abortion clinic on Lancaster Avenue in Mantua.[11][15] Gosnell told a Philadelphia Inquirer reporter in October 1972: “as a physician, I am very concerned about the sanctity of life. But it is for this precise reason that I provide abortions for women who want and need them”.[16]

In the same year, he also performed fifteen televised second-trimester abortions, using an experimental “Super Coil” method invented by Harvey Karman. The coils were inserted into the uterus, where they caused irritation leading to the expulsion of the fetus. However, complications from the procedure were reported by nine of the women, with three of these reporting severe complications.[17][18] The super coil experiment by Gosnell has been dubbed the “mother’s day massacre” by some.[19]

The 1972 Inquirer article also said that Gosnell was a “respected man” in his community, a finalist for the Junior Chamber of Commerce’s “Young Philadelphian of the Year” because of his work directing the Mantua Halfway House.[16] By the late 1980s, however, public records showed state tax liens were piling up against the halfway house, and the abortion clinic had a $41,000 federal tax lien.[16]

Gosnell has been married three times. His third and current wife, Pearl, had worked at the Women’s Medical Society as a full-time medical assistant from 1982 until their marriage in 1990.[1] They have two children; the younger, being a minor, is being cared for by friends[20] Gosnell has four other children from his two previous marriages.[20] In covering his background, media commentators drew attention to the “incredibly diverse” portrayals of Gosnell, touching on both his community works – the creation of a drugs halfway house and teen aid program – contrasted with portrayals of his practice as an alleged abortion mill in which viable fetuses and babies were routinely killed following illegal late-term procedures.[13]

Medical practice

In 2011, he was reported to be well known in Philadelphia for providing abortions to poor minority and immigrant women.[21] It was also claimed that Gosnell charged $1,600–$3,000 for each late-term abortion.[22] Dr. Gosnell was also associated with clinics in Delaware and Louisiana. Atlantic Women’s Services in Wilmington, Delaware, was Dr. Gosnell’s place of work one day a week. The owner of Atlantic Women’s Services, Leroy Brinkley, also owned Delta Clinic of Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and facilitated the hiring of staff from there for Gosnell’s operation in Philadelphia.[23]

Legal case

Known prior complaints

  • 1989 and 1993 – cited by Pennsylvania Department of Health for having no nurses in the recovery room.[24]
  • 1996 – censured and fined in both Pennsylvania and New York states, for employing unlicensed personnel.[24]
  • Around 1996 – Pediatrician Dr Schwartz – the former head of adolescent services at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and as of 2010, Philadelphia’s health commissioner – testified in the 2010 hearing that around 1996 or 1997, he had hand-delivered a letter of complaint about Gosnell’s practice to the Secretary of Health’s office and stopped referring patients to the clinic, but received no response.[25]
  • 2000 – Civil lawsuit filed on behalf of the children of Semika Shaw, who had called the clinic the day after an abortion to report heavy bleeding, and died 3 days later of a perforated uterus and a bloodstream infection. The case alleged that Gosnell had failed to tell her to return to the clinic or seek emergency medical care. It was settled out of court in 2002 for $900,000.[16][26]
  • Around 2001 – Gosnell claimed to be providing children’s vaccines under a program administered by the Health Department’s Division of Disease Control, but was repeatedly suspended for failing to maintain logs and for storing vaccines in unsanitary and inappropriate refrigerators, and at improper temperatures.[27]
  • December 2001 – ex-employee Marcella Choung gave what the Grand Jury would later call “a detailed written complaint” to the Pennsylvania Department of State, one which she followed up with an interview in March 2002.[28]
  • 2006 – Civil lawsuit filed by patient but dismissed as out of time. The complaint was that Gosnell had been unable to complete an abortion, but then apparently failed or refused to call paramedics or other clinical emergency personnel, after the patient had needed help. The patient reported, “I really felt like he was going to let me die.”[29]

In total during the course of his career, 46 known lawsuits had been filed against Gosnell over some 32 years.[30] Observers claimed that there was a complete failure by Pennsylvania regulators who had overlooked other repeated concerns brought to their attention, including lack of trained staff, “barbaric” conditions, and a high level of illegal late-term abortions.[31]

2010 raid

The Women’s Medical Society was raided on 18 February 2010 under a search warrant by investigators from the FBI and state police. The raid was the result of a months-long investigation by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Philadelphia Police Department, and the State’s Dangerous Drug-Offender Unit into suspected illegal drug prescription use at the practice. The investigation had also revealed the suspicious death of patient Karnamaya Mongar in 2009, which had in turn brought to light further information about unsanitary operations, use of untrained staff, and use of powerful drugs without proper medical supervision and control. Thus, when the February 2010 raid took place, staff from the Pennsylvania Department of State and Pennsylvania Department of Health also attended, as these issues were under their remit:[32]

When the team members entered the clinic, they were appalled, describing it to the Grand Jury as ‘filthy,’ ‘deplorable,’ ‘disgusting,’ ‘very unsanitary, very outdated, horrendous,’ and ‘by far, the worst’ that these experienced investigators had ever encountered. There was blood on the floor. A stench of urine filled the air. A flea-infested cat was wandering through the facility, and there were cat feces on the stairs. Semi-conscious women scheduled for abortions were moaning in the waiting room or the recovery room, where they sat on dirty recliners covered with blood-stained blankets. All the women had been sedated by unlicensed staff – long before Gosnell arrived at the clinic – and staff members could not accurately state what medications or dosages they had administered to the waiting patients. Many of the medications in inventory were past their expiration dates… surgical procedure rooms were filthy and unsanitary… resembling ‘a bad gas station restroom.’ Instruments were not sterile. Equipment was rusty and outdated. Oxygen equipment was covered with dust, and had not been inspected. The same corroded suction tubing used for abortions was the only tubing available for oral airways if assistance for breathing was needed…”[33]

[F]etal remains [were] haphazardly stored throughout the clinic– in bags, milk jugs, orange juice cartons, and even in cat-food containers… Gosnell admitted to Detective Wood that at least 10 to 20 percent… were probably older than 24 weeks [the legal limit]… In some instances, surgical incisions had been made at the base of the fetal skulls. The investigators found a row of jars containing just the severed feet of fetuses. In the basement, they discovered medical waste piled high. The intact 19-week fetus delivered by Mrs. Mongar three months earlier was in a freezer. In all, the remains of 45 fetuses were recovered … at least two of them, and probably three, had been viable.”[33]

Gosnell’s license to practice was suspended on 22 February 2010,[34] and these and other findings were presented to a Grand Jury on 4 May 2010. Public discussion focused on claims of unsanitary conditions and other unacceptable conditions at the practices. Media reports stated that furniture and blankets were stained with blood, freely roaming cats deposited their feces wherever they pleased, and that non-sterilized equipment was used and reused on patients.[35][36][37][38] According to the grand jury report, patients were given labor-inducing drugs by staff who had no medical training. Once labor began, the patient would be placed on a toilet. After the fetus fell into the toilet, it would be fished out, so as not to clog the plumbing. In the recovery room, patients were seated on dirty recliners covered in blood-stained blankets.[39] Prosecutors alleged that Gosnell had not been certified in either gynecology or obstetrics.[30] The Grand Jury estimated that Gosnell’s practice “took in $10,000 to $15,000 a night” additional to income from his exceedingly high level of prescriptions.[40]

2011 arrest

Gosnell was arrested on January 19, 2011, five days after the certification of the Grand Jury’s report. He was charged with eight counts of murder.[41] Prosecutors alleged that he killed seven babies born alive by severing their spinal cords with scissors, and that he was also responsible for the death in 2009 of Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan,[42] who died in his care. Gosnell’s wife, Pearl, and eight other suspects were also arrested in connection with the case.[1][42][43] The Drug Enforcement Administration, The Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Office of the Inspector General also sought a 23-count indictment charging Gosnell and seven members of his former staff with drug conspiracy, relating to the practice’s illegally prescribing highly-addictive painkillers and sedatives outside the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.

  • The third degree murder charge relates to Karnamaya Mongar; according to prosecutors, Gosnell’s staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers. Gosnell’s lawyer asserts that Karnamaya Mongar also had in her system other drugs that did not come from Gosnell’s clinic, and that none of the infants were born alive.[44] The claim was rejected by the Grand Jury, based upon expert testimony that “it was the overdose of Demerol, not some mystery pill, that killed Mrs. Mongar.”[45]
  • The seven other murder charges are all of first degree murder; they relate to babies, whom staff have testified they saw move or cry after complete birth, and whose deaths are alleged to have resulted from subsequent lethal action. They arise because of the “born alive rule“, a principle of common law which stipulates that by default, for legal purposes, personhood arises – and therefore unlawful killing constituting murder becomes possible – immediately upon the victim’s being born alive (several US states as well as Federal legislation have more specific laws to protect fetuses and newborn babies; see fetal rights and born alive laws in the United States). Steven Massof, a clinic employee who pleaded guilty to similar charges in 2011, testified that he (Massof) had snipped the spines of more than 100 infants after they had been born alive, and that this was considered “standard procedure” at the clinic; a number of other employees had also testified to the same point.[46] No physical evidence exists for five of the seven cases — charges are based on staff testimony and denied by Gosnell. A photograph exists of the sixth, who allegedly had a gestational age of 30 weeks, and the physical remains were obtained of the seventh.[44] The Grand Jury report states that “A medical expert with 43 years of experience in performing abortions was appalled. This expert told us, ‘I’ve never heard of it [cutting the spinal cord] being done during an abortion’.”[47]

The United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania also alleges that Gosnell’s former office staff at Family and Women’s Medical Society (WMS) ran a prescription “pill mill.” From June 2008 through February 18, 2010, Gosnell allegedly engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise by writing and dispensing fraudulent prescriptions for thousands of pills of the frequently-abused tablets OxyContin, Percocet, and Xanax, and the frequently-abused syrups Phenergan and Promethazine with Codeine. Authorities further allege that Gosnell and his staff allowed customers to purchase multiple prescriptions under multiple names. For the first office visit, Gosnell allegedly charged $115, but that increased around December 2009 when he allegedly increased the initial office visit fee to $150. Staff at the clinic went from writing several hundred prescriptions for controlled substances per month filled at pharmacies in 2008 to over 2,300 filled at pharmacies in January 2010. Gosnell, with the assistance of his staff, is said to have distributed and dispensed more than 500,000 pills containing oxycodone; more than 400,000 pills containing alprazolam; and more than 19,000 ounces of cough syrup containing codeine.[48]

Gosnell’s lawyer states that “Everybody’s made him the butcher, this, that and the other thing without any trial, without anything being exposed to the public and everybody’s found him guilty, that’s not right”.[49] He accused the government of a “lynching” and stated, “This is a targeted, elitist and racist prosecution of a doctor who’s done nothing but give (back) to the poor and the people of West Philadelphia.”[44]

Cases cited in the media

Examples of cases cited in the media include:

  • Girl age 15, accompanied by relative (1998): said to have told Gosnell she changed her mind about the abortion once inside the practice. Gosnell allegedly got upset, ripped off the patient’s clothing, and forcibly restrained her. The patient later stated that Gosnell told her “This is the same care that I would give to my own daughter.” She regained consciousness 12 hours later at her aunt’s home, the abortion having been completed against her will.[42][50]
  • Woman age 28, five months pregnant (2001): Patient described the pain four days after abortion as being so bad she could barely walk. The patient described that upon returning to the clinic because of the pain, ultrasound showed fetal remains left inside her uterus, and that Gosnell suctioned these out without anesthesia.[51] “I was just laying on the table and crying and I just asked the Lord to get me through it.”[42]
  • Fifteen-year-old (undated): damages awarded in court upon a finding that Gosnell performed an abortion on a fifteen-year-old without parental permission.[42]
  • Karnamaya Mongar, a 41-year-old refugee from Bhutan (2009): according to prosecutors, Gosnell’s staff gave the 90-pound woman a lethal dose of anesthesia and painkillers during a 2009 abortion (this is the adult whose death is charged as third degree murder). During Gosnell’s trial, a toxicologist testified to unsafe levels of the drug, and the chair of Anesthesiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical School testified that the dose received by her was “outrageous” and “most” average adults would have stopped breathing if dosed in the manner described.[52] Gosnell’s lawyer asserts that Karnamaya Mongar also had other drugs in her system that did not come from Gosnell’s clinic, and that none of the infants were born alive.[44]

Lack of government oversight

Reports state that state officials had failed to visit or inspect Gosnell’s practices since 1993.[43] The grand jury report noted that the medical examiner of Delaware County alerted the Pennsylvania Department of Health that Gosnell had performed an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old who was thirty weeks pregnant;[53] it is also claimed the Pennsylvania Department of Health did not act when they became aware of Gosnell’s involvement in the death of Karnamaya Mongar.[53]

Brenda Green, executive director of CHOICE, a nonprofit that connects the underinsured and uninsured with health services, told Katha Pollitt of The Nation that “it tried to report complaints from clients, but the department wouldn’t accept them from a third party. Instead, the patients had to fill out a daunting five-page form, available only in English, that required them to reveal their identities upfront and be available to testify in Harrisburg. Even with CHOICE staffers there to help, only two women agreed to fill out the form, and both decided not to submit it. The Department of State and the Philadelphia Public Health Department also had ample warning of dire conditions and took no action.”[53]

In 2011, it was reported that none of Pennsylvania’s 22 abortion clinics had been inspected by the government for more than 15 years.[54] Inspections (other than those triggered by complaints) had ceased under Ridge’s governorship, as they were perceived to create a barrier to women seeking abortion services.[55]

Grand Jury report

The grand Jury published its 280-page report in January 2011. It stated that, while some might see the issue and case through the lens of pro- and anti-abortion politics, it was in reality:

not about that controversy; it is about disregard of the law and disdain for the lives and health of mothers and infants. We find common ground in exposing what happened here, and in recommending measures to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.[56]

The grand jury concluded that the practice was a corrupt organization within the meaning of racketeering law, based upon what it considered evidence of deliberate “standard” use of “bogus” doctors, falsification of records, grossly unprofessional procedures with little or no regard for human life, and flagrant disregard for medical and abortion laws and their consequences. Key findings included:

Practice conditions and procedures

  • Extreme unsanitary conditions (resulting in cases of STDs and sepsis); pervasive non-sterile conditions; blood stained materials and instruments; contamination of the facilities by animal feces, urine, and other noxious fluids and waste; and months-old fetal remains stored in “jars, bags and jugs”[57] (in 2013 the trial heard that Gosnell had also been in dispute with his medical waste company, with the latter stopping their services);[58]
  • Surgical malpractice including perforation of bodily organs and “on at least two occasions” death;[56]
  • Improper equipment and usage, including repeated reuse (“over and over”) of disposable supplies, and “generally broken” life-saving and monitoring equipment (including blood pressure monitoring, oximeters, and defibrillators);[59]
  • Padlocked emergency access and exit routes;[59]
  • Lack of properly trained staff, “bogus doctors”[60] — unqualified, unlicensed and unsupervised staff who misrepresented themselves to patients as qualified licensed clinicians — and no qualified nurses.[61] The jury reported that “Most of Gosnell’s employees who worked with patients had little or no remotely relevant training or education”[62] (ex-employee Marcella Choung, who in 2001 and at interview in 2002 gave a detailed written complaint to the Pennsylvania Department of State, testified that her ‘training’ for anesthesia consisted of “a 15-minute description by Gosnell and reading a chart he had posted in a cabinet.”)[63]
  • Gosnell himself was largely absent and left the clinic to be operated by his unqualified employees, whom he sometimes “ordered” to perform medical actions even if they “protested” that they were unqualified. Employees testified they had to rely on themselves, as “Gosnell disliked it when workers disturbed him by calling for medication advice”;[64]
  • Operation of a “prescription treadmill” whereby blank signed prescriptions would be left for those seeking controlled medications, unsupervised and uncontrolled by a practitioner (which was the subject of a parallel and separate Federal investigation);[59]
  • Willful non-compliance with laws intended to safeguard vulnerable women, including non-compliance with requirements for mandatory counseling, consent (for minors), waiting periods (between visiting and surgery);[65]
  • Fraudulent temporary employment of a nurse for 4 days during an NAF inspection, with the aim of deceiving the inspectors into believing that his practice staff included a licensed registered nurse (which it did not); over the few days of their on-site review, the nurse resigned upon realizing the fraud, which also involved Gosnell taking her paycheck back afterwards and paying her in cash instead;[66]
  • Fraudulent recording of gestational age and training of staff to manipulate ultrasound in a way that would match the stated number of weeks;[67]
  • Dishonest statements by Gosnell and employees to investigators, including claims that Ms. Mongar’s death was due to her own action (discredited forensically), falsification and destruction of records, and lying about the manner of her death and Gosnell’s (lack of) presence for anesthesia;[68]
  • Patients given labor and delivery inducing drugs during the day, then left waiting until late evening for Gosnell to attend or for surgery.[69] Many gave birth during the day as a result, and employees testified “it was standard procedure for women to deliver fetuses – and viable babies – into toilets” while waiting for his arrival.[70]
  • Practice staff routinely delivered living babies in the third trimester, subsequently killing them (or ensuring their death).[56] As part of this, fetuses and babies had their demise “ensured” post-operatively by severing of the spinal cord with scissors, known by staff as “snipping”. Most of these were deemed infeasible to prosecute because files and other evidence were not held, although the report stipulates they numbered in the “hundreds”. Among the “few cases” where tangible evidence existed, the jury noted a boy aged 30 weeks at 6 pounds; a frozen body in a water container of “at least” 28 weeks; remains of at least one abortion of over 32 weeks for which an extra $1000 had been demanded; testimony of a baby heard to make noise; and a baby left “moving and breathing for at least 20 minutes” prior to “snipping”. The jury heard testimony about “special” Sunday sessions, at which only Gosnell and his wife were present, which the jury suspected (and in some cases was able to corroborate) would include cases that were more advanced in time, or more disturbing;[71]
  • Over time, Gosnell and his practice acquired a “bad reputation” and during the decade 2000–9, local community organizations ceased referring patients there. To compensate, the practice took on referrals from other in-state cities; it became understood that Gosnell’s center would perform abortions “at any stage, without regard for legal limits”;[72]
  • Where induced labor failed, Dr Gosnell would attempt to abort surgically, “often calamitous[ly]” for the woman involved. Example outcomes included:[73]
    • Woman “left lying in place for hours after Gosnell tore her cervix and colon“; relatives called police after entrance refused, remedial colon surgery required.
    • Woman sent home with fetal remains unremoved, “serious infection” led to near death.
    • Punctured uterus leading to shock from blood loss and hysterectomy; woman “held for hours” by the practice.
    • Patient suffered “convulsions” and fell off the operating table, sustaining a head injury, Gosnell “wouldn’t call an ambulance, and wouldn’t let the woman’s companion leave the building so that he could call an ambulance”
    • Sedation used to mute sounds of pain; Gosnell specified pre-set amounts of drugs for non-physician staff to use on patients, but without reference to individual needs, and without records or monitoring of condition. On numerous occasions, the same patient was dosed multiple times in quick succession by different employees;[74]
    • Death of Karnamaya Mongar, who received “repeated unmonitored, unrecorded intravenous injections of Demerol” (meperidine hydrochloride, an opioid analgesic which the report describes practice staff using as a cheap but dangerous sedative), and ceased breathing. Staff were unable to revive her (emergency medications were not used and the defibrillator was not working), and paramedics were unable to revive her after gaining access, in part because they were deceived by staff as to what had happened and the drugs and dosages responsible.

Government and third-party handling

  • Gosnell’s practice was “caught by accident” during a raid for illegal drugs prescribing. State officials had been invited to attend the raid as well, since preparations for the drugs raid had revealed prior reports and information suggesting grossly substandard practise conditions at the clinic;[75]
  • Pennsylvania Department of Health failed to regulate properly and failed to ensure that the issues noticed were addressed on the few occasions around 1990 that Gosnell was inspected; and ceased inspections “for political reasons” (to reduce a perceived deterrent) at the time Tom Ridge took office as Governor of the State;[76]
  • Inspections were still to continue if complaints were received, yet repeated complaints did not trigger an investigation; the department’s response came after media exposure;[76]
  • The Department of State’s Board of Medicine, which licenses and oversees physicians, had “more damning information than anyone else”, including a description of the practice by an ex-employee (Choung) a decade previously (2001 and again 2002), as well as knowledge of at least one of the serious incidents cited of surgical malpractice, but took verbal assurances from Gosnell and no other effective or substantial investigative action was taken over these;[77]
  • Department of Public Health employees “regularly” visited the practice but had not adequately reported the issues present. One inspection confirmed “numerous violations of protocols for storage and disposal of infectious waste” but no follow-up occurred;[78]
  • A “health department representative” visiting for a vaccination program in 2009 “discovered that Gosnell was scamming the program” and “was able to file detailed reports identifying many of the most egregious elements of Gosnell’s practice.” Her attempts to raise concerns were ignored; the Grand Jury report states “her reports went into a black hole”;[79]
  • Other third parties had knowledge, but took no visible action. These included the pediatrician and subsequent head of the city’s health department, Dr Schwartz, who around 1996–97, reported concerns about the practice, concerns on which no action was taken, and who did not himself act after being promoted, University of Pennsylvania hospital and Penn Presbyterian Medical Center who treated numerous surgical failures from Gosnell’s practice, including a “flagrantly illegal abortion”, but reported only one of them; the National Abortion Federation whose evaluator around 2009 noted “records were not properly kept, that risks were not explained, that patients were not monitored, that equipment was not available, that anesthesia was misused” and concluded “[i]t was the worst abortion clinic she had ever inspected”, but no report was made of this to any official body;[80]

Culpability

The report divided offences by Gosnell and other practice employees into three categories: “charges arising from the baby murders and illegal abortions; charges in connection with the death of Karnamaya Mongar; and charges stemming generally from the ongoing operation of a criminal enterprise“. The charges recommended were:[81]

  • Gosnell, Williams, Moton, and Massof – charged with first degree murder for the post-operative killings where evidence existed that the baby was born alive
  • Gosnell, Williams, Moton, Massof, and West – charged with conspiracy to commit murder in relation to “hundreds of unidentifiable instances” of post-operative killings (called “snipping” by staff). The jury also recommended charges of solicitation to commit murder by Gosnell.[47]
  • Gosnell and (as co-conspirators) Williams, West, and Gosnell’s wife – charged with various violations of the Abortion Control Act, including infanticide and illegal late-term abortions;
  • Gosnell, Williams, and West – charged with third-degree murder (Pennsylvania’s equivalent to reckless or voluntary manslaughter), drug delivery resulting in death, violations of the Controlled Substances Act and conspiracy in regard to the death of Karnamaya Mongar. The report states: “Gosnell’s contempt for the law and his patients cost Karnamaya Mongar her life. Her death was the direct result of deliberate and dangerous conduct by Gosnell and his staff.”[82]
  • Gosnell, West, and Hampton – charged with hindering apprehension, and lying to the police, medical practitioners, and the grand jury about the circumstances of Mongar’s death (Hampton was also charged with perjury in the same matter);
  • Gosnell – recommended to be charged with abuse of corpses, in regards to the “mutilat[ion of] babies and fetuses by cutting off their feet” and the “bizarre” storage of parts of fetal bodies in around 30 jars and other containers at his practice; his explanation that this was done for possible paternity cases was “rejected out of hand”.[83]
  • The Grand Jury also concluded that “Illegality was so integral to the operation of the Women’s Medical Society that the business itself was a corrupt organization” (18 Pa.C.S. § 911, “based on a pattern of racketeering activity”):[84]
    • Gosnell, Williams, West, Moton, Joe, Baldwin, Gosnell’s wife, Massof, and O’Neill – charged with running that organization or conspiring to do so;
    • Massof and O’Neill – charged with theft by deception for pretending to be doctors, and billing for their services as if they were licensed physicians, and (with Gosnell) conspiracy to this effect;
    • Gosnell – charged with obstruction and tampering with evidence, for altering his patient files to hide illegality and for destroying or removing other files entirely;
    • Gosnell and Baldwin – charged with corrupting the morals of a minor, by hiring her 15-year-old daughter as a staff member, who was “required to work 50-hour weeks, starting after school until past midnight, during which she was exposed to the full horrors of Gosnell’s practice”.
  • Of Gosnell himself, the report concluded,

We believe, given the manner in which Gosnell operated, that he killed the vast majority of babies that he aborted after 24 weeks. We cannot, however, recommend murder charges for all of these cases. In order to constitute murder, the act must involve a baby who was born alive. Because files were falsified or removed from the facility and possibly destroyed, we cannot substantiate all of the individual cases in which charges might otherwise have resulted.”[85]

The report also examined the failings of official parties, and the key findings, analyzed in two categories:[86]

“Janice Staloski of the Pennsylvania Department of Health, who personally participated in the 1992 site visit, but decided to let Gosnell slide on the violations that were already evident then. She eventually rose to become director of the division that was supposed to regulate abortion providers, but never looked at Gosnell despite specific complaints from lawyers, a doctor, and a medical examiner. After she was nonetheless promoted, her successor as division director, Cynthia Boyne, failed to order an investigation of the clinic even when Karnamaya Mongar died there. Senior legal counsel Kenneth Brody insisted that the department had no legal obligation to monitor abortion clinics, even though it exercised such a duty until the Ridge administration, and exercised it again as soon as Gosnell became big news. The agency’s head lawyer, chief counsel Christine Dutton, defended the department’s indifference: ‘People die,’ she said.”

“Lawyers at the Pennsylvania Department of State behaved in the same fashion. Attorneys Mark Greenwald, Charles Hartwell, David Grubb, Andrew Kramer, William Newport, Juan Ruiz, and Kerry Maloney were confronted with a growing pile of disquieting facts about Gosnell, including a detailed, inside account from a former employee (Marcella Choung, 2001[87]), and a 22-year-old dead woman. Every time, though, they managed to dismiss the evidence as immaterial… until the facts hit the fan.”

Recommendations

  • The Department of Health should explicitly regulate and annually inspect abortion practices, and examine patient files, licenses, and equipment on-site;
  • Second-trimester abortions should be performed or supervised by doctors who are board-certified obstetrics and gynecology;
  • The Department of State “must repair its review process”, including easier reporting, confidentiality, post-investigation response, with cases automatically checked against past records, malpractice databases, and full past history;
  • Reports about individual doctors checked against reports of medical offices where they worked, and vice versa;
  • The Department of Public Health “should do at least as much to control infectious medical waste as it does to inspect swimming pools”;
  • The conclusions finished by examining the extent to which legislation had been inadequate, and the scope for legislative change, concluding that:[88]

Statutory changes are necessary as well. Infanticide and third-trimester abortion are serious crimes. The two-year statute of limitations currently applicable for these offenses is inadequate to their severity. The limitations period for late abortion should be extended to five years; infanticide, like homicide, should have none. Impersonating a physician is also a serious, and potentially very dangerous, act. Yet under current law it is not a crime at all. An appropriate criminal provision should be enacted. There may also be other statutory and regulatory revisions that we, as lay people, have not thought to consider. Legislative hearings may be appropriate to further examine these issues.[89]

Trial

In 2011, Gosnell, his wife Pearl, and eight other clinic employees were charged in the case.[90] Eight, including Gosnell’s wife, subsequently pleaded guilty, most of whom would testify against Gosnell,[91] and three of these pleaded guilty to third-degree murder, carrying a 20- to 40-year term.[91] A gag order was imposed on both defense and prosecution in April 2011, to bar them from talking to the media before the trial.[92] In December 2011 Pearl Gosnell pleaded guilty to performing illegal abortions, conspiracy, criminal conspiracy and corrupt organization;[93] due to spousal privilege, she will not have to testify against Gosnell, although she may still go to prison.[90] She had testified to the grand jury that she alone assisted on Sundays, and that her role was to “help do the instruments” in the procedure room and to monitor patients in the recovery room. Another employee testified that she assisted with late-term abortions “on Sundays or days we were closed [to] do special cases.”[94]

As a result, the only employee on trial with Gosnell is Eileen O’Neill, an employee who allegedly held herself out as a doctor at the clinic when she was not licensed. Her lawyer told jurors she never did so, and performed medical duties only under Gosnell’s orders.[44]

On March 18, 2013, opening statements were given in a Philadelphia court. On April 23, after the prosecution had rested its case, the judge dismissed three of the seven first-degree murder charges (the next day the judge reinstated charges related to one and dismissed another, explaining the wrong charge had been mistakenly dismissed[95][96]), the one count of infanticide, and all five charges of abusing a corpse Gosnell had been charged with, as well as six of the nine charges of theft by deception faced by O’Neill.[97] No formal ruling has yet been given for these dismissals. Media sources following the trial have suggested that there may have been insufficient evidence of post-procedure life to sustain charges in law. Although prosecutors had argued the movements were voluntary and therefore signs of life,[98][99] it was argued that the evidence offered by prosecutors were equally capable of being interpreted in some or all of these as single autonomous post-mortem motor movements or spasms instead of clinical signs of life, and additionally that none of the seven were capable of being alive as all had been previously killed clinically in utero by means of drugs as part of the procedure.[98][99] Also, although staff had used descriptions such as “jumping” and “screaming” in their testimony, Gosnell’s defense noted that testimony had shown only single movements or breaths, stating that the testimony was not evidence of “the movements of a live child”, and the medical examiner had also testified that tests could not determine whether or not any of the 47 fetuses found had been born alive due to tissue deterioration.[100][101][102]

The remaining four first-degree murder charges could still have led to the death penalty. The 3rd-degree murder charges in the death of Karnamaya Mongar, the racketeering charge, and over 200 charges related to multiple violations of abortion law were also left standing.[103][104] Gosnell’s defense attorney rested his case summarily without calling or questioning any witnesses, and without Gosnell taking the stand in his defense, leaving the defense case until final arguments (under US law, a defendant may choose not to take the stand; if so then the jury is instructed that no inference or assumption may be drawn from this).[105] O’Neill also did not testify in her defense.[95][105] The case went to jury deliberation on April 30, 2013.[106]

Defendants, related charges, verdicts and sentencing

Gosnell was charged with seven counts of first-degree murder (reduced to 4 counts at trial) and one count of third-degree murder, as well as infanticide (dismissed at trial), 5 counts of abusing a corpse (all dismissed at trial), multiple counts of conspiracy, criminal solicitation and violation of a state law that forbids abortions after the 24th week of pregnancy.[97][104][107] The non-murder charges included 24 counts of violating Pennsylvania’s Abortion Act by performing illegal third-trimester abortions, 227 counts of violating a 24-hour waiting-period requirement, failing to counsel patients, and racketeering.[104] His co-defendants were:

  • Steven Massof, a medical school graduate who lacked a license, pleaded guilty in November 2011 to two counts of 3rd-degree murder for the deaths of two babies who had been born alive.[108]
  • Pearl Gosnell, Kermit’s wife, was charged with abortion at 24 or more weeks, conspiracy and participating in a corrupt organization. She pleaded guilty to these charged on Dec. 13, 2011.[109][110] Pearl Gosnell was sentenced to 7 to 23 months in prison.[111]
  • Steven Massof and Eileen O’Neill, both medical school graduates without proper licensing to be doctors in Pennsylvania. Gosnell presented these employees as physicians and billed insurance companies more on this allegation. All three are charged with theft by deception for these acts.[112]
  • Kareema Cross, who testified at the state trial she had seen at least ten babies breathe after being aborted who were then killed, pleaded guilty to federal drug charges over improper distribution of pain medicine from Gosnell’s clinic.[113]

On May 13, 2013, the jury reported that they were deadlocked on two counts.[114] After returning to deliberations, the jury convicted Gosnell of 3 counts of murder, one count of involuntary manslaughter, and many lesser counts. He was found not guilty on one of the counts of murder.[115][116]

On May 14, 2013, Gosnell struck a deal with prosecutors in which he agreed to waive all his appeal rights regarding his conviction on the day earlier. In exchange, prosecutors allowed Gosnell to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.[117]

On May 15, 2013, Gosnell was sentenced to life in prison for the third child’s murder.[118]

Impact and aftermath

Other bodies and persons claiming to have made reports

In April 2011 the University of Pennsylvania Health System claimed as early as 1999 that they had provided to authorities reports about botched procedures by Gosnell. The only case for which any reports were produced was that of Semika Shaw, a 22-year-old, who died at the University of Pennsylvania hospital as a result of bleeding and sepsis caused by a botched procedure by Gosnell. Gosnell’s insurers settled a lawsuit with family members of Shaw for $900,000. The health system also claims other undocumented reports were made orally, for which they did not have records.[119]

Regulatory and legislative impact

The Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Committee of the Pennsylvania State Senate, led by Robert M. Tomlinson, began a hearing in February 2011 to look into the failure of the Pennsylvania Department of State — which is responsible for licensing doctors — to provide any oversight of Gosnell’s activities. At the same time, the Public Health and Welfare Committee of the state Senate, chaired by Pat Vance, conducted hearings on the Pennsylvania State Health Department’s failure to put a stop to Gosnell’s activities.[120]

In part as a result of the grand jury report on Gosnell, in late 2011, Pennsylvania passed a law, SB 732, that places abortion clinics under the same health and safety regulations as other outpatient surgical centers. Among those who supported the bill was Democrat Margo L. Davidson, whose cousin Semika Shaw died as a result of procedures done by Gosnell.[121][122] Davidson specifically linked her support for the additional regulations to her cousin’s death, which she attributed to poor medical practices.[123]

In May 2013, as a result of the Kermit Gosnell case, Representative Joe Pitts (R-Pennsylvania), chair of the health-matters subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives‘ Energy and Commerce Committee, began an inquiry into states’ oversight of abortion clinics.[124]

In June 2013, the Republican-led U.S. House of Representatives passed the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. Speaker of the House John Boehner said the bill was in response to Gosnell’s convictions. The legislation was viewed as mostly symbolic, as it stood little chance of being approved by the Democratic-led U.S. Senate.[125][126][127]

Non-legislative actions resulting from the case

In February 2011 Pennsylvania Governor and former State Attorney General Tom Corbett fired six employees and commenced action to fire eight others where for legal or contractual reasons, more extensive dismissal procedures were required. These included Basil Merenda, the acting head of the Pennsylvania Department of State, Christine Dutton, the Department of Health’s chief counsel (who, in reaction to being questioned why the Department did not react to a death at Gosnell’s clinic, said “people die”), and Stacy Mitchell, a deputy secretary in the health department (whom the grand jury cited as a key figure in the Health Department’s indifference to, and non-regulation of, abortion clinics). Some of the people most connected by the grand jury report with the failure of the government to act, such as Janice Staloski, had retired by this point and so no action was taken against them.[128]

Civil cases

The family of Karnamaya Mongar has brought a wrongful death suit against Gosnell and sought to freeze his assets to prevent him from transferring them to other people to avoid paying.[129] As of April 2013 the suit is still pending.[130]

Media coverage and public reactions

Gosnell’s arrest has been the subject of much public comment[131] and expressions of condemnation and shock by senior public figures of all parties. Mayor Michael Nutter (D-PA) said, “I think it’s quite clear that, if these allegations are true, we’ve had a monster living in our midst” while vowing to watch the city’s remaining abortion clinics more closely.[132] Outgoing Governor Ed Rendell (D-PA) criticized Department of Health officials saying, “I was flabbergasted to learn that the Department of Health did not think their authority to protect public health extended to clinics offering abortion services”,[133] while incoming Governor Tom Corbett (R-PA) stated through a spokesperson that he was “appalled at the inaction on the part of the Health Department and the Department of State,”[134] and District Attorney of the city of Philadelphia R. Seth Williams said “My comprehension of the English language can’t adequately describe the barbaric nature of Dr. Gosnell… Pennsylvania is not a third-world country… There were several oversight agencies that stumbled upon and should have shut down Kermit Gosnell long ago.”[135]

Gosnell also practiced in other states, including Delaware. In January 2011, Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden (D-Delaware) promised a wide-ranging investigations into the abortions Gosnell performed in Delaware saying; “I’m disturbed by the allegations that were handed up by the grand jury in Philadelphia”.[136]

A spokesperson for the National Abortion Federation, an association of abortion providers, noted that Gosnell had been rejected for membership following inspection, because his clinics did not meet appropriate standards of care, but that “they’d cleaned the place up and hired an RN [registered nurse] for our visit. We only saw first-trimester procedures.”[53] She adding that “Unfortunately, some women don’t know where to turn. You sometimes have substandard providers preying on low-income women who don’t know that they do have other (safe) options.”[137] A spokesperson for Planned Parenthood in Southeastern Pennsylvania, condemned Gosnell, saying, “We would condemn any physician who does not follow the law or endangers anyone’s health… All women should have access to high-quality care when they are vulnerable and facing difficult decisions.”[138] Dayle Steinberg, CEO of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania, says she knew that Gosnell had provided abortions in Philadelphia for many years, but says she hadn’t heard of any problems at his clinic until the allegations surfaced.[139] She has been quoted as stating that “when Gosnell was in practice, women would sometimes come to Planned Parenthood for services after first visiting Gosnell’s West Philadelphia clinic, and would complain to staff about the conditions there. We would always encourage them to report it to the Department of Health.” [140] She clarified that “when Gosnell was arrested, I asked our staff if anyone had ever heard of him, and clinic staff members reported that a few women over the years said they were concerned about the uncleanliness of his facility and came to Planned Parenthood instead… if we had heard anything remotely like the conditions that have since come to light about Gosnell’s facility, of course we would have alerted the state and other authorities”.[141]

Kermit Gosnell himself gave an interview to Fox 29 in February 2011,[50] in which he stated that:

  • “I expect to be vindicated.”
  • [Regarding the allegations] “to tell you the truth, I hope to read them in 3 to 6 months […] because I have lived through negative publicity before.”
  • “It’s something I have personally experienced several times before where my surgical abilities have been challenged, where the choices that I have made have not always been perfect.”
  • “If you are not making mistakes, you are not really attempting to do something, so I think that my patients are aware that I do my very best by them.”
  • “The standard that I share with everyone that, I frequently say is that I provide the same care that I would provide my own daughter I feel.”
  • “I have a story to tell. […] my work to the community is of value.”
  • Gosnell reported that he received outpouring of support: “letters, I have gotten wonderful little messages of support, and confidence that I am a good person will prevail.”

Criticism of media coverage

A perception had built up among some journalists and pro-life groups that there had been a reluctance to report on the trial among mainstream media. In an April 11, 2013 opinion column for USA Today, Kirsten Powers wrote: “A Lexis-Nexis search shows none of the news shows on the three major national television networks has mentioned the Gosnell trial in the last three months”, and that national press coverage was represented by a Wall Street Journal columnist who “hijacked” a segment on Meet the Press, a single page A-17 story on the first day of the trial by The New York Times, and no original coverage by The Washington Post.[142]

While Kirsten Powers is credited by some for drawing media coverage to the Gosnell trial, Dave Weigel at Slate.com reported it was conservatives’ aggressive use of social media, especially Twitter, that “goaded” the press into covering the trial in Philadelphia. According to Weigel, Troy Newman, president of the Kansas-based pro-life Operation Rescue, had organized a Twitter campaign using “#Gosnell” to break the “Gosnell Media Blackout.” Key to that social media campaign was a picture of rows of empty media seats in the Gosnell courtroom taken by Calkins Media columnist J.D. Mullane.[143]

Mullane told Weigel he was struck by the absence of media at the trial, and took out his iPhone and snapped the picture, tweeting it later that night.

“Mullane retweeted the photo a few more times, with different captions, because it had been packed into a snowball (of criticism)” which included Powers’ column for USA Today, Weigel wrote. The empty seats photograph was used by pro-life activists to show “proof” of media dereliction. Weigel wrote: “It worked. An estimated 106,000 #Gosnell tweets later, on April 15, Mullane reported that major networks and newspapers had sent their reporters to cover the trial—Fox News, the New York Times, the Washington Post.”

Writing for The Washington Post, Melinda Henneberger responded that “we didn’t write more because the only abortion story most outlets ever cover in the news pages is every single threat or perceived threat to abortion rights. In fact, that is so fixed a view of what constitutes coverage of that issue that it’s genuinely hard, I think, for many journalists to see a story outside that paradigm as news. That’s not so much a conscious decision as a reflex, but the effect is one-sided coverage”. Explaining why some of her colleagues did not report on the story, Henneberger wrote, “One colleague viewed Gosnell’s alleged atrocities as a local crime story, though I can’t think of another mass murder, with hundreds of victims, that we ever saw that way. Another said it was just too lurid, though that didn’t keep us from covering Jeffrey Dahmer, or that aspiring cannibal at the NYPD.”[144] Writing for Bloomberg View, Jeffrey Goldberg said that this story “upsets a particular narrative about the reality of certain types of abortion, and that reality isn’t something some pro-choice absolutists want to discuss”.[145]

The Los Angeles Times,[146] The Atlantic,[147] Slate,[148] and Time[149] all published opinion columns where the writer thought the incident was not getting as much media coverage as it deserved. Megan McArdle explains that she didn’t cover it because it made her ill, but also how being pro-choice influenced writers saying “most of us tend to be less interested in sick-making stories if the sick-making was done by ‘our side,'” saying, “this story should have been covered much more than it was — covered as a national policy issue, not a ‘local crime story.'”[150] Martin Baron, The Post’s executive editor, claims he wasn’t aware of the story until Thursday, 11 April, when readers began emailing him about it, saying “I wish I could be conscious of all stories everywhere, but I can’t be”.[151] They ultimately decided that, in fact, the story warranted attention because of “the seriousness and scope of the alleged crimes and because this was a case that resonated in policy arguments and national politics”, adding “In retrospect, we regret not having staffed the trial sooner. But, as you know, we don’t have unlimited resources, and […] there is a lot of competition for our staff’s attention”.[151] He insisted that “we never decide what to cover for ideological reasons, no matter what critics might claim. Accusations of ideological motives are easy to make, even if they’re not supported by the facts”.[151] The New York Times also acknowledged the lack of coverage and reported on the online campaign and subsequent increase in coverage of the case.[152] While Powers’ piece clearly sparked debate among journalists, Katherine Bindley also highlights contrasting views,[153] as does Paul Farhi.[151] A column on Salon.com questioned whether the Gosnell case was an example of liberal media bias, saying that conservative media and politicians had also given little attention to the story until April 2013.[154]

In April 2013, 71 other Members of Congress joined Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in a letter condemning the media “blackout” on the Gosnell trial.[155][156]

Movie

In early 2014 filmmakers Ann McElhinney, Phelim McAleer, and Magdalena Segieda announced they will be producing a true crime drama film of the Gosnell crimes. Nick Searcy will direct and John Sullivan is executive producer.[157][158] The working title for the film is Gosnell: America’s Biggest Serial Killer.[159] The producers raised money for production of the movie on the crowdfunding site Indiegogo, receiving $2.3 million from backers.[160][161][162] Andrew Klavan has been hired to be the screenwriter for the movie.[163] Earl Billings will play Gosnell, and Dean Cain will play Detective James Wood.[164]

As well, the filmmakers wrote a book titled, Gosnell: The Untold Story of America’s Most Prolific Serial Killer. The book was released on January 24, 2017.[165][166] The book quickly rose to the number three spot on Amazon’s “Best Seller” list and number one on their “Hot New Releases” list. [167]

See also

Abortion related

Other

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

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

Harvey Molotch –Introduction to Sociology – Culture and Ethnocentrism – New York University — Videos

Posted on January 29, 2017. Filed under: Blogroll, College, College Courses Online Videos, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, media, People, Philosophy, Photos, Sociology, Sociology, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , |

Image result for Harvey Molotch

Image result for Harvey Molotch

Introduction to Sociology – Culture and Ethnocentrism – Part 1

Introduction to Sociology – Culture and Ethnocentrism – Part 2

Harvey Molotch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Harvey Luskin Molotch (born January 3, 1940) is an American sociologist known for studies that have reconceptualized power relations in interaction, the mass media, and the city. He helped create the field of environmental sociology and has advanced qualitative methods in the social sciences. In recent years, Molotch helped develop a new field—the sociology of objects. He is currently a professor of Sociology and of Metropolitan Studies at New York University.[1] His Introduction to Sociology is featured as one of NYU Open Education’s courses available to stream freely.[2] Other courses that he teaches include Approaches to Metropolitan Studies and Urban Objects. He is also affiliated with the graduate program in Humanities and Social Thought.[3]

Biography

Molotch was born Harvey Luskin in Baltimore, Maryland, where his family was in the retail car business on one side and the Luskin’s home appliance business on the other. His father, Paul Luskin, died in the Battle of the Bulge in 1944 during World War II. His mother remarried to Nathan Molotch. He received a B.A. in Philosophy from the University of Michigan (1963), with a thesis on John Dewey. He received an M.A. (1966) and Ph.D. (1968) in Sociology from the University of Chicago. He served in the U.S. Army, stationed in Maryland and Virginia, 1961-62.

He taught at the University of California, Santa Barbara from 1967 to 2003. He has also been a visiting professor at Stony Brook University, the University of Essex, and Northwestern University. In 1998-99 he was Centennial Professor at the London School of Economics.

His 1964 marriage to Linda Molotch ended with her death, by car accident, in 1976. The couple had two children, Shana (born 1969), now with two children and living in Northern California and Noah (born 1972), now with two children and living in Boulder Colorado where he is on faculty at University of Colorado as hydrological scientist, as well as research scientist at Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Molotch has lived with his domestic partner, Glenn Wharton, a conservator at the Museum of Modern Art and faculty member at New York University, since 1979.

Ideas

Racial Segregation: Rethinking “White Flight”

Molotch’s early work on “white flight” overturned conventional wisdom on neighborhood change, showing that normal mobility makes neighborhood racial change possible. When blacks constitute the bulk of those who move into the vacancies that result, racial change is made inevitable. The implication of this finding, based on Molotch’s systematic studies of matched neighborhoods (and since replicated by others on large data sets), was that it is the reluctance of whites to move into a changing neighborhood that makes racial integration so difficult to achieve. From a policy perspective, Molotch concluded that while stabilizing neighborhoods would not be easy,the focus needs to be on getting white people to replace the whites who are leaving, rather than talking people who are leaving into staying.

The Santa Barbara Oil Spill and Environmental Sociology

On January 28, 1969, there was a massive eruption of crude oil from Union Oil’s Platform A in the Santa Barbara Channel–an eruption which was to cover much of the coast line of two counties with oil. Molotch saw in this disaster a research opportunity. His article “Oil in Santa Barbara and Power in America” became a founding document of the new field of environmental sociology, and a key contribution to political sociology.

Molotch argued that accident research at the local level might be capable of revealing what political scientists called the “second face of power.” This is a dimension of power ordinarily ignored by traditional community studies which fail to concern themselves with the processes by which bias is mobilized and thus how issues rise and fall.

Molotch’s findings highlighted the extraordinary intransigence of national institutions in the face of local dissent, but more importantly, pointed out the processes and tactics which undermine that dissent and frustrate and radicalize the dissenters. Molotch called for comparable studies of the agriculture industry, the banking industry, and for more accident research at the local level, which might bring to light the larger social arrangements which structure the parameters of such local debate. In this way, research at the local level might serve as an avenue to knowledge about national power. Molotch ended, “Sociologists should be ready when an accident hits in their neighborhood, and then go to work.”

The Mass Media and the Social Construction Framework

Molotch helped introduce the social construction framework to the study of news media. Whereas news accounts had been treated, however critically, as “failed” representations of a presumed reality, Molotch and Marilyn Lester held that every account is a product of the social organization that goes into its production. In founding papers in the sociology of the mass media, Molotch and Lester applied the insights of ethnomethodology to the Santa Barbara oil spill and the way it was covered. They argued for an approach to the mass media which does not look for reality, but for practices of those having the power to determine the experience of others.

In addition, Molotch and Lester recognized that this social construction of the news had a crucial political component, a perspective later endorsed by such media sociologists as W. Lance Bennett. In normal times, Molotch and Lester said, the news is merely the ritualized presentation of the stories of powerful corporate and governmental organizations. Only in certain contexts does the veil of this ruling elite consensus get pushed aside to reveal other possible constructions of the facts. Molotch and Lester pointed to such disruptive contexts as scandals and accidents like the Santa Barbara Oil Spill, while Bennett pointed to significant social issues that break through the normally ritualized conflicts of the two political parties.

Molotch’s work has inspired studies of the social construction of news, of the particular ways that the content of presentation is contingent on the social setting of its production, including the occupational workplace of news professionals as well as the larger societal setting. His more recent work on mass media has included studies of war protest and the stock market.

The City as a Growth Machine

Molotch is probably best known for his book Urban Fortunes (1987, with John Logan), which won sociology’s most prestigious prize for scholarship in 1990. Urban Fortunes builds on Molotch’s 1976 classic paper, “The City as a Growth Machine.” In this body of work, Molotch took the dominant convention of studying urban land use and turned it on its head. The field of urban sociology (as well as urban geography, planning, and economics) was dominated by the idea that cities were basically containers for human action, in which actors competed among themselves for the most strategic parcels of land, and the real estate market reflected the state of that competition. Out of this competition were thought to come the shape of the city and the distribution of social types within it (e.g. banks in the center, affluent residents in the suburbs). Long established notions such as central place theory and the sectoral hypothesis were claims that are more or less “natural” spatial geography evolved from competitive market activity.

Molotch helped reverse the course of urban theory by pointing out that land parcels were not empty fields awaiting human action, but were associated with specific interests—commercial, sentimental, and psychological. Especially important in shaping cities were the real estate interests of those whose properties gain value when growth takes place. These actors make up what Molotch termed “the local growth machine” — a term now standard in the urban studies lexicon. From this perspective, cities need to be studied (and compared) in terms of the organization, lobbying, manipulating, and structuring carried out by these actors. The outcome—the shape of cities and the distribution of their peoples—is thus not due to an interpersonal market or geographic necessities, but to social actions, including opportunistic dealing. Urban Fortunes has influenced hundreds of national and international studies. A twentieth anniversary edition was issued by the University of California Press in 2007 with a new preface.

Other work

Molotch has also conducted a series of studies in conversation analysis on mechanisms such as gaps and silences in human conversation that reveal the way power operates at the micro-interactional level. This work includes a notable collaboration with Mitchell Duneier on talk between men on the street and women passersby. His research builds on writings of Don Zimmerman, Harvey Sacks, Gail Jefferson, and Emanuel Schegloff. Molotch was among the first to utilize ethnomethodology and conversation analysis in the study of traditional sociological topics, bridging what had been regarded as a highly esoteric and specialized approach to micro-sociology with mainstream, macro-level sociological issues such as hegemony and power.

More recently in Where Stuff Comes From, Molotch builds on the work of Howard S. Becker and Bruno Latour, to show how objects and physical artifacts are joint result of various types of actors, most particularly product designers operating within frameworks of technology, regulation, mass tastes, and corporate profits. While neo-Marxists and others have treated “commodity fetishism” as a signal of oppression, repression, and delusion, he uses goods to understand, in a more comprehensive way, just what makes production happen and how artifacts reveal larger social and cultural forces.

Honors and awards

  • Fred Buttel Distinguished Contribution Award, Section on Environment and Technology, American Sociological Association (2009)
  • Lifetime Career Achievement in Urban and Community Scholarship, American Sociological Association Urban and Community Studies Section (2003)
  • ASA Journal Article of the Year in Political Sociology (2001)
  • Robert E. Park Award of the American Sociological Association (1988) (Urban Fortunes)
  • Distinguished Scholarly Publication Award of the American Sociological Association (1990) (Urban Fortunes)
  • Scholar in Residence, Russell Sage Foundation, 2008-2009.
  • Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA (2000)
  • Resident Fellow, Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio Center, Como Italy (1999)
  • Stice Lecturer in the Social Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle (1996)
  • Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of Lund, Sweden (1995)

Selected publications

  • Toilet: The Public Restroom and the Politics of Sharing. [co-edited with Laura Noren] New York: New York University Press (2010).
  • Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York and London: Routledge (2003).
  • Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place. (With John Logan.) Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. 1987.
  • “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 82, No. 2 (Sep., 1976), pp. 309–332.
  • “News as Purposive Behavior: On the Strategic Use of Routine Events, Accidents, and Scandals,” American Sociological Review, Vol 39, No. 1 (Feb., 1974), pp. 101–112.
  • Managed Integration: Dilemmas of Doing Good in the City. Berkeley: University of California Press (1972).

References

Harvey Molotch

Professor of Social and Cultural Analysis , Sociology

Ph.D. 1968 (Sociology), M.A. 1966 (Sociology), University of Chicago; B.A. 1963 (Philosophy), University of Michigan.

Office Address:

295 Lafayette Street, 4th Floor
New York, NY 10012

Phone:

(212) 998-3542

Areas of Research/Interest:

Urban development and political economy; the sociology of architecture, design, and consumption; environmental degradation; mechanisms of interactional inequalities.

Fellowships/Honors:

PROSE Award (American Association of Publishers, 2012), Best book in sociology and social work, for Against Security.

Fred Buttel Distinguished Career Contribution to Sociology of Environment and Technology, (ASA Section on Environment and Technology).

Mirra Komarovsky Book Prize, for Where Stuff Comes From, Eastern Sociological Society, 2004.

Helen and Robert Lynd Award for Distinguished Career Achievement in Urban and Community Studies (2003).

Award for Distinguished Contribution to Sociological Scholarship (with John Logan) American Sociological Association (for Urban Fortunes, 1990).

Robert Park Award, Book of the Year in Urban and Community Studies (with John Logan) for Urban Fortunes, (1988).

2001 ASA Outstanding Journal Article of the Year in Political Sociology; Honorable mention, Robert Park Journal Paper Award, Urban and Community Studies Section, American Sociological Association (2000); Fellow, Center for Advanced Studies in the Behavioral Sciences, Stanford, CA (2000); Resident Fellow, Rockefeller Foundation, Bellagio Center, Como Italy (1999); Stice Lecturer in the Social Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle (1996); Distinguished Visiting Professor, University of Lund, Sweden (1995); Award for Distinguished Scholarly Contribution to Sociology, American Sociological Association (1990).

Against Security: How We Go Wrong at Airports, Subways and Other Sites of Ambiguous Danger. Princeton University Press, 2012; Paperback edition, 2014.

molotch_bookshot_2015_small.gif

 

 

 

 

 

 

Toilet: Public Restrooms and the Politics of Sharing (edited with Laura Noren). New York University Press, Fall 2010.

Where Stuff Comes From: How Toasters, Toilets, Cars, Computers and Many Other Things Come to Be as They Are. New York and London: Routledge, 2003.

“History Repeats Itself, but How?: City Character, Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place.” (with William Freudenburg and Krista Paulsen), American Sociological Review, vol. 65 (December: 791-823) 2000.

Urban Fortunes: The Political Economy of Place (with John Logan). Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press. 1987.

where-stuff-comes-from---co.gif

Updated on 10/22/2015
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Ann Swidler — Introduction to Sociology –University of California, Berkeley — Videos

Posted on January 29, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, College, College Courses Online Videos, Congress, Constitution, Culture, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, History of Economic Thought, Language, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Sociology, Sociology, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Image result for Ann Swidler sociologistsImage result for Ann SwidlerImage result for Ann Swidler

Sociology 1 – Lecture 1

Sociology 1 – Lecture 2

Sociology 1 – Lecture 3

Sociology 1 – Lecture 4

Lecture 5

Milgram Obedience Study

The Milgram Experiment 1962 Full Documentary

Milgram Experiment (Derren Brown)

Sociology 1 – Lecture 6

Sociology 1 – Lecture 7

Sociology 1 – Lecture 8

Sociology 1 – Lecture 9

Sociology 1 – Lecture 10

Sociology 1 – Lecture 11

Sociology 1 – Lecture 12

Sociology 1 – Lecture 13

Review Lecture

Midterm Exam

Sociology 1 – Lecture 14

Sociology 1 – Lecture 15

Sociology 1 – Lecture 16

Sociology 1 – Lecture 17

Sociology 1 – Lecture 18

Sociology 1 – Lecture 19

Sociology 1 – Lecture 20

Sociology 1 – Lecture 21

Sociology 1 – Lecture 22

Sociology 1 – Lecture 23

Sociology 1 – Lecture 24

Sociology 1 – Lecture 25

Sociology 1 – Lecture 26

Ann Swidler

Ann Swidler

Professor
Research Interests:
Culture, religion, theory, institutionalization, African responses to HIV/AIDS
Office:
444 Barrows
Curriculum Vitae:
Profile:

Ann Swidler (PhD UC Berkeley; BA Harvard) studies the interplay of culture and institutions. She asks how culture works–both how people use it and how it shapes social life. She is best known for her books Talk of Love, and the co-authored works Habits of the Heart and The Good Society, as well as her classic article, “Culture in Action: Symbols and Strategies” (American Sociological Review, 1986).  Her most recent book, Talk of Love: How Culture Matters (Chicago, 2001), examines how actors select among elements of their cultural repertoires and how culture gets organized “from the outside in” by Codes, Contexts, and Institutions. In the co-authored Habits of the Heart and The Good Society, she and her collaborators analyzed the consequences of American individualism for individual selfhood, community, and political and economic institutions. With colleagues from the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, she has been engaged in an ambitious project to understand the societal determinants of human health and well being.

Swidler’s current research is on cultural and institutional responses to the AIDS epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. Swidler’s research on AIDS Africa has led both to work on NGOs and the international response to the epidemic and to work on transactional sex, cultural barriers to condom use, and factors that have made the responses to the epidemic more successful in some African countries than in others. She is interested in how the massive international AIDS effort in sub-Saharan Africa–the infusion of money, organizations, programs and projects–interacts with existing cultural and institutional patterns to create new dilemmas and new possibilities. She is exploring these issues from two directions:

From the international side, she examines how the international AIDS effort is structured (who provides money to whom, how collaborative networks are structured, how programs get organized on the ground); why some interventions are favored over others; and what organizational forms international funders opt for.  From the African side, she is exploring why the NGO sector is more robust in some countries than others; when international AIDS efforts stimulate vs. impede or derail local efforts; and what organizational syncretisms sometimes emerge.

Swidler’s most recent work examines African religion and the institutions of African chieftaincy in order to understand the cultural and religious sources of collective capacities for social action.

Professor Swidler teaches sociology of culture, sociology of religion, and sociological theory. Her interests increasingly touch on political sociology, development, and sociology of science and medicine as well.

Representative Publications:

Books

  • 2001 Talk of Love: How Culture Matters (University of Chicago Press).
  • 2001 (eds.), Meaning and Modernity: Religion, Polity, Self (University of California Press). (with Madsen, Sullivan, Tipton)
  • 1996 Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth (Princeton University Press). (with Fischer, Hout, Jankowski, Lucas, and Voss)
  • 1991 The Good Society (Alfred A. Knopf). (with Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, and Tipton)
  • 1985 Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life (University of California Press). (with Bellah, Madsen, Sullivan, and Tipton)
  • 1979 Organization Without Authority: Dilemmas of Social Control in Free Schools (Harvard University Press).

Selected Articles and Chapters

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

David Horowitz — Radicals: Portraits of A Destructive Passion — Videos

Posted on January 22, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Culture, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Environment, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Political Correctness, Press, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Success, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Water | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for david horiwitz radicals: Portraits of a destructive passionImage result for david horiwitz Image result for david horiwitz

David Horowitz: Democratic Party is marching off the cliff

David Horowitz – Left Illusions: An Intellectual Odyssey

David Horowitz – The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama

Published on Jan 1, 2017

December 14, 2016 – David Horowitz’s speaks about his new book, The Left in Power: Clinton to Obama, which is volume 7 of The Black Book of the American Left, a multi-volume collection of his conservative writings that will, when completed, be the most ambitious effort ever undertaken to define the Left and its agenda.

Horowitz on Hillary Clinton and Saul Alinsky

In Depth with David Horowitz

David Horowitz discusses Radicals and who has influence over the media

David Horowitz – Unholy Alliance: Radical Islam and the American Left

A Most Excellent Explanation of the Left’s Takeover of America

David Horowitz – What The Left Believes

David Horowitz – Take No Prisoners: The Battle Plan for Defeating the Left

Rules for Radicals: What Constitutional Conservatives Should Know About Saul Alinsky

David Horowitz – The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America

David Horowitz interview on Charlie Rose (1997)

David Horowitz – Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (Part 1)

David Horowitz – Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey (Part 2)

The Black Book of the American Left: The Collected Conservative Writings of David Horowitz

Published on Nov 13, 2013

David Horowitz spent the first part of his life in the world of the Communist-progressive left, a politics he inherited from his mother and father, and later in the New Left as one of its founders. When the wreckage he and his comrades had created became clear to him in the mid-1970s, he left. Three decades of second thoughts then made him this movement’s principal intellectual antagonist. “For better or worse,” as Horowitz writes in the preface to this, the first volume of his collected conservative writings, “I have been condemned to spend the rest of my days attempting to understand how the left pursues the agendas from which I have separated myself, and why.”

David Horowitz – Progressive Racism

David Horowitz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For other people named David Horowitz, see David Horowitz (disambiguation).
David Horowitz
David Horowitz by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Horowitz in February 2011
Born David Joel Horowitz
January 10, 1939 (age 78)
Forest Hills, Queens, New York, U.S.
Occupation Conservative activist, writer
Nationality United States
Education MA, University of California at Berkeley
BA, Columbia University
Spouse Elissa Krauthamer (1959–19??; 4 children); Sam Moorman (divorced); Shay Marlowe (1990–?; divorced); April Mullvain Horowitz (current)
Children Jonathan Daniel
Ben Horowitz
Anne Pilat
Sarah Rose Horowitz (deceased)[1]

David Joel Horowitz (born January 10, 1939) is an American conservative writer. He is a founder and current president of the think tank the David Horowitz Freedom Center; editor of the Center’s publication, FrontPage Magazine; and director of Discover the Networks, a website that tracks individuals and groups on the political left. Horowitz founded the organization Students for Academic Freedom to oppose what he believed to be political correctness and leftist orientation in academia.[2]

He has written several books with author Peter Collier, including four on prominent 20th-century American political families that had members elected to the presidency. He and Collier have collaborated on books about current cultural criticism. Horowitz has also worked as a columnist for Salon; its then-editor Joan Walsh described him as a “conservative provocateur.”[3]

Horowitz was raised by parents who were members of the Communist Party USA during the Great Depression; they gave up their membership in 1956 after learning of Joseph Stalin‘s purges and abuses. From 1956–75, Horowitz was an outspoken adherent of the New Left. He later rejected leftism completely and has since become a leading proponent of conservatism. Horowitz has recounted his ideological journey in a series of retrospective books, culminating with his 1996 memoir Radical Son: A Generational Odyssey.

Family background

Horowitz is the son of Phil and Blanche Horowitz, who were high school teachers. His father taught English and his mother taught stenography.[4] During years of labor organizing and the Great Depression, Phil and Blanche Horowitz were long-standing members of the American Communist Party and strong supporters of Joseph Stalin. They left the party after Khrushchev published his report in 1956 about Stalin’s excesses and terrorism of the Soviet populations.[5][6]

According to Horowitz:

Underneath the ordinary surfaces of their lives, my parents and their friends thought of themselves as secret agents. The mission they had undertaken, and about which they could not speak freely except with each other, was not just an idea to them. It was more important to their sense of themselves than anything else they did. Nor were its tasks of a kind they could attend or ignore, depending on their moods. They were more like the obligations of a religious faith. Except that their faith was secular, and the millennium they awaited was being instituted, at that moment, in the very country that had become America’s enemy. It was this fact that made their ordinary lives precarious and their secrecy necessary. If they lived under a cloud of suspicion, it was the result of more than just their political passions. The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima had created a terror in the minds of ordinary people. Newspapers reported on American spy rings working to steal atomic secrets for the Soviet state. When people read these stories, they inevitably thought of progressives like us. And so did we ourselves. Even if we never encountered a Soviet agent or engaged in a single illegal act, each of us knew that our commitment to socialism implied the obligation to commit treason, too.[7]

After the death of Stalin in 1953, his father Phil Horowitz, commenting on how Stalin’s numerous official titles had to be divided among his successors, told his son, “You see what a genius Stalin was. It took five men to replace him.”[8] According to Horowitz:

The publication of the Khrushchev Report was probably the greatest blow struck against the Soviet Empire during the Cold War. When my parents and their friends opened the morning Times and read its text, their world collapsed—and along with it their will to struggle. If the document was true, almost everything they had said and believed was false. Their secret mission had led them into waters so deep that its tide had overwhelmed them, taking with it the very meaning of their lives.[6]

Horowitz received a BA from Columbia University in 1959, majoring in English, and a master’s degree in English literature at University of California, Berkeley.[citation needed]

Career with the New Left

After completing his graduate degree in the late 1960s, Horowitz lived in London and worked for the Bertrand Russell Peace Foundation.[9][10] He identified as a serious Marxist intellectual.

In 1966, Ralph Schoenman persuaded Bertrand Russell to convene a war crimes tribunal to judge United States involvement in the Vietnam War.[11] Horowitz would write three decades later that he had political reservations about the tribunal and did not take part. He described the tribunal’s judges as formidable, world-famous and radical, including Isaac Deutscher, Jean-Paul Sartre, Stokely Carmichael, Simone de Beauvoir, James Baldwin, and Vladimir Dedijer.[12]

While in London, Horowitz became a close friend of Deutscher, and wrote a biography of him which was published in 1971.[13][14] Horowitz wrote The Free World Colossus: A Critique of American Foreign Policy in the Cold War. In January 1968, Horowitz returned to the United States, where he became co-editor of the New Left magazine Ramparts, based in northern California.[10]

During the early 1970s, Horowitz developed a close friendship with Huey P. Newton, founder of the Black Panther Party. Horowitz later portrayed Newton as equal parts gangster, terrorist, intellectual, and media celebrity.[10] As part of their work together, Horowitz helped raise money for, and assisted the Panthers with, the running of a school for poor children in Oakland. He recommended that Newton hire Betty Van Patter as bookkeeper; she was then working for Ramparts. In December 1974, Van Patter’s body was found floating in San Francisco Harbor; she had been murdered. Horowitz has said he believes the Panthers were behind the killing.[10][15]

In 1976, Horowitz was a “founding sponsor” of James Weinstein‘s magazine In These Times.[16]

Writing on the Right

Following this period, Horowitz rejected Marx and socialism, but kept quiet about his changing politics for nearly a decade. In the spring of 1985, Horowitz and longtime collaborator Peter Collier, who had also become conservative, wrote an article for The Washington Post Magazine entitled “Lefties for Reagan“, later retitled as “Goodbye to All That”. The article explained their change of views and recent decision to vote for a second term for Republican President Ronald Reagan.[17][18][19] In 1986, Horowitz published “Why I Am No Longer a Leftist” in The Village Voice.[20]

In 1987, Horowitz co-hosted a “Second Thoughts Conference” in Washington, D.C., described by Sidney Blumenthal in The Washington Post as his “coming out” as a conservative. According to attendee Alexander Cockburn, Horowitz related how his Stalinist parents had not permitted him or his sister to watch the popular Doris Day and Rock Hudson movies of his youth. Instead, they watched propaganda films from the Soviet Union.[21]

In May 1989, Horowitz, Ronald Radosh, and Peter Collier travelled to Poland for a conference in Kraków calling for the end of Communism.[22] After marching with Polish dissidents in an anti-regime protest, Horowitz spoke about his changing thoughts and why he believed that socialism could not create their future. He said his dream was for the people of Poland to be free.[23]

In 1992, Horowitz and Collier founded Heterodoxy, a monthly magazine focused on exposing what it described as excessive political correctness on United States college and university campuses. It was “meant to have the feel of a samizdat publication inside the gulag of the PC [politically correct] university.” The tabloid was directed at university students, whom Horowitz viewed as being indoctrinated by the entrenched Left in American academia.[24] He has maintained his assault on the political left to the present day. Horowitz wrote in his memoir Radical Son that he thought universities were no longer effective in presenting both sides of political arguments. He thought “left-wing professors” had created a kind of “political terror” on campuses.[25]

In a column in Salon magazine, where he is regularly published,[3] Horowitz described his opposition to reparations for slavery. He believed that it represented racism against blacks, as it defined them only in terms of having descended from slaves. He argues that applying labels like “descendants of slaves” to blacks was damaging and would serve to segregate them from mainstream society.[26]

In keeping with his provocateur position, in 2001 during Black History Month Horowitz purchased, or attempted to purchase, advertising space in several student American university publications to express his opposition to reparations for slavery.[3] Many student papers refused to sell him ad space; at some schools, papers which carried his ads were stolen or destroyed.[3][26] Editor Joan Walsh of Salon wrote that the furor had given Horowitz an overwhelming amount of free publicity.[3][27]

Horowitz supported the interventionist foreign policy associated with the Bush Doctrine. But he wrote against US intervention in the Kosovo War, arguing that it was unnecessary and harmful to U.S. interests.[28][29]

In the early 21st century, he has written critically of libertarian anti-war views.[30][31]

In 2004, Horowitz launched Discover the Networks, a conservative watchdog project that monitors funding for, and various ties among, leftists and progressive causes.[2]

In two books, Horowitz accused Dana L. Cloud, associate professor of communication studies at the University of Texas at Austin, as an “anti-American radical” who “routinely repeats the propaganda of the Saddam regime.”[citation needed] Horowitz accused her and 99 other professors listed in his book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, of the “explicit introduction of political agendas into the classroom.”[32]

Cloud replied in Inside Higher Ed that her experience demonstrates that Horowitz damages professors’ lives by his accusations and that he needs to be viewed as more than a political opponent.

Horowitz’s attacks have been significant. People who read the book or his Web site regularly send letters to university officials asking for her to be fired. Personally, she has received—mostly via e-mail—”physical threats, threats of removing my daughter from my custody, threats of sexual assaults, horrible disgusting gendered things,” she said. That Horowitz doesn’t send these isn’t the point, she said. “He builds a climate and culture that emboldens people,” and as a result, shouldn’t be seen as a defender of academic freedom, but as its enemy.[33]

After discussion, the National Communication Association decided against granting Horowitz a spot as a panelist at its national conference in 2008. He had offered to forego the $7,000 speaking fee originally requested. He wrote in Inside Higher Ed, “The fact that no academic group has had the balls to invite me says a lot about the ability of academic associations to discuss important issues if a political minority wants to censor them.”[33] An association official said the decision was based in part on Horowitz’s request to be provided with a stipend for $500 to hire a personal bodyguard. Association officials decided that having a bodyguard present “communicates the expectation of confrontation and violence.”[33]

Horowitz appeared in Occupy Unmasked, a 2012 documentary portraying the Occupy Wall Street movement as a sinister organization formed to violently destroy the American government.[34]

Academic Bill of Rights

In the early 21st century, Horowitz has concentrated on issues of academic freedom, wanting to protect conservative viewpoints. He, Eli Lehrer, and Andrew Jones published a pamphlet, “Political Bias in the Administrations and Faculties of 32 Elite Colleges and Universities” (2004), in which they find the ratio of Democrats to Republicans at 32 schools to be more than 10 to 1.[35]

Horowitz’s book, The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America (2006), criticizes individual professors for, as he alleges, engaging in indoctrination rather than a disinterested pursuit of knowledge. He says his campaign for academic freedom is ideologically neutral.[36] He published an Academic Bill of Rights (ABR), which he proposes to eliminate political bias in university hiring and grading. Horowitz says that conservatives, and particularly Republican Party members, are systematically excluded from faculties, citing statistical studies on faculty party affiliation.[37] Critics such as academic Stanley Fish have argued that “academic diversity”, as Horowitz defines it, is not a legitimate academic value, and that no endorsement of “diversity” can be absolute.[38]

In 2004 the Georgia General Assembly passed a resolution on a 41–5 vote to adopt a version of the ABR for state educational institutions.[39]

In Pennsylvania, the House of Representatives created a special legislative committee to investigate issues of academic freedom, including whether students who hold unpopular views need more protection. In November 2006 it reported that it had not found evidence of problems [clarification needed] with students’ rights.[40][41][42][43][44][45]

Family

Horowitz has been married four times. He married Elissa Krauthamer, in a Yonkers, New York synagogue on June 14, 1959.[46] They had four children together: Jonathan Daniel, Ben, Sarah Rose (deceased), and Mrs. Anne Pilat. Their daughter Sarah Rose Horowitz died in March 2008 at age 44 from Turner syndrome-related heart complications. She had been a teacher, writer and human rights activist.[1][47] She is the subject of Horowitz’s 2009 book, A Cracking of the Heart.[47]

As an activist, she had cooked meals for the homeless, stood vigil at San Quentin on nights when the state of California executed prisoners, worked with autistic children in public schools and, with the American Jewish World Service, helped rebuild homes in El Salvador after a hurricane, and traveled to India to oppose child labor.[48] In a review of Horowitz’s book, FrontPage magazine associate editor David Swindle wrote that she fused “the painful lessons of her father’s life with a mystical Judaism to complete the task he never could: showing how the Left could save itself from self-destruction.”[49]

Horowitz’s son Ben Horowitz is a technology entrepreneur, investor, and co-founder, along with Marc Andreessen, of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz.[50][51]

Horowitz’s second marriage, to Sam Moorman, ended in divorce. On June 24, 1990, Horowitz married Shay Marlowe in an Orthodox Jewish ceremony conducted at the Pacific Jewish Center by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.[52]They divorced. Horowitz’s fourth and present marriage is to April Mullvain.[53]

Horowitz now describes himself as an agnostic.[54]

Funding

Politico claims that Horowitz’s activities, like the David Horowitz Freedom Center are funded in part by Aubrey & Joyce Chernick and The Bradley Foundation. Politico claimed that during 2008-2010, “the lion’s share of the $920,000 it [David Horowitz Freedom Center] provided over the past three years to Jihad Watch came from Chernick”.[55]

Controversy and criticism

Academia

Some of Horowitz’s accounts of U.S. colleges and universities as bastions of liberal indoctrination have been disputed.[56] For example, Horowitz alleged that a University of Northern Colorado student received a failing grade on a final exam for refusing to write an essay arguing that George W. Bush is a war criminal.[57][58] A spokeswoman for the university said that the test question was not as described by Horowitz and that there were nonpolitical reasons for the grade, which was not an F.[59]

Horowitz identified the professor[60] as Robert Dunkley, an assistant professor of criminal justice at Northern Colorado. Dunkley said Horowitz made him an example of “liberal bias” in academia and yet, “Dunkley said that he comes from a Republican family, is a registered Republican and considers himself politically independent, taking pride in never having voted a straight party ticket,” according to Inside Higher Ed magazine.[60]In another instance, Horowitz said that a Pennsylvania State University biology professor showed his students the film Fahrenheit 9/11 just before the 2004 election in an attempt to influence their votes.[61][62] Pressed by Inside Higher Ed, Horowitz later retracted this claim.[63]

Horowitz has been criticized for material in his books, particularly The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America, by noted scholars such as Columbia University professor Todd Gitlin.[64] The group Free Exchange on Campus issued a 50-page report in May 2006 in which they take issue with many of Horowitz’s assertions in the book: they identify specific factual errors, unsubstantiated assertions, and quotations which appear to be either misquoted or taken out of context.[65][66]

Allegations of racism

Chip Berlet, writing for the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), identified Horowitz’s Center for the Study of Popular Culture as one of 17 “right-wing foundations and think tanks support[ing] efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable.”[67] Berlet accused Horowitz of blaming slavery on “black Africans … abetted by dark-skinned Arabs” and of “attack[ing] minority ‘demands for special treatment’ as ‘only necessary because some blacks can’t seem to locate the ladder of opportunity within reach of others,’ rejecting the idea that they could be the victims of lingering racism.”[67][not in citation given]

Horowitz published an open letter to Morris Dees, president of the SPLC, saying that “[this reminder] that the slaves transported to America were bought from African and Arab slavers” was a response to demands that only whites pay reparations to blacks. He said he never held Africans and Arabs solely responsible for slavery. He said that Berlet’s accusation of racism was a “calculated lie” and asked that the report be removed.[68] The SPLC refused Horowitz’s request.[69] Horowitz has criticized Berlet and the SPLC on his website and personal blog.[70][71]

In 2008, while speaking at University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB), he criticized Arab culture, saying it was rife with antisemitism.[72][73] He referred to the Palestinian keffiyeh, a traditional Arab head covering that became associated with PLO leader Yasser Arafat, as a symbol of terrorism. In response, UCSB professor Walid Afifi said that Horowitz was “preaching hate” and smearing Arab culture.[73]

Criticizing Islamic organizations

Horowitz has used university student publications and lectures at universities as venues for publishing provocative advertisements or lecturing on issues related to Islamic student and other organizations. In April 2008, his ‘David Horowitz Freedom Center’ advertised in the Daily Nexus, the University of California Santa Barbara school newspaper, saying that the Muslim Students’ Association (MSA) had links with the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda, and Hamas.[74]

In May 2008, Horowitz, speaking at UCSB, said that the Muslim Students’ Association supports “a second Holocaust of the Jews”.[73] The MSA said they were a peaceful organization and not a political group.[74] The MSA’s faculty adviser said the group had “been involved in interfaith activities with Jewish student groups, and they’ve been involved in charity work for national disaster relief.”[73] Horowitz ran the ad in The GW Hatchet, the student newspaper of George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Jake Sherman, the newspaper’s editor-in-chief, said claims the MSA was radical were “ludicrous”. He vowed to review his newspaper’s editorial and advertising policies.[75]

Horowitz published a 2007 piece in the Columbia University student newspaper, saying that, according to [unnamed and undocumented] public opinion polls, “between 150 million and 750 million Muslims support a holy war against Christians, Jews and other Muslims.”[76] Speaking at the University of Massachusetts Amherst in February 2010, Horowitz compared Islamists to Nazis, saying: “Islamists are worse than the Nazis, because even the Nazis did not tell the world that they want to exterminate the Jews.”[77]

Horowitz created a campaign for what he called “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week” in parody of multicultural awareness activities. He helped arrange for leading critics of radical Islam to speak at more than a hundred college campuses in October 2007.[78] As a speaker he has met with intense hostility.[79][80][81]

In a 2011 review of anti-Islamic activists in the US, the Southern Poverty Law Center identified Horowitz as one of 10 people in the United States’ “Anti-Muslim Inner Circle”.[82]

Conservatism

Horowitz’s Frontpage Magazine published Ron Radosh‘s critical review of Diana West‘s book American Betrayal. Conservatives John Earl Haynes and Harvey Klehr, scholars of Soviet espionage, defended Horowitz for publishing the review and Radosh for writing it.[83] Vladimir Bukovsky, a Soviet dissident, rejected Radosh’s criticisms and said it was an attempt to portray West as a historically inept conspiracy-monger.[84]Horowitz defended the review in an article on Breitbart’s Big Government website.[85]

Other

In 2007, Lawrence Auster (January 26, 1949 – March 29, 2013) stated that Horowitz had rejected him from publishing in Frontpage Magazine for making racist statements.[86][87]

Books and other publications

Histories

(all co-authored with Peter Collier)

  • The Rockefellers: An American Dynasty (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1976) ISBN 0-03-008371-0
  • The Kennedys: An American Drama (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1985) ISBN 0-671-44793-9
  • The Fords: An American Epic (New York: Summit Books/Simon & Schuster, 1987) ISBN 0-671-66951-6
  • The Roosevelts: An American Saga (1994)

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

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

Trump Selects Former Indiana Senator Dan Coats for National Intelligence Director — Is Julian Assange A Russian Cuttout? — American People Rejected Clinton and Obama — Videos

Posted on January 5, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Documentary, Education, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Music, National Security Agency (NSA), Newspapers, Photos, Police, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Radio, Rants, Raves, Television, Water, Wealth | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for cartoons democrats blame russia hackImage result for cartoons democrats blame russia hackImage result for cartoons clinton to blame for losing

Image result for cartoons clinton to blame for losing

Image result for cartoons clinton to blame for losing

Former Senator Dan Coats picked as national intel director

Donald Trump Picks Dan Coats For National Intelligence Director | Closing Bell | CNBC

Trump waging war with the intelligence community

Trump Denies Russia’s Involvement In Hacking

Trump blasts claim Russia hacked the election

Julian Assange FULL Interview 1/3/17

Julian Assange NEW LEAKS “Laura Ingraham” Barack Obama Wrong – Vladimir Putin Didn’t Hack Election

JUDGE “RUSSIA DID NOT HACK THE ELECTION”! CHAOS! CHUCK TODD AND REINCE PRIEBUS GO AT IT!

Russia mocks President Obama with ‘lame duck’ tweet

Putin: The Democrats are looking for someone to blame

WOW! The Democratic Leadership in there candidate have lied cheated and tried to steal the….

Who’s To Blame For Hillary Clinton’s Loss?

Democrats losing on all fronts, looking for scapegoats – Putin on US elections

Why Hillary Campaign Tried To Silence Mika Brzezinski

Clinton Refuses To Take The Blame

Democratic Blame Game: Is Obama in Denial?

Why Democrats’ 2020 Candidates Are Already Losers

NSA Chief: Russia Hacked the 2016 Election

Blame Game (VEVO Presents: G.O.O.D. Music)

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

Immigration Law Enforcement — Deporting and Removing The 30-50 Million Illegal Aliens In The United States — 16 Years To Rollback The Invasion — Ending Santuary Cities By Cutting Off All Federal Funding — Videos

Posted on January 4, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Education, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Narcissism, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Security, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , |

Image result for number of illegal aliens in united states

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol REMOVALS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for us border patrol DEPORTATIONS of ILLEGAL ALIENS APPREHENSIONS 2000-2015

Image result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposedImage result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposedImage result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposedImage result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposedImage result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposedImage result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposed

Image result for map of us mexican border and fense current and proposed

Image result for sanutary citiesImage result for sanutary cities

Image result for sanutary cities

Image result for sanutary cities

Pres Trump To Start DEPORTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS From OBAMA AMNESTY First Day In Office, what next?

Donald Trump and the wall with Mexico… will it happen? BBC Newsnight

The Illegal Invasion of America

“The Gold Standard” of Fence System

The Great Wall of Trump

Top 5 Facts About President Donald Trumps Wall

18 seconds to climb a U.S. – Mexico Border fence

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

What Mexicans think of Trump’s wall – BBC News

So You Want to Build a Wall on the Mexican Border?

Is a wall along the US-Mexico border realistic?

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

How Donald Trump’s Amnesty Plan Works

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration Gumballs and White Genocide Best explanation ever

Ben Shapiro interviews Ann Coulter; Adios America; 7/13/2015; C-Span

Ben Shapiro: Amnesty Will Destroy Conservatives

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

Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

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

Obama’s Amnesty & How Illegal Immigration Affects Us

 

ICE Deported Less Than 1 Percent Of All Illegal Aliens in FY2016

If anyone out there still believes Obama to be the “deporter-in-chief,” now would be a good time to stop.

The moniker is an oft-cited, erroneous claim repeated ad nauseam by amnesty activists or liberal policymakers looking to justify the president’s lackadaisical immigration enforcement policies. But unfortunately for Americans who think the law is actually worth the paper it’s printed on, this claim doesn’t hold up against the data. This inaccurate assertion is based on the number of “removals and returns” cited each year by the administration, but fails to distinguish how many of those “returns” occurred at the border (i.e., not a true “deportation”) versus how many persons are actually arrested and removed from inside the United States – a significantly smaller number, and dropping.

And it doesn’t take much digging to find out. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement recently released its Fiscal Year 2016 report which stated that as a whole, the Department of Homeland Security – which houses both U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement – removed or returned a total of 450,954 illegal aliens last year alone, each counted as a “deportation” by the term’s weakest definition.

However, a closer look at the data reveals that the vast majority of these “deportations” claimed by the Obama administration took place at or near the border – meaning they weren’t actual “deportations” at all. These were folks, primarily single adults, who got caught crossing the border from Mexico and were either turned around or, in the case of non-Mexicans, processed and sent back to their home country.

In fact, of the roughly 451,000 aliens who were removed from the country last year, only 65,332 of them – about 14 percent – were apprehended in the interior of the United States, according to DHS’s own report. The vast majority of these, by the administration’s own admission, were criminal aliens who’d been convicted of a violent felony or were a threat to national security.

Only five percent of all removals (less than 23,000) were Priority 2 cases, which includes people who unlawfully crossed into the U.S. since 2014. An even smaller one percent (less than 5,000) were aliens who’d been given a final order of removal in the last 2-3 years.

Overall, 94 percent of removals and returns were classified within a Priority 1 category, five percent were classified within a Priority 2 category (i.e., serious and repeat misdemeanants, individuals who unlawfully entered the United States on or after January 1, 2014, and significant abusers of the visa system or visa waiver program), and one percent were classified within a Priority 3 category (individuals issued a final order of removal on or after January 1, 2014).

But not only are the administration’s overall “deportation” numbers highly misleading, they also mask the fact that interior arrests are dropping. According to ICE data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies last summer, there are about 925,000 illegal aliens who’ve received a final order of removal from an immigration judge still living in the United States, including about 179,000 convicted criminals. But despite these alarming numbers, the administration’s recent report states that ICE made nearly 11,000 fewer interior arrests in FY2016 than the year before, down from 125,211 in FY2015 to 114,434 last year.

Even assuming that every alien arrested by ICE in 2016 was under a final order of removal, this would mean ICE only arrested 12 percent of the total number of legally removable aliens, and only deported about seven percent.

Additionally, based on conservative immigration estimates, these 65,000 aliens only account for about .6 percent of the estimated 11 million unlawfully present aliens living in the United States.

http://www.mrctv.org/blog/ice-deported-less-1-percent-all-illegal-aliens-fy2016

What is a Sanctuary City? It’s Not What They’ve Been Telling You

Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated

Trump Will END Sanctuary Cities & The Democrats Hate How He’ll Do It

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

Circling The Drain –The Blaze and Glenn Beck? — A Crash Course — The Inescapable Consequences of Personality Disorders — Get Help — If Beck Gets Help, He Will Comeback! — Progressive Liars Are Going Crazy — Videos

Posted on January 4, 2017. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Constitution, Culture, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Family, Fiscal Policy, Freedom, Government Land Ownership, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, IRS, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Programming, Psychology, Radio, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Taxation, Taxes, Unemployment, Video, War, Wisdom, Work, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for cartoons glenn beck crazy

Image result for progressive liars book cover glenn beck

Charlie Rose interviews Glen Beck about the 2016 Presidential Campaign

Hannity Interviews Glenn Beck About Donald Trump Not Being Conservative

Glenn Beck Book Signing for Liars

Glenn Beck on Liars.

Tucker Carlson Talks Glenn Beck Sanity / Facebook Meeting & Trump Vp Pick

Intro to Psychology – Crash Course Psychology #1

Feeling All the Feels: Crash Course Psychology #25

Emotion, Stress and Health: Crash Course Psychology #26

Psychological Disorders: Crash Course Psychology #28

OCD & Anxiety Disorders: Crash Course Psychology #29

Depressive and Bipolar Disorders: Crash Course Psychology #30

Trauma & Addiction: Crash Course Psychology #31

Personality Disorders: Crash Course Psychology #34

Getting Help – Psychotherapy: Crash Course Psychology #35

Biomedical Treatments: Crash Course Psychology #36

TO OVERCOME DEPRESSION | ANXIETY | HARD TIMES – Very Motivational

How to get rid of anxiety

Stop Anxiety & Panic Attacks

GLENN BECK’S THEBLAZE MAY FINALLY BE BURNING OUT

Glenn Beck’s Mental Disorder

Posted on March 2, 2016 by Robert Ringer

Font:
Small
Medium
Large

Open Sans
Times New Roman
Hide

I’ve written about Glenn Beck’s painful demise many times over the years, even giving my readers an early heads-up that his days at Fox News were numbered. “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned,” wrote 16th century playwright William Congreve. And he was right, because when it comes to Beck, I feel like a scorned woman. I really loved the guy in his early days at Fox, then suddenly he turned on me, along with the rest of his viewers.

In his first year at FNC, I was awed by Beck’s raw talent and no-holds-barred disrobement of the radical left. The fact that he was the most hated man in America was de facto proof that he was a fearless truth-teller, because the people of the lie — those millions of chronically dishonest folks in both the radical-left and conservative-establishment wings of the Demopublican Party — harbor venomous contempt for anyone who dares to expose their lies.

But after Beck’s first year at Fox, it was all downhill. The first time the thought crossed my mind that perhaps he wasn’t authentic was when he held a rally in Washington D.C. and a half million people showed up. I was there, and I can honestly say that I didn’t know what the point of the rally was, but the half million people in attendance were clearly mesmerized.

It wasn’t until much later I realized that the only purpose of the D.C. event was to provide a forum for Beck’s followers to assure him how much they loved him. Really, there was absolutely no agenda other than “We love Glenn Beck!”

Once that chink in Beck’s armor was exposed, the second chink came when he started restricting the guests on his show to clergymen and no-name religious scholars like David Barton, whom he stunningly, and often, referred to as “the most important man in America.” It was such a ludicrous statement that it made me wonder if Beck was once again getting cozy with Jack Daniels.

But it got even worse when, in his dwindling days at Fox, Beck sat on the edge of his desk for the entire hour of each show and gave what appeared to be an extemporaneous monologue. I was amazed at his ability to talk for an hour without notes, but, even so, it became very boring after a week or two. Increasingly, he appeared to be a beleaguered and lost soul.

Finally, as I had predicted to my readers, Beck parted ways with Fox News and started a new media company that he said would make his enemies wish he were back at Fox where he was on the air only an hour a day. Unfortunately for him, it hasn’t worked out quite that way.

As Beck began to realize he had become yesterday’s news, he started popping up on “The O’Reilly Factor” and “The Kelly File.” His slobbering all over Bill O’Reilly and Megyn Kelly was difficult to watch. (Fortunately, I no longer watch Malevolent Megyn at all.)

Beck’s attempts at getting attention are nothing short of embarrassing. When he was still at Fox, he somberly announced that his doctor had told him he was on the verge of possibly losing his eyesight. It’s nice to know that that didn’t happen. Then, after he left Fox, he supposedly had a mysterious, life-ending illness, but that apparently disappeared as well.

Finally, there was what he described as “the most deadly decision of [my] career” — announcing that, in a show of compassion, he was going to send truckloads of food and supplies to the Central American refugee kids who flooded the southern border of the U.S. in 2014.

Beck’s personality reminds me of Jim Jones of Jonestown fame. Perhaps becoming a cult leader is his ultimate destiny, because he desperately needs people to follow him, listen to him, and adore him. He is a man in search of true believers who will follow him to the ends of the earth.

On to the next chapter: Just when Beck was almost out of ideas on how to get attention and regain his stardom, along came an unlikely new politician by the name of Donald Trump. It was almost too good to be true. Beck saw what he thought was a golden opportunity to make himself into a hero by focusing his attention on bashing the media’s newest version of the Antichrist.

It’s now become his fulltime job. He demonizes Trump all day, every day, and has literally pleaded with his audiences to vote for anyone but The Donald. He even joined an angry bunch of establishment losers (people for whom he had always expressed considerable contempt) by signing on to the National Review’sdesperation piece to stop Trump.

As one would expect, he has repeatedly warned his listeners and readers that Trump’s rise to power parallels that of Adolf Hitler’s. And speaking of Hitler, in a recent article on his blog, Beck even said that he would vote for Hitlary Clinton if it came down to her or Trump. He then took it over the edge by saying, “I’m warning you now, you will say after two years of Donald Trump, ‘I’d give my right arm for Barack Obama.’”

In truth, of course, Beck’s mental disorder has nothing to do with Donald Trump and everything to do with his psychopathic need for attention. The only other theory I can come up with is that he is — as childish as it may seem — insanely jealous of Trump for all the attention he’s been getting.

It probably brings back painful memories of his own glory days in the spotlight — before those nasty mental demons gained control of his mind. It appears Beck is trying to piggyback onto Trump’s fame in an effort to get noticed. Unfortunately, it’s not working, and he’s only succeeding in making himself look ever more pathetic.

I would hate to see anything bad happen to this once-great talent, but I truly believe that if those closest to Glenn Beck don’t get him some serious psychiatric help soon (Where is Keith Ablow when you need him?), he could end up as a face-in-the-gutter alcoholic once again — or, worse, he might even do harm to himself or others.

Having said all this, in fairness, Glenn Beck isn’t alone when it comes to Trump Derangement Syndrome. The fact is that his views are shared by millions of Trump haters throughout the world.

Putting Beck’s mental issues aside for a moment, the Trump phenomenon is not all that complicated. Thanks to the radical left — and the establishment right that carries the left’s water — people’s anger over their loss of freedom and the intentional destruction of their country has reached the pitchfork stage.

Even so, the D.C. Crime Syndicate remains in denial, and its members are hysterical at the thought that they are in the process of losing their stranglehold — not just over Washington, but over all of America as well. They see Trump as a threat to both their power and their monopoly on legalized theft.

But the truth be known, Trump haters like Beck give Trump far too much credit. There’s no question he’s a narcissist. There’s no question he’s an egomaniac. There’s no question he’s rude, crude, and nasty. No one disputes any of these unflattering Trump qualities.

What Trump haters don’t get, however, is that these are the very qualities that millions of people actually want in a new president, so he can take down the Washington establishment. The best way to think of Trump is as a wrecking ball that has a good chance of destroying the D.C. Crime Syndicate.

Simply put, the Trump phenomenon is nothing more than long-overdue blowbackfrom everyday Americans yet, amazingly, the delusional establishment still has no clue. What Trump actually does if he becomes president is almost secondary to those who support him. Right now, people just want the Washington power structure dismantled, and they figure that once that’s accomplished, they can sort things out later if Trump’s less than endearing qualities prove to be a problem.

In the meantime, in the event you’ve never read Glenn’s Beck’s The Blaze on the Internet, you should do so for a couple of days. His obsession over DT will take your breath away. I tell you, the man has a serious mental disorder, and I mean that literally. Sad … very, very sad.

https://robertringer.com/glenn-becks-mental-disorder/

Glenn Beck’s Blaze Circling The Drain

Published on Oct 5, 2016

Glenn Beck isn’t great at business or money management. Word on the street is The Blaze is about dead. They could really use a random billionaire bailout right about now. Cenk Uygur and John Iadarola, hosts of The Young Turks, break it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below. http://tytnetwork.com/join

“Sources inside Glenn Beck’s once-mighty multimedia production company say that Beck is falling apart as his media empire collapses around him.

An employee of Beck’s flagship website TheBlaze.com told Huffington Post in an article published Wednesday that the few remaining staff are “looking for an exit” because they expect the site to be shuttered soon for good.

Huffington Post’s Michelle Fields said that TheBlaze.com is “suffering from a lack of editorial direction, staff attrition and internal discord” and that the mood among employees is “somber” as they’ve watched a 25-member editorial team get whittled down to six people — with more cuts expected.

“The few people who are still left are looking for an exit because they know The Blaze is over,” the source told Fields. “They haven’t told us straight up that they’re done with us, but all the signs point to it, and they’re not replacing people who are laid off or get out.”
Other employees report that their healthcare benefits were reduced over the summer and that in September, all of their travel and phone stipends were cut off. In June, the company closed its vast New York City newsroom and the remaining employees are working from home.”*

Read more here: https://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/the-…

[youtube-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQS_mYXof8s]

Glenn Beck Rips Into Ted Cruz For Endorsing Trump

Glenn Beck Goes Bananas After Ted Cruz Endorses Trump

Glenn Beck’s ‘The Blaze’ Is Burning Down

Published on Aug 1, 2016

The Blaze is in a lot of trouble. Cenk Uygur, host of The Young Turks, breaks it down. Tell us what you think in the comment section below.

“Conservative television and radio host Glenn Beck has filed a lawsuit in Texas against the man who used to run his entertainment and news network, TheBlaze, according to sources close to Mr. Beck. The petition, obtained by LawNewz.com, was filed on behalf of Mercury Radio Arts, which serves as Beck’s production and operating company over TheBlaze. The complaint accuses Chris Balfe of breach of contract, general mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. Balfe served as the COO of Mercury Radio Arts and was CEO of TheBlaze until he left in December 2014 to start his own company, Red Seat Ventures. Balfe had worked for Beck for more than 10 years, and was credited with helping to grow Beck’s business.

“I am embarrassed and saddened it has come to this. It is an ongoing legal matter so you will not hear me speak of this often but as always, I want you to hear it from me,” Beck wrote on his website on Monday.

Beck’s lawsuit comes amid reports of internal financial turmoil at TheBlaze. The complaint alleges between 2009 and 2014, Balfe’s compensation totaled in excess of $13 million.”

Read more here: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclu…

THE FALL OF GLENN BECK!

Glenn Beck: ‘I Think People Think That I’m … Nuts’

Glenn Beck’s Secret Brain Trouble, How He ‘Fixed’ It Is Most Troubling Of All

How Glenn Beck Overcame His Serious Health Issues: “It Was A Miracle”

Glenn Beck Describes His Pivot Point, And The Support of His Wife

Glenn Beck’s Secret Brain Trouble, How He ‘Fixed’ It Is Most Troubling Of All

Glenn Beck’s Mystery Illness Diagnosed By Quack Doctor

The Young Turks Are Falling Apart

“Up/Down” Bipolar Disorder Documentary FULL MOVIE (2011)

Tomi Lahren | Final Thoughts 11/28/16

Aerosmith – Crazy

Paul Simon – Still Crazy After All These Years

Lyrics

I met my old lover
On the street last night
She seemed so glad to see me
I just smiled
And we talked about some old times
And we drank ourselves some beers
Still crazy after all these years
Oh Still crazy after all these years

I’m not the kind of man
Who tends to socialize
I seem to lean on
Old familiar ways
And I ain’t no fool for love songs
That whisper in my ears
Still crazy after all these years
Oh still crazy after all these years

Four in the morning
Crapped out
Yawning
Longing my life away
I’ll never worry
Why should I?
It’s all gonna fade

Now I sit by my window
And I watch the cars
I fear I’ll do some damage
One fine day
But I would not be convicted
By a jury of my peers
Still crazy after all these years
Oh still crazy
Still crazy
Still crazy after all these years

Report: Glenn Beck’s The Blaze ‘Falling Apart’

The Huffington Post reportson the continuing problems engulfing The Blaze founder Glenn Beck’s troubled media empire.

From The Huffington Post:

Glenn Beck’s website The Blaze is coming apart, suffering from a lack of editorial direction, staff attrition and internal discord, according to sources inside the news outlet.

The site, which Beck launched in 2010 to serve as the conservative counterpart to The Huffington Post, has dropped from 25 employees on its editorial side to just six. A source inside The Blaze, who requested anonymity for fear of retribution, told HuffPost that the mood among the rapidly diminishing news team is somber.

“The few people who are still left are looking for an exit because they know The Blaze is over,” the source said. “They haven’t told us straight up that they’re done with us, but all the signs point to it, and they’re not replacing people who are laid off or get out.”

Read the rest here.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/10/13/report-glenn-becks-blaze-falling-apart/

VIA THE BLAZE

BAD BLOOD

Blazingly Mad Glenn Beck Sues His Fired CEO Christopher Balfe

The suit—in which Beck’s privately held company, Mercury Radio Arts, is the plaintiff and seeks a jury trial—alleges fraud, breach of contract, dereliction of duty, and various other misdeeds.

Lloyd Grove

LLOYD GROVE

08.01.16 5:45 PM ET

In what one former associate of Glenn Beck described as “the last gasp of a dying empire,” the volatile right-wing radio, streaming video, and cable television personality is suing his longtime former chief executive, Christopher Balfe, whom Beck fired in December 2014.

The suit—in which Beck’s privately held company, Mercury Radio Arts, is the plaintiff and seeks a jury trial—alleges fraud, breach of contract, dereliction of duty, and various other misdeeds.

“I feel terrible for Glenn and I hope he finds the help that he needs,” Balfe, who worked closely with Beck for nearly two decades before their split, said Monday in a statement to The Daily Beast.

“The lawsuit speaks for itself,” said a spokesman for Beck—the only comment provided.

Beck, meanwhile, told listeners and viewers Monday of his syndicated radio program, which is video-streamed on his paid-subscription site TheBlaze.com: “I am—[Beck’s wife] Tania and I—are both really saddened by this and saddened that it has come to this.”

The 16-page complaint was filed quietly Friday in Dallas County, Texas, District Court, and apparently leaked Sunday night as an “exclusive” to the Lawnewz.com website, with another account splashed on GlennBeck.com.

“There are articles that have come out today on apparently lawsuit websites. I’m not going to give them publicity,” Beck told his fans. “And you’ll see more articles, I would assume, over the next few days. It’s an ongoing legal matter. And you’re not going to hear me talking much about it.”

Then, despite his insistence on not giving publicity to stories about the lawsuit, Beck recited the web addresses of the articles in question.

He is, of course, well known for changing his mind—campaigning hard during the Republican primaries for former presidential candidate Ted Cruz, for instance, mere months after announcing with spectacular fanfare that he was leaving politics for good.

Beck’s lawsuit is sharply at odds with previous expressions of gratitude he made three months after Balfe, along with fellow ex-Beck executive Joel Cheatwood, left Mercury Radio Arts, where Balfe was chief operating officer, and its subsidiary The Blaze, where Balfe was CEO.

“Chris and Joel helped me build one of the industry’s first truly independent multi-media companies,” Beck declared in March 2015, after Balfe and Cheatwood, who had steered Beck’s cable television career at HLN and Fox News, announced their formation of a new digital media company, Red Seat Ventures, and took several more top Beck executives with them. “I am sad to see them go but they left our company with an incredible foundation.”

Balfe retained minority ownership in The Blaze after he left, according to the lawsuit, and two sources familiar with the arrangement told The Daily Beast that his deferred compensation agreement featured monthly payments to satisfy around a million dollars that Balfe is owed under the agreement for both his ownership stake and his pro-rated share of company revenues.

But in recent weeks, say these sources, The Blaze has experienced cash-flow problems and has been having trouble paying vendors, while the website’s online traffic has plunged from around 26 million monthly global unique visitors in January 2015, the month after Balfe was dismissed, to around 10 million currently, according to the measuring service Quantcast.

Several more key executives have departed in the past year, along with Beck’s longtime television agent, George Hiltzik, as well George’s son Matthew Hiltzik, who recently resigned as the outside publicist for Beck and his companies; New York PR maven Davidson Goldin now has that account.

In another blow to The Blaze’s financial stability, the cable television distributor Cablevision recently stopped carrying Beck’s programming—representing an annual loss to The Blaze estimated at more than $2 million in subscriber fees and advertising sales, according to the sources.

By clicking “Subscribe,” you agree to have read the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

These sources described Beck’s lawsuit as a pre-emptive strike.

They said that in June, after failing to receive his regular check, Balfe notified Beck’s company that if he wasn’t paid quickly, he would be exploring his options to obtain the money due him.

This none-too-veiled threat prompted Beck to file his own lawsuit claiming, instead, that Balfe actually owes him money—a portion of the $13 million Beck claims Balfe was paid as an executive between 2009 and 2014.

“This is a shockingly excessive amount that far exceeds appropriate compensation for companies of Mercury and TheBlaze’s size and financial performance,” the lawsuit contends.

But back in March of last year, when Balfe and Cheatwood were launching Red Seat Ventures, the 52-year-old Beck gushed: “I am truly grateful that we remain friends and am very excited to see what they do next.”

Their friendship didn’t survive, however, after Beck hired a little-known tech entrepreneur named Jonathan Schreiber, a diehard “superfan” of Beck’s syndicated radio program, who arrived in September 2014 from Israel via Miami, networked his way into Beck’s inner circle, gained the boss’s confidence and began accumulating power in the operations of both Mercury Radio Arts and The Blaze.

According to company employees, as The Daily Beast reported last February, Beck seemed to have become infatuated with Schreiber, who first showed up at The Blaze’s now-defunct Manhattan studios, and later had been regularly spotted in Beck’s expansive, glass-walled office at the rambling company headquarters in the Dallas suburb of Las Colinas—sometimes hugging his idol after a heart-to-heart.

Schreiber’s Orthodox Judaism apparently was in sync with Beck’s ardent religiosity as a Mormon convert, although staffers said Schreiber—who became president of Beck’s parent company—had an off-putting, arrogant manner with underlings, who gave him the nickname “Voldemort.”

Back in February, as Beck increasingly complained about Balfe and others who had helped orchestrate his career, Schreiber defended his own leadership to The Daily Beast.

“Glenn Beck, brilliant media mogul, realized he was unhappy in the direction his company was going so he brought in new blood,” he said in an email. “The goal being to put the company in the right direction. Through that process we separated with many people. Some will be missed, some less so.”

He added: “I am very proud of my work here, I am very proud of the culture we have created AND PROUD OF [his capital letters] the people WE have been able to bring in to the fold… No one likes to admit that they are not here because of themselves, it must be Voldemort.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/01/blazingly-mad-glenn-beck-sues-his-fired-ceo-christopher-balfe.html

Glenn Beck’s Farewell Address to His 40 Laid-Off Troops… from His Pretend Oval Office

 

In a special video posted to his website today, Glenn Beck addressed news reports of the latest mass layoffs at his troubled media empire.

According to a report yesterday in the Daily Beast, Beck laid off 40 employees of his Blaze media organization “in order to satisfy the requirements of a multimillion-dollar bank loan taken out recently to keep Beck’s revenue-challenged enterprise running.”

As the Daily Beast noted, “This latest round of mass firings comes as no surprise to insiders at The Blaze and Mercury Radio Arts, which laid off dozens of employees last May on a day referred to internally as ‘Black Monday,’ around the same time that Beck was purchasing a private jetliner and a $200,000 Maybach sedan.”

In the video released today, Beck is seen seated at a replica of the Resolute desk in his mock Oval Office set delivering the opening monologue of his radio show.

Below is the transcript of his remarks.

***

I wanted to start there today because there’s a story that maybe you have read that came out yesterday that is talking about how yesterday my company, TheBlaze, laid off 40 people. And my media empire is crumbling. And part of it is because I’m traveling around with Ted Cruz.

Well, I want you to know, yes, I’ve lost a lot of money traveling around with Ted Cruz. I’ve lost about half a million dollars. That’s my choice. I believe in something.

Did that cause the 40 people to lose their job? No.

I want to talk to you today because we’re in a community together, and I trust you. And I tried to be trustworthy. And when I make a mistake, I own up to it. And I’m a trusting guy.

I think anybody on the show will tell you my biggest problem is I trust everybody, until they prove otherwise. And I try to live my life in a transparent way. And I try to surround myself with others that I believe are trustworthy.

And then I went on to build my own company with an authentic voice, a trustworthy company. And one of my main principles — and you heard me saying Isaiah it a million times: We take on no debt. Root ourselves in principles and people. Live within our own means.

And I trusted the people that ran my company, that they wanted the same things. And in the beginning, maybe they did want the same things. But a couple of years ago, I realized there were problems in my own company, and that even though the managers were all saying the right things to me, those things were never getting done. And you know this to be true. Because I would talk about things that we were going to do on TheBlaze and everything else, and then they never seemed to materialize. And I was losing credibility with you, but behind the scenes, I was a holy terror for about a year because I couldn’t find out what was going on.

Without saying anything bad about anybody because we just have different principles, the people I had moved down to Dallas and the rest was in New York and Los Angeles and Washington, DC — and we were working now towards being, I guess, a normal, status quo kind of media company, a big media company, and I didn’t ever want that.

But because our team was split from Dallas, Los Angeles — I think we had people at one time in Chicago, Washington, and New York — I didn’t know who really got the vision and who didn’t, who got it and who didn’t.

It was almost two years ago when we had a museum here at the studios in Dallas. And we invited you to come and just see the museum. And I bet there were 10,000 people here that came through — and I loved it. And everybody kept telling me, go home. Go home. Go home. And I wouldn’t go home. None of us did. Nobody on the show went home.

We were there and we spent that whole weekend with you because we love you. We love you.

But I noticed one thing about my company. Not one single person from the management team actually showed up that entire weekend. And I realized, they didn’t love the audience like I did. They weren’t connecting to the message like you did and I did. I’m not sure they were part of the culture of the principles. And I knew I had to get a hold of my company again, and that would mean making really hard choices.

First one was, are you going to stick to your principles? You going to be honest with yourself? Stand for what you believe in, or are you going to give into the status quo and go along to get along? Because these people were my friends, they were my partners, and I don’t know at the time, I thought maybe they were right. But I knew they weren’t in my gut.

And my gut and my spirit said, “Stick by what you know, even if it’s hard and even in the end if you lose.”

I had to start firing people, people that I counted as my friends, best friends, partners. And the process that I began was the hardest process of my life. Yeah, almost as hard as picking myself up off of that carpet when I was facing suicide, that carpet that smelled like soup. But this time I had something I didn’t have before: I had you. I knew you existed. I knew that you believed in the same principles I believe and that we — no, that I had made a promise to you. Our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.

And so I kept going. This has been a really hard five years for me, but the last 18 months have been unbelievable. One thing I had to do was get everyone in my house under one roof so I could look everyone in the eye. Culture matters at a company.

I stopped telling you about the things that were coming on TheBlaze. It’s called the Phoenix project. We’ve been working on it now for about nine months. I haven’t talked to you about it, nor will I until we launch it. I’m tired of telling you the things that I think we’re going to do. I bet you are too. We’re just going to do them. Because I failed you too many times.

The reason the articles like the one that came out yesterday are coming out, part of it is political. Part of it is because Frank Sinatra was right, some people get a kick out of stomping on your dreams. They really do.

Some is, I guess, it’s news when somebody loses their job. Unfortunately, my media company isn’t the only place in America laying people off. My media company is not the only one that’s looking at their balance sheet and saying, “We can’t go into debt, or we’re going to lose all of the jobs.”

They said in this article yesterday — this has been claimed before that my business is failing. I will tell you, two years ago, it was. It was absolutely on fire. Because when I started to go into the books — I was a bad steward. And when I started going into the books and see what had been done to my company that didn’t ever take on debt, I was first told that we were, I think, $4 million in debt. And then it became $7 million in debt. And then when I got the final accounting, 18 months ago, my company that doesn’t take on debt was $13 million in debt.

If I’m going to tell you you shouldn’t have debt, how could I have a company that was $13 million in the hole? I made really hard decisions. And in 18 months, my company that is dying and struggling paid our debt down from 13 million to two.

A couple of months ago, we had a great sponsor of ours, about a 7-million-dollar-a-year sponsor go broke. I feel for that company because everybody that worked for that company, much larger than mine, went out of business. And they left us with a lot of debt.

You see, economies, it’s — it’s like Jenga. One person pulls one big thing out, and the whole thing could fall. But it definitely weakens. And the more pieces of stress or the more pieces that come out of Jenga, the weaker your house becomes. Somebody — Delco goes out of business because GM is no longer making their cars in Ohio, and so that hurts Delco. And then that hurts the grocery store down the street and the restaurants in the town.

We’re in this together. I’m not going to tell you that I’m not running a fail company because the proof is in the pudding. I will just tell you the old managers got us into $13 million of debt. And in less than 18 months, we’ve shaved that off by over $10 million. That doesn’t seem like a failing business. That seems like a business that is thriving and is doing its best to set its principles right.

But I want you to know, when you read TheBlaze, because I’m not happy with it — and I’ve quietly said that recently, over the last year or so. Not happy with it. But it’s changing. We just hired one of the guys who put together American Idol, Oreo cookies. We just hired a guy who was one of the main guys at Good Morning America and CNN. We just hired an HR person from Viacom. I’m rebuilding. And it will be a lot better for me honestly — honestly, it would be a lot better if I would have just filed Chapter 11. But I actually like Harry Truman too much. I don’t believe — Chapter 11, sometimes you have to do. Chapter 7, sometimes you have to do.

But I wanted to pay every single person back because it’s not their fault. It was my fault for not watching what people were doing underneath me.

One last thought and then I’ll move off: When I first put TheBlaze on the air, it was GBTV. And I won a hammer. It’s the Tribeca Disruptive Innovation Award. It’s a disrupter’s award. It goes to some of the best disrupters in the world. I couldn’t believe I was in the room when I won this award. That year, I earned that award because we broke television and we’re the first one to make it an app and put it online.

I haven’t earned this hammer a day since. But I will tell you this: Sometimes it takes a hammer to break what is broken so you can rebuild it. And in today’s world and economy, if you ever get fat and sassy, if you ever start to put profits over people, if you ever decide, “I really don’t need — I really don’t — I don’t care what the people say. Yeah, yeah, they’re customers. They’ll just keep coming.” No, they won’t. You have to innovate every day. You have to actually love your customer every day. You have to actually care about them and wonder, “How can I make their life better or easier?” And when you do that and you understand that by doing that you’re disrupting the entire system and you’ll go places that will scare the living daylights out of you, but you proceed without fear, that’s when you will win.

I’m not going to tell you we’re going to win. I’m just going to tell you, watch us. Watch us over the next year.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2016/04/29/glenn-becks-farewell-address-40-laid-off-troops-pretend-oval-office/

PHOTO CHRIS KEANE/REUTERS

Head of Glenn Beck’s Media Empire Quits as The Blaze Burns Down

Kraig Kitchin will stay with the company, but resigned from the top job after friction with fellow Beck executive Jonathan Schreiber. A ‘mass exodus’ of staff may follow.

Lloyd Grove

LLOYD GROVE

01.29.16 5:56 PM ET

In what knowledgeable observers say is a sign of increasing turmoil in Glenn Beck’s troubled media empire, Beck’s longtime mentor and corporate executive, Kraig Kitchin, has quit as CEO of The Blaze.

Kitchin’s replacement, Stewart Padveen, a digital startup entrepreneur who joined Beck’s company last summer, will be the fourth leader of The Blaze since late 2014.

Kitchin, 54, who took over operations of Beck’s conservative-leaning subscription digital and cable television enterprise last June—after two previous CEOs abruptly left in the space of six months—is resigning along with two other senior executives: Jeremy Price, director of advertising sales, and Liz Julis, director of marketing.

Both are based in New York, 1,500 miles removed from corporate headquarters in the Dallas suburb of Irving, Texas.

Several other key employees, including at least two senior producers based in The Blaze’s shrinking New York operation, are expected to follow them out the door.

A source close to the situation predicted a “mass exodus” from the New York studios, which are housed in a largely unoccupied 35,000 square-foot space at Midtown Manhattan’s Bryant Park, previously rented by Yahoo, under a 10-year lease costing Beck’s privately held company an estimated $2 million a year.

Kitchin—who co-founded Premiere Radio Networks three decades ago and has worked with personalities as diverse as Rush Limbaugh, Ryan Seacrest, Whoopi Goldberg, and Beck—tried to put the best face on his resignation in a company-wide email sent out Thursday night.

He described his apparently self-imposed demotion as a result of outside business obligations.

“Our organization—The Blaze—deserves and needs an exclusively focused leader and that’s something I cannot provide, given existing commitments I choose to honor,” Kitchin wrote, adding that “I’m not leaving this company. I’ll stay with The Blaze, working every day as the Interim Head of Sales with a focus on finding the right person for that position, assisting in the transition, on advertiser growth, program development, and industry relations.”

But according to multiple sources, Kitchin’s announcement comes out of frustration after continual friction with top Beck executive Jonathan Schreiber, the recently named president of Beck’s 14-year-old production company, Mercury Radio Arts.

According to multiple sources, Kitchin—who commuted from his home in Los Angeles to Dallas and New York—took the CEO job on an interim basis with the condition that Schreiber would agree not to interfere in The Blaze, an agreement that Kitchin realized was continually being breached. According to people familiar with the situation, Schreiber’s alleged meddling in Kitchin’s operation ultimately became intolerable.

Schreiber didn’t respond to an email from The Daily Beast, and Kitchin declined to comment.

Named president in April 2015 of Mercury Radio Arts—of which The Blaze is a subsidiary, all of it majority-owned by Beck—Schreiber is said to have a penchant for interfering in areas beyond his expertise, namely the staffing and content of The Blaze’s news and opinion site and its television production operation.

The Blaze cable channel reaches an estimated 13 million households which subscribe to DISH, Verizon Fios, and other paid television carriers.

Schreiber’s alleged intrusion is said to have also figured in the departure in June of then-Blaze chief executive Betsy Morgan, an experienced digital media executive who previously ran CBS News’s digital operations, helped grow The Huffington Post, and built TheBlaze.com into a news and aggregation site that—in November 2014—attracted 29 million unique visitors per month.

But by November 2015—according to figures from the Web traffic measuring service Quantcast—monthly traffic for TheBlaze.com had dropped to 16.4 million unique visitors, and traffic for the associated website GlennBeck.com, had plunged from 4.4 million to 1.4 million uniques.

Morgan—ironically, according to sources—had recommended Schreiber to Beck and helped secure his initial position with the company, shouldering a vague responsibility for “strategy and special projects.”

A religious man who practices Orthodox Judaism, Schreiber quickly hit it off with Beck, a devout Mormon convert.

Morgan had replaced Beck’s longtime CEO Chris Balfe, who abruptly exited the company in December 2014, along with fellow exec Joel Cheatwood, as Schreiber was gaining more prominence and influence.

Balfe, who along with Cheatwood retains a minority ownership stake in The Blaze, left after more than a decade of helping Beck build his brand and become a media personality, and was instrumental in the soft launch of The Blaze six years ago while Beck was still hosting his short-lived but wildly popular 5 p.m. program on the Fox News Channel.

Stewart Padveen, Schreiber’s personal friend and “mentor” (as Schreiber describes him in a LinkedIn endorsement), will assume control of The Blaze effective Monday.

Padveen, who lives in Los Angeles, wrote in a staff email that he plans to visit Dallas “next week to kick off this process,” with a later trip planned to New York.

“2015 was a tough year for sure, but thanks to many of you, it was a profitable one,” Padveen wrote concerning this latest corporate shakeup.

“We all owe a debt of gratitude to Kraig for guiding us through some rough times. We still have some history to redress, but if we continue down the path of making solid business decisions, we can get past the past and into the future.”

Besides a period of staff layoffs and turnover that continues to this day, and despite claims of profitability, that “history” apparently includes taking on more debt than the company’s principal owner was comfortable with.

At a staff meeting in New York last February, Beck exhorted his employees to pinch pennies and said the company’s debt was too high at $3 million—a figure sources said later grew to $5 million or more.

“I know much of what has happened since December of 2014, but also much of it has been structural and behind the curtain,” Beck wrote in his own email, in which he thanked Kitchin for his service. “We were a company that was swimming in debt. With the hard work of Kraig, Jonathan, and now Misty [Kawecki, the chief financial officer] we will be debt free by summer. This is miraculous and takes all of the downward pressure off of us.”

Schreiber, a digital startup entrepreneur in his early forties, is a controversial and mysterious figure within Mercury Radio Arts. According to colleagues, he has referred to himself as a “diehard Glenn Beck fan” who, after years of living in Israel, relocated to New York, talked his way into Beck’s confidence, and showed up as a “trusted advisor,” as Beck has called him, in the fall of 2014.

“I want to thank Kraig for everything he has done to help bring the Blaze to the place it is,” Schreiber wrote in his own email, “and welcome Stewart to help bring the Blaze to the places it can go.”

In what a couple of Beck veterans considered ominous corporate-speak, Schreiber added: “All of us, leadership in BOTH companies, have worked together to help ensure that every person will be put into the right role at the right company with clear responsibilities and direction. This will continue to be a process and not an event.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/01/29/head-of-glenn-beck-s-media-empire-quits-as-the-blaze-burns-down.html

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

American PIE — Propaganda Indoctrination Entertainment — Luce and His Empire –Time Magazine Is Fake News — Circling The Drain (CTD) — Videos

Posted on January 3, 2017. Filed under: American History, Art, Articles, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Documentary, Education, Elections, Employment, Films, Freedom, Friends, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, Music, National Security Agency (NSA), People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Reviews, Spying, Strategy, Success, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, World War II, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result

Image result for Luce and His Empire

Image result for HITLER person of the year

Image result for stalin person of the year

Image result for time magazine man of the year 1960

Image result for time magazine man of the year 1960

Image result for time magazine man of the year ronald reagan

Image result for time magazine man of the year 1960

Image result for time magazine man of the year covers 1923

Image result for trump covers time magazine

Image result for time magazine trump meltdown

Image result for time magazine trump meltdown

Image result for time magazine trump covers

Image result for trump person of the year

Image result for fortune magazine donald trump

Image result for time magazine man of the year covers 1923

Image result for ctd circling the drainImage result for cartoon circling the drain

Image result for circulation of news mapazines

Image result for circulation of news mapazines

Image result for cartoons fake news

Image result for cartoons fake news

Image result for blanco cartoons fake news

Image result for blanco cartoons fake news

Don McLean – American Pie

American Pie – Don McLean – Full Length 1989 Video from Original 1971/72 Song

Don McLean- American Pie (with Lyrics)

Donald Trump: Person Of The Year 2016 | POY 2016 | TIME

Time Magazine Person of the Year: Strangest Picks

Isaiah Wilner – “The Man Time Forgot”

USA – Seventy-five years of Time Magazine

Time Magazine Is Fake News

Henry R. Luce and the 20th Century

Uploaded on Apr 26, 2010

A discussion with two biographers of Henry R. Luce, the Yale graduate who founded Time, Inc. Alan Brinkley, an historian at Columbia University, and Lance Morrow, a contributor at Time, spoke about Luce and his impact on the 20th Century. Professor Shelly Kagan moderated the discussion; Yale University President Richard Levin gave the introduction. The event was sponsored by the Yale Daily News.

The Man Who Revolutionized Magazine Publishing: The Rise of the American News Media (2002)

Published on Dec 5, 2015

Henry Robinson Luce (April 3, 1898 – February 28, 1967), was a Chinese-American magazine magnate, who was called “the most influential private citizen in the America of his day”. About the book: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/080…

He launched and closely supervised a stable of magazines that transformed journalism and the reading habits of upscale Americans. Time summarized and interpreted the week’s news; Life was a picture magazine of politics, culture, and society that dominated American visual perceptions in the era before television; Fortune explored in depth the economy and the world of business, introducing to executives avant-garde ideas such as Keynesianism; and Sports Illustrated explored the motivations and strategies of sports teams and key players. Counting his radio projects and newsreels, Luce created the first multimedia corporation. He was born in China to missionary parents. He envisaged that the United States would achieve world hegemony, and, in 1941, he declared the 20th century would be the “American Century”.

Nightly discussions of the concept of a news magazine led Luce and Hadden, both age 23, to quit their jobs in 1922. Later that same year, they formed Time Inc. Having raised $86,000 of a $100,000 goal, they published the first issue of Time on March 3, 1923. Luce served as business manager while Hadden was editor-in-chief. Luce and Hadden annually alternated year-to-year the titles of president and secretary-treasurer. In 1925, Luce decided to move headquarters to Cleveland, while Hadden was on a trip to Europe. Cleveland was cheaper, and Luce’s first wife, Lila, wanted out of New York. When Hadden returned, he was horrified and moved Time back to New York. Upon Hadden’s sudden death in 1929, Luce assumed Hadden’s position.

Luce launched the business magazine Fortune in February 1930 and acquired Life in order to relaunch it as a weekly magazine of photojournalism in November 1936; he went on to launch House & Home in 1952 and Sports Illustrated in 1954. He also produced The March of Time weekly newsreel. By the mid 1960s, Time Inc. was the largest and most prestigious magazine publisher in the world. (Dwight Macdonald, a Fortune staffer during the 1930s, referred to him as “Il Luce”, a play on the Italian Dictator Mussolini, who was called “Il Duce”).)

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, aware that most publishers were opposed to him, issued a decree in 1943 that blocked all publishers and media executives from visits to combat areas; he put General George Marshall in charge of enforcement. The main target was Luce, who had long opposed FDR. Historian Alan Brinkley argued the move was “badly mistaken”, for had Luce been allowed to travel, he would have been an enthusiastic cheerleader for American forces around the globe. But stranded in New York City, Luce’s frustration and anger expressed itself in hard-edged partisanship.[4] Luce, supported by Editor-in-Chief T. S. Matthews, appointed Whittaker Chambers as acting Foreign News editor in 1944, despite the feuds Chambers had with reporters in the field.[5]

Luce, who remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964, maintained a position as an influential member of the Republican Party.[6] An instrumental figure behind the so-called “China Lobby”, he played a large role in steering American foreign policy and popular sentiment in favor of Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek and his wife Soong Mei-ling in their war against the Japanese. (The Chiangs appeared in the cover of Time eleven times between 1927 and 1955.[7])

It has been reported that Luce, during the 1960s, tried LSD and reported that he had talked to God under its influence.[8]

Once ambitious to become Secretary of State in a Republican administration, Luce penned a famous article in Life magazine in 1941, called “The American Century”, which defined the role of American foreign policy for the remainder of the 20th century (and perhaps beyond).

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “Reflections on the Current Scene”

Firing Line with William F. Buckley Jr. “Feminism”

Clare Boothe Luce: Legendary Playwright, Politician & Social Seductress – Biography (1997)

Christopher Hitchens on News, Media, Entertainment and Propaganda (1997)

“THE END IS NEAR!” TIME Magazine Releases Cryptic Cover November 2016! TIME’S UP!

Edward Bernays called it PROPAGANDA

What is Propaganda

Devastating Expose on American Journalism and Media Concentration: Leading Thinkers Bernie Sanders

Mainstream Media Lies to the Masses – Media Lies – Media Lies Documentary

Propaganda and Manipulation: How mass media engineers and distorts our perceptions

More on propaganda and collective insanity

Propaganda & Engineering Consent for Empire with Mark Crispin Miller

Ben Shapiro on Fake News, Crumbling Mainstream Media, and Russia’s Hacking (Part 3)

Ben Shapiro and Dave Rubin: Trump, the Alt Right, Fake News, and More (Full Interview)

College Indoctrination Documentary

Education Is a System of Indoctrination of the Young – Noam Chomsky

27. Your Indoctrination

Ben Shapiro on indoctrination of America’s youth in universities

What is “Fake News?”

The Truth About Fake News | Russia Hacked U.S. Election For Donald Trump?

WELCOME TO TRUTH | Full Documentary 2014

The Future of Newspapers and Magazines

The Future of Journalism: Tom Rosenstiel at TEDxAtlanta

Citizen journalism | Paul Lewis | TEDxThessaloniki

The slow journalism revolution | Rob Orchard | TEDxMadrid

Why the majority is always wrong | Paul Rulkens | TEDxMaastricht

Why I read a book a day (and why you should too): the law of 33% | Tai Lopez | TEDxUBIWiltz

George Carlin – Political Correctness is fascism pretending to be Manners………………

George Carlin the illusion of freedom

The Owners of the Country

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for media concentration charts

Image result for Luce and His Empire

CreditIllustration by Javier Jaén

Our new president is a private-jet-setting billionaire Ivy League graduate, a real estate tycoon, a TV star and a son of inherited wealth. But he is no longer, by his own calculations, a member of the “elite.” Nor are the men (and the few women) now joining his inner circle — 1-percenters and corporate executives, Harvard and Yale alumni, Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and Goldman Sachs bankers. The true elite apparently sits elsewhere, among those who, in Sarah Palin’s notable 2008 formulation, think “that they’re — I guess — better than anyone else.”

As an adjective, the word “elite” still conveys something positive, even aspirational: elite athlete, elite model, elite travel services. But as a noun, embodied by actual living people, it has become one of the nastiest epithets in American politics. “Elites have taken all the upside for themselves and pushed the downside to the working- and middle-class Americans,” complains Trump’s adviser Steve Bannon (of Harvard, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood). In this formulation, elites are a destructive, condescending collective, plotting against the beleaguered masses outside their ranks.

And in these attacks, the president-elect and his team are deploying one of the most effective partisan political stereotypes of the modern age. For most of American history, anti-elite sentiment was a matter of up versus down, not left versus right. But about half a century ago, the conservative movement set out to claim anti-elite politics as its own. That meant redefining the term away from class and toward culture, where the “elite” could be identified by its liberal ideas, coastal real estate and highbrow consumer preferences. The right-wing Club for Growth captured this type in a famous 2004 attack ad, instructing the Democrat Howard Dean to “take his tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading, body-piercing, Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show back to Vermont where it belongs.”

By the 1990s, bashing the ‘liberal elite’ had become a favorite blood sport of the American right.

Trump adjusted the formula for the hot topics of the 2016 campaign. “I was on the right side of that issue, as you know, with the people,” he boasted after Brexit, adding that “Hillary, as always, stood with the elites.” His complaints against “political correctness” conjure a world of absurdist campus politics, where overprivileged students squabble over gender pronouns and the fine points of racial victimization. “Media elites” come in for special attack, cordoned off in pens to be mocked and jeered at during rallies, labeled both liars and incompetents.

But Trump has also ventured beyond mere name-calling, turning the 2016 election into a competition between knowledge systems: the tell-it-like-it-is “people” versus the know-it-all “elites.” His campaign insisted for months that pollsters and technocrats and media would be proven wrong by his electoral success. The fact that he did win dealt a blow to an entire worldview, one in which empirical inquiry and truth-telling were supposed to triumph in the end. The question, now, is whether it’s possible to run an executive branch based on hostility toward experts and professionals of all political stripes — and how many billionaires and Ivy Leaguers Trump can appoint before this rhetorical pose begins to break down altogether.

The notion that distant elites might be conspiring against the people comes straight from the Founding Fathers, whose Declaration of Independence lamented the “long train of abuses and usurpations” inflicted upon ordinary Americans by an arrogant British king. From there on, United States history might be seen as a repeating cycle of anti-elite revolt. The Jacksonians rebelled against the Founders’ aristocratic pretensions. Northern “free labor” went to war against the oligarchical slavocracy. And the Populist revolts of the late 19th century adapted this story to modern capitalism, with farmers and laborers rebelling against robber barons, bankers, time-management experts and college-educated professionals.

The first historians to study those Populists described them as heroic crusaders, champions of the “people” against the “powers.” But by the middle of the 20th century, alarmed by the rise of fascism and homegrown demagogues like Senator Joseph McCarthy, a new generation of scholars took a more anxious view of the anti-elite spirit. In his 1955 book “The Age of Reform,” Richard Hofstadter dismissed the Populists as backward-looking, provincial anti-Semites, the latent fascists of their day. Eight years later, his “Anti-Intellectualism in American Life” documented a dangerous suspicion of “the critical mind” that seemed to course through the national culture. From his perspective, the 1952 election captured everything wrong with American political life, with Dwight Eisenhower’s “philistinism” winning over Adlai Stevenson’s “intellect.”

The question is whether it’s possible to run an executive branch based on hostility toward experts and professionals of all political stripes.

Hofstadter did not usually describe his ideal intellectually minded citizens as members of an “elite.” That word conveyed something different — a ruling class that held direct political and economic power. The most famous articulation of this view came from the sociologist C. Wright Mills, in his 1956 assessment of America’s “power elite.” “They rule the big corporations,” Mills wrote. “They run the machinery of the state and claim its prerogatives. They direct the military establishment.” In Mills’s view, these people were tied together not by culture or ideology but by their positions at the helms of large, ever-more-complex institutions. As individuals, they might be Republicans or Democrats, and might live in Ohio or California. The point was that they were in charge of things.

But that vision never gained much traction in mainstream politics, where a more partisan, targeted definition was starting to emerge. William F. Buckley Jr. carved out some essentials in his first book, “God and Man at Yale,” drawing a neat distinction between respectable Ivy-educated men like himself and the socialistic eggheads of the professoriate. Ronald Reagan chose the term “elite” to bring it all together in his famed 1964 speech, “A Time for Choosing,” delivered on behalf of the Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. “This is the issue of this election,” he said: “whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.”

Lyndon Johnson won that election in a blowout, but Reagan’s vision of a smug and detached liberal elite helped spark the oncoming “culture wars,” pitting a supposedly indignant Middle America against the liberal snobs of the coasts. By the 1990s, with the rise of right-wing media stars like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, bashing the “liberal elite” had become a favorite blood sport of the American right.

Despite all the abuse hurled their way, some “liberal elites” have accepted at least part of their detractors’ critique, particularly on the progressive left. It was during Bill Clinton’s presidency that the social critic Christopher Lasch published “The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy,” which mourned that “upper-middle-class liberals” had turned into “petulant, self-righteous, intolerant” scolds, thoroughly out of touch with the concerns of Middle America. Since then, the torch has passed to a younger generation of writers, including MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, whose 2012 “Twilight of the Elites” called for rethinking the entire ethos of liberal “meritocracy” — a system, he argued, that tends to fuel self-congratulation and incompetence at the top while offering little but contempt and dim prospects for those at the bottom.

So as 2017 begins, we find ourselves in a strange and uncertain political moment. Antipathy toward a wealthy, preening managerial class seems to be gaining popularity across the political spectrum — and, oddly, to have helped elect a wealthy, preening incoming president. Meanwhile, both liberal and conservative “elites” are scrambling to figure out what happens if the president-elect continues to reject basic political norms and even routine intelligence briefings. Under a Trump presidency, such “elites” may have no choice but to attempt a radical redefinition of their role in American life. Otherwise, the man in the White House will do it for them.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/magazine/how-elites-became-one-of-the-nastiest-epithets-in-american-politics.html?_r=0

Henry Luce

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Henry Luce
Clare Boothe Luce and Henry Luce NYWTS.jpg

Luce with wife Clare Boothe Luce, a famous playwright and politician (1954)
Born Henry Robinson Luce
April 3, 1898
Tengchow, China
Died February 28, 1967 (aged 68)
Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.
Occupation Publisher; Journalist
Political party Republican
Spouse(s) Lila Ross Hotz (1923–1935)
Clare Boothe Luce
(1935–1967, his death)
Children 3, including Ann Clare Brokaw (step-daughter)
Parent(s) Henry W. Luce and Elizabeth Middleton Root

Henry Robinson Luce (April 3, 1898 – February 28, 1967) was an American magazine magnate who was called “the most influential private citizen in the America of his day”.[1] He launched and closely supervised a stable of magazines that transformed journalism and the reading habits of upscale Americans. Time summarized and interpreted the week’s news; Life was a picture magazine of politics, culture, and society that dominated American visual perceptions in the era before television; Fortune explored in depth the economy and the world of business, introducing to executives avant-garde ideas such as Keynesianism; and Sports Illustrated explored the motivations and strategies of sports teams and key players. Counting his radio projects and newsreels, Luce created the first multimedia corporation. He was born in China to missionary parents. He envisaged that the United States would achieve world hegemony, and, in 1941, he declared the 20th century would be the “American Century“.[2][3]

Life and career

Luce was born in Tengchow, Shandong, China, (now Penglai) on April 3, 1898, the son of Elizabeth Root Luce and Henry Winters Luce, who was a Presbyterian missionary.[3] He received his education in various Chinese and English boarding schools, including the China Inland Mission Chefoo School.

At 15, he was sent to the US to attend the Hotchkiss School in Connecticut, where he edited the Hotchkiss Literary Monthly. It was there he first met Briton Hadden,[3] who would become a lifelong partner. At the time, Hadden served as editor-in-chief of the school newspaper, and Luce worked as an assistant managing editor. Both went on to Yale College, where Hadden served as chairman and Luce as managing editor of The Yale Daily News. Luce was also a member of Alpha Delta Phi and Skull and Bones. After being voted “most brilliant” of his class and graduating in 1920, he parted ways with Hadden to embark for a year on historical studies at Oxford University, followed by a stint as a cub reporter for the Chicago Daily News.

In December 1921, Luce rejoined Hadden to work at The Baltimore News. Recalling his relationship with Hadden, Luce later said, “Somehow, despite the greatest differences in temperaments and even in interests, we had to work together. We were an organization. At the center of our lives — our job, our function — at that point everything we had belonged to each other.”[citation needed]

Magazines

Nightly discussions of the concept of a news magazine led Luce and Hadden, both age 23, to quit their jobs in 1922. Later that same year, they partnered with Robert Livingston Johnson and another Yale classmate to form Time Inc.[4] Having raised $86,000 of a $100,000 goal, they published the first issue of Time on March 3, 1923. Luce served as business manager while Hadden was editor-in-chief. Luce and Hadden annually alternated year-to-year the titles of president and secretary-treasurer while Johnson served as vice president and advertising director. In 1925, Luce decided to move headquarters to Cleveland, while Hadden was on a trip to Europe. Cleveland was cheaper, and Luce’s first wife, Lila, wanted out of New York. When Hadden returned, he was horrified and moved Time back to New York. Upon Hadden’s sudden death in 1929, Luce assumed Hadden’s position.

Luce launched the business magazine Fortune in February 1930 and acquired Life in order to relaunch it as a weekly magazine of photojournalism in November 1936; he went on to launch House & Home in 1952 and Sports Illustrated in 1954. He also produced The March of Time weekly newsreel. By the mid 1960s, Time Inc. was the largest and most prestigious magazine publisher in the world. (Dwight Macdonald, a Fortune staffer during the 1930s, referred to him as “Il Luce”, a play on the Italian Dictator Mussolini, who was called “Il Duce”).)

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, aware that most publishers were opposed to him, issued a decree in 1943 that blocked all publishers and media executives from visits to combat areas; he put General George Marshall in charge of enforcement.[citation needed] The main target was Luce, who had long opposed Roosevelt. Historian Alan Brinkley argued the move was “badly mistaken” and said had Luce been allowed to travel, he would have been an enthusiastic cheerleader for American forces around the globe.[citation needed] However, stranded in New York City, Luce’s frustration and anger expressed itself in blatant partisanship.[5]

Luce, supported by Editor-in-Chief T. S. Matthews, appointed Whittaker Chambers as acting Foreign News editor in 1944, despite the feuds that Chambers had with reporters in the field.[6]

Luce, who remained editor-in-chief of all his publications until 1964, maintained a position as an influential member of the Republican Party.[7] An instrumental figure behind the so-called “China Lobby“, he played a large role in steering American foreign policy and popular sentiment in favor of Kuomintang leader Chiang Kai-shek and his wife, Soong Mei-ling, in their war against the Japanese. (The Chiangs appeared in the cover of Time eleven times between 1927 and 1955.[8])

It has been reported that Luce, during the 1960s, tried LSD and reported that he had talked to God under its influence.[9]

Once ambitious to become Secretary of State in a Republican administration, Luce penned a famous article in Life magazine in 1941, called “The American Century“, which defined the role of American foreign policy for the remainder of the 20th century (and perhaps beyond).[7]

An ardent anti-Soviet, he once demanded John Kennedy invade Cuba, later to remark to his editors that if he did not, his corporation would act like Hearst during the Spanish–American War. The publisher would advance his concepts of US dominance of the “American Century” through his periodicals with the ideals shared and guided by members of his social circle, John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State and his brother, director of the CIA, Allen Dulles. To highlight the cozy extent of their alliance, rumors swirled that the publisher shared the wartime mistress of the spymaster with Clare Booth Luce.[10]

Family

Luce had two children, Peter Paul and Henry Luce III, with his first wife, Lila Hotz. He married his second wife, Clare Boothe Luce in 1935, who had an 11-year-old daughter, Ann Clare Brokaw, whom he raised as his own. He died in Phoenix, Arizona in 1967. According to the Henry Luce Foundation, he died suddenly at age 68 while visiting his home on Fishers Island, New York, of cardiac arrest. At his death, he was said to be worth $100 million in Time Inc. stock.[11] Most of his fortune went to the Henry Luce Foundation. During his life, Luce supported many philanthropies such as Save the Children Federation, the Metropolitan Museum of Art and United Service to China, Inc. He is interred at Mepkin Plantation in South Carolina.

He was honored by the United States Postal Service with a 32¢ Great Americans series (1980–2000) postage stamp.[12] Mr. Luce was inducted into the Junior Achievement U.S. Business Hall of Fame in 1977.

Designed by I. M. Pei, the Luce Memorial Chapel, on the campus of Tunghai University, Taiwan, was constructed in memoriam of Henry Luce’s father.

References

  1. Jump up^ Robert Edwin Herzstein (2005). Henry R. Luce, Time, and the American Crusade in Asia. Cambridge U.P. p. 1.
  2. Jump up^ Editorial (1941-02-17) The American Century, Life Magazine
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b c Baughman, James L. (April 28, 2004). “Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American News Media”. American Masters (PBS). Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  4. Jump up^ Warburton, Albert (Winter 1962). “Robert L. Johnson Hall Dedicated at Temple University” (PDF). The Emerald of Sigma Pi. Vol. 48 no. 4. p. 111.
  5. Jump up^ Alan Brinkley, The Publisher: Henry Luce and his American Century (2010) pp 302-3
  6. Jump up^ Brinkley, The Publisher: Henry Luce and his American Century (2010) pp 322-93
  7. ^ Jump up to:a b “Henry R. Luce: End of a Pilgrimage”. – TIME. – March 10, 1967
  8. Jump up^ “Time magazine historical search”. Time magazine. Retrieved 19 June 2014.
  9. Jump up^ Maisto, Stephen A., Galizio, Mark, & Connors, Gerald J. (2008). Drug Use and Abuse: Fifth Edition. Belmont: Thomson Higher Education. ISBN 0-495-09207-X
  10. Jump up^ Talbot, David. “The Devils’ Chessboard: Allen Dulles, The CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government.” (2015) Harper-Collins, pub., New York, New York pp. 236-238, 444.
  11. Jump up^ Edwin Diamond (October 23, 1972). “Why the Power Vacuum at Time Inc. Continues”. New York Magazine.
  12. Jump up^ “Henry R. Luce”. US Stamp Gallery. April 3, 1998.

Further reading

  • Baughman, James L. “Henry R. Luce and the Business of Journalism.” Business & Economic History On-Line 9 (2011). online
  • Baughman, James L. Henry R. Luce and the Rise of the American News Media (2001) excerpt and text search
  • Brinkley, Alan. The Publisher: Henry Luce and His American Century, Alfred A. Knopf (2010) 531 pp.
  • Brinkley, Alan. What Would Henry Luce Make of the Digital Age?, TIME (April 19, 2010) excerpt and text search
  • Elson, Robert T. Time Inc: The Intimate History of a Publishing Enterprise, 1923-1941 (1968); vol. 2: The World of Time Inc.: The Intimate History, 1941-1960 (1973), official corporate history
  • Herzstein, Robert E. Henry R. Luce, Time, and the American Crusade in Asia (2006) excerpt and text search
  • Herzstein, Robert E. Henry R. Luce: A Political Portrait of the Man Who Created the American Century (1994).
  • Morris, Sylvia Jukes. Rage for Fame: The Ascent of Clare Boothe Luce (1997).
  • Wilner, Isaiah. The Man Time Forgot: A Tale of Genius, Betrayal, and the Creation of Time Magazine, HarperCollins, New York, 2006

External links

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

W. A. Swanberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

William Andrew Swanberg (November 23, 1907 in St. Paul, Minnesota – September 17, 1992 in Southbury, Connecticut)[1] was an American biographer. He may be known best for Citizen Hearst, a biography of William Randolph Hearst, which was recommended by the Pulitzer Prize board in 1962 but overturned by the trustees.[2] He won the 1973 Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography for his 1972 biography of Henry Luce,[3] and the National Book Award in 1977 for his 1976 biography of Norman Thomas.[4]

Life

Swanberg was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota in 1907, and earned his B.A. at the University of Minnesota in 1930.[5]

With grudging and only partial help from his father, who wanted his son to be a cabinet maker like himself, Swanberg earned his degree, only to find that employment as a journalist with such local daily newspapers as the St. Paul Daily News and the Minneapolis Star was unsatisfactory, as their staff were shrinking during the Great Depression. Swanberg instead held a succession of low-paying manual labor jobs. After five years he followed a college friend to New York City in September 1935. After months of anxious job-hunting he secured an interview at the Dell Publishing Company with president George T. Delacorte Jr. himself, and was hired as an assistant editor of three lowbrow magazines. Money saved in the next months enabled him to return briefly to the Midwest to marry his college sweetheart Dorothy Green, and bring her to New York. He soon began to climb up the editorial ladder at Dell, and by 1939 he was doing well enough to buy a house in Connecticut.

When the United States entered World War II, Swanberg was 34 years old, the father of two children and suffering from a hearing disability. Rejected by the army, he enlisted in the Office of War Information in 1943 and, after training was sent to England following D-Day. In London, amid the V-1 and V-2 attacks, he prepared and edited pamphlets to be air-dropped behind enemy lines in France and later in Norway.[6] With the end of the war he returned in October 1945 to Dell and the publishing world.

Swanberg did not return to magazine editing but instead did freelance work within and without Dell. By 1953 he began carving out time for researching his first book (Sickles), which Scribner’s purchased, beginning a long-term association. Swanberg’s early hopes of newspaper work never materialized, but by the mid-1950s he had established himself as scholarly biographer. His efforts proved to be labor-intensive and required up to four years apiece, even when assisted by the research and transcription efforts of his wife Dorothy. Upon turning 80 in 1987, Swanberg attempted one last biography, about William Eugene “Pussyfoot” Johnson (1862–1945).[7] He was at work on that project when he succumbed to heart failure at his typewriter in Southbury, Connecticut on September 17, 1992.

Swanberg was a Guggenheim fellow in 1960. His papers are archived at Columbia University.

The Hearst Affair

Swanberg’s 1961 book Citizen Hearst: A Biography of William Randolph Hearst was recommended for a Pulitzer Prize for Biography or Autobiography by the advisory board but rejected by the trustees of Columbia University, apparently because they thought that Hearst was not dignified enough to be the subject of the award. It was the first time in 46 years that the trustees rejected a recommendation from the advisory board, and the news caused sales to soar.[1]

Works

In a statistical overview derived from writings by and about William Andrew Swanberg, OCLC/WorldCat [clarification needed] encompasses roughly 30+ works in 100+ publications in 5 languages and 16,000+ library holdings.[8]

Literary Awards

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:a b www.nytimes.com
  2. ^ Jump up to:a b Hohenberg, John. The Pulitzer Diaries: Inside America’s Greatest Prize. 1997. p. 109.
  3. ^ Jump up to:a b “Biography or Autobiography”. Past winners and finalists by category. The Pulitzer Prizes. Retrieved 2012-03-17.
  4. ^ Jump up to:a b “National Book Awards – 1977”. National Book Foundation. Retrieved 2012-03-17.
  5. Jump up^ Gale Contemporary Authors Online. Volume 13.[page needed]
  6. Jump up^ Gale, p. 264
  7. Jump up^ Gale, p. 277
  8. Jump up^ WorldCat Identities: Swanberg, W. A. 1907-

External links

  • W. A. Swanberg Papers Kislak Center for Special Collections, Rare Books and Manuscripts, University of Pennsylvania

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._A._Swanberg

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

Master of Disaster President Obama — Legacy of Failure: Domestically and Abroad — One Success: Destroyed Democratic Party! — Videos

Posted on December 30, 2016. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, British History, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Dirty Bomb, Documentary, Drones, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, Energy, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Natural Gas, Natural Gas, Newspapers, Nuclear, Nuclear Power, Nuclear Proliferation, Oil, Oil, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Resources, Security, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Trade Policiy, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: |

Image result for master of destruction obama

Image result for master of destruction obama

Image result for master of destruction obama

Image result for cartoons master of destruction obama

Image result for cartoons master of disaster obama

Image result for cartoons master of disaster obama

Image result for cartoons master of disaster obama

Image result for cartoons master of disaster obama

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

 

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

Image result for cartoons obama legacyImage result for cartoons obama legacy

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

Image result for cartoons master of disaster obama

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

Image result for cartoons obama legacy

Obama’s Legacy of Failures – 30 documented examples

Report: ‘Obamanomics’ to Blame for Worst Economic Recovery Since 1930s

BREAKING NEWS !!! Barack Obama HAS MADE HIS FINAL IDIOTIC MOVE !!!!!!!!

Barack Obama IS DISINTEGRATING IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES !!!!!!!!

Obama sums up his failed presidency in under sixty seconds

Idiot Obama Worst President in History.

Barack Obama Has Failed Us Miserably

Obama’s Legacy Is One Of Absolute Failure

Obamanation: Crash Course US History #47

The Great Depression: Crash Course US History #33

TV Ad: Barack Obama’s Legacy of FAILURE

Is Obama the worst President ever? Worst Obama moments

Worst President Ever – Obama’s Legacy

Barrack Obama | America’s Worst President In History | Biography Documentary Films

MSNBC: JOE SCARBOROUGH ‘RATING OBAMA LEGACY” – ‘OBAMA’S GREATEST FAILURES “

Top 10 Worst American Presidents

 

Obama unleashes 3,853 regs, 18 for every law, record 97,110 pages of red tape

President Obama‘s lame duck administration poured on thousands more new regulations in 2016 at a rate of 18 for every new law passed, according to a Friday analysis of his team’s expansion of federal authority.

While Congress passed just 211 laws, Obama’s team issued an accompanying 3,852 new federal regulations, some costing billions of dollars.

The 2016 total was the highest annual number of regulations under Obama. Former President Bush issued more in the wake of 9/11.

The proof that it was an overwhelming year for rules and regulations is in the Federal Register, which ended the year Friday by printing a record-setting 97,110 pages, according to the analysis from the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

The annual “Unconstitutional Index” from Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president for policy, said that it was much higher under Obama than under former President George W. Bush.

“The multiple did tend to be higher during Obama administration. Bush’s eight years averaged 20, while Obama’s almost-eight have averaged 29,” said his report, first provided to Secrets.

His index is meant to show that it is the federal bureaucracy, not Congress, that levies the most rules. “There’s no pattern to any of this, since the numerators and denominators can vary widely; there had been 114 laws in 2015, and a multiple of 39. The multiple can be higher with fewer laws, or with more regulations, holding the other constant. The point is that agencies do the bulk of lawmaking, no matter the party in power,” he wrote.

President-elect Trump has promised to slash federal regulations, even pledging to cut two current rules for every one he imposes. Congressional leaders have also promised to slash rules and regulations that have escalated under Obama.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/obama-unleashes-3853-regs-18-for-every-law-record-97110-pages-of-red-tape/article/2610592#!

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

People vs. “Elites”: Nationalist Capitalism Winning — Global Socialism Losing — Videos

Posted on December 29, 2016. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, British History, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, European History, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, Genocide, government, history, History of Economic Thought, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Microeconomics, Middle East, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Religious, Speech, Tax Policy, Trade Policiy, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Image result for cartoons nationalism vs. globalismImage result for cartoons nationalism vs. globalism

Image result for cartoons nationalism vs. globalism

Image result for cartoons nationalism vs. globalismImage result for cartoons new world order

Image result for cartoons new world orderImage result for cartoons new world order

Image result for cartoons brexit nigel farageImage result for cartoons brexit nigel farageImage result for cartoons brexit nigel farageImage result for cartoons brexit nigel farage

Steve Davies and Dave Rubin: Brexit, Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism (Full Interview)

The Difference Between Classical Liberals and Libertarians (Steve Davies Part 2)

Syria, the Middle East, and America’s War on Drugs (Steve Davies Part 3)

Nigel Farage speech in The United States about Brexit and Trump

Emergency! Man Behind Brexit Issues Warning For America

Nigel Farage : The Speech That WON Us Our BREXIT – 24 June 2016

Nigel Farage roasts the EU Parliament before & after Brexit

Nigel Farage on Fox News after Brexit

Epic Rant – ‘Nigel Farage Was Right!’

George Carlin – It’s a Big Club and You Ain’t In It! The American Dream

George Carlin – Dumb Americans

The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation

Obama: We Must Guard Against American Nationalism

Trump’s Nationalism Is Destroying Globalism

BREXIT & America First: The Battle of Globalism vs Nationalism

The Most Important Reason Why the European Union Will Surely Fail

Italy Rejects EU Globalism, Defeats Referendum to Give Globalists Limitless Power

Tony Blankley – At Last, an American Nationalist!

Three Big Ideas: Liberalism, Socialism, Nationalism

 Nationalism: Crash Course World History #34

Capitalism and Socialism: Crash Course World History #33

07 Nationalism, Imperialism & Globalization the good, the bad and the really, really ugly

What is Classical Liberalism? – Learn Liberty

The History of Classical Liberalism – Learn Liberty

Libertarianism 101 with Dr Stephen Davies

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 1) – Learn Liberty

The Decline and Triumph of Classical Liberalism (Pt. 2) – Learn Liberty

 

Dawn of the New World Order: 2017 will be the year EVERYTHING changes

A NEW World Order is set to emerge next year as huge political changes sweep across Europe including the rise of the mega-alliance under Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump.

Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTY/DSNEW WORLD ORDER: Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump will trigger a revolution across Europe
Putin’s growing power and Trump’s extraordinary US Election victory are both herald’s of a growing movement against the established world governments.Anti-establishment parties raging against the political class could sweep to victory in a swathes of elections next year and change the face of the West.

From Germany, to France, to the Netherlands – fringe and extremist parties are gaining momentum hand over fist and looked primed to seize power.

Notable victories have already been won – with a shocking referendum win in Italy causing Prime Minister Matteo Renzi to resign in a move said to pave the way for the collapse of the EU.

Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUDSEND OF THE EU: Anti-establishment parties are set to sweep to power in Europe

“The new axis between Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, and European populists represents a toxic mix”

Fredrik Wesslau

Fredrik Wesslau, from the European Council of Foreign Relations, predicted the “unthinkable is now thinkable” after Trump was swept into the White House.

He said the political parties are trying to unseat the “liberal order” in a campaign backed by Putin and Trump.

Politicians look to overthrow the established order are hailing Trump’s election victory as the beginning of the “Patriotic Spring”.

There are six key elections coming up in 2017 which could very easily be won by right-wing parties with nationalist policies which would spell the end of the EU.

Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTYGOLDEN DAWN: The Neo-nazi movement in Greece is the most extreme example
Marine Le Pen, leader of France’s National Front, could be poised to take power after the election in May in a move which could pull France out of the EU.
She has described the coming year as a “global revolution” after the election of Trump and the victory of Brexit.Mrs Le Pen has promised to pull france out of NATO and “push migrants who want to come to Europe back into international waters”.The alliance is feared to be a further casualty of the looming political shift – with NATO bosses “preparing for the worst” as they fear Putin will invade Eastern Europe and Trump will pull all US support.
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTYMARINE LE PEN: France’s National Front leader could seize power next year
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGEERT WILDERS: The Netherlands’ Party for Freedom leader has compared the Koran to Mein Kampf
Meanwhile, anti-Islam and anti-migrant leader of the Party of Freedom Geert Wilders ended 2016 leading the polls in the Netherlands – contesting the general election in March.He tweeted a picture of Angela Merkel with blood on her hands following the Berlin Christmas market attack – and shared the message “they hate and kill us. An nobody protects us”.He has also compared the Koran to Adolf Hitler’s book Mein Kampf – campaigning to have the Muslim holy book banned – and coined the phrase “patriotic spring”.
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUFRAUKE PETRY: Angela Merkel faces losing Chancellor’s seat next year after major unrest
Frauke Petry is also contesting the German federal election next year as the aftermath of the Berlin attack rocks the government of Angelea Merkel.While she does not have a seat in the Bundestag – the German parliament – approval of her Alternative for Germany party has been swelling in wake of backlash against refugees following terrorist attacks.In her first election manifesto she declared “Islam is not part of Germany” and has previously called on border guard to use “firearms if necessary” when dealing with refugees. 
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTYGERMANY: Unrest is sweeping across the European nation after terror attacks
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTYBEPE GRILLO: This comedian turned politician has already struck a blow to the EU
Leader of Italy’s Five Star Movement TV comedian Beppe Grillo has already caused a stir as the the Italian government lost a key referendum.Savagedly anti-EU, he has said “political amateurs are conquering the world”, called Trump’s victory an “extraordinary turning point” and his party won two key mayoral seats in Turin and Rome.He has been called the “Italian Donald Trump” and his party could be a key player with elections expected to be held in 2017.
Europe Right Wing Politics Brexit Donald Trump Vladimir Putin New World Order Polls EUGETTYJIMMIE AKESSON: Sweden Democrats’ outspoken leader led a campaign against migrants
The Czech Republic is also set to hold elections in 2017 while Sweden goes to the polls in 2018, both with own Trump-esque leaders who could make a shocking grab for power.Andrej Babis, the second richest man in the Czech Republic, is expected to win the general election for the ANO party and has been reported to have close ties to Putin’s Russia.While in Sweden, anti-immigration Jimmie Akesson of the Sweden Democrats is gaining in popularity – campaigning against his nation’s membership of the EU and advocating a campaign to tell people not to come to Sweden.
With Europe’s biggest economies set to go to the polls, struggling Greece could also follow suit.The extreme right fringes of their politics is dominated by the neo-nazi party Golden Dawn – who have launched attacks on refugee camps.While it is very unlikely they have any chance at power, their nationalist cause is of the most intense and hate-filed in Europe.Centre-right party New Democracy is the most likely to unseat the government should a snap election be called.
The former EU diplomat Wesslau said: “The new axis between Trump’s America, Putin’s Russia, and European populists represents a toxic mix for the liberal order in Europe.”He added: “Within Europe, populists on the left and right are trying to roll back the liberal order.”This insurgency is being actively backed by Putin’s Russia, and, now, it seems, Trump’s America.”The European Union itself risks being an early casualty.”

The Globalists Have Declared War on Nationalists

 

Trump’s populist views of self-determination are sweeping the planet and the elite are in a sheer panic. Only a few weeks ago, the sheep of the planet were being marched to their Armageddon. The dumbed down masses have managed to mount a ninth inning rally that have sent the elite into frenzy.

 

Hillary Clinton Was Supposed to Usher in the New World Order Through the Fall of America

The lies are exposed. Hillary and Bill cannot unring the bill, the truth has been exposed for millions of people to see.

The lies are exposed. Hillary and Bill cannot unring the bill, the truth has been exposed for millions of people to see.

Two months ago, I called upon the Independent Media to step up their attacks on Hillary Clinton’s criminal behavior in a last-ditch and desperate effort to derail her presidential aspirations. After issuing my plea, I can happily report that I got more than I had hoped for. Merely a year ago, I was one of the few voices that was pounding away at Hillary Clinton’s sociopathic behavior. Today, the attacks are so bombastic and vitriolic, that I am joyfully reporting that I feel that my voice is being drowned out by a relentless chorus of voices that has Hillary Clinton in a death grip and they won’t let go. This is a great time for humanity. Even if the criminal elite unleash genocidal hell on Earth, at least humanity will die on their feet. There is absolutely no way that the criminal elite can stem the tide of rebellion against their corrupt and satanically inspired rule over the people.

The criminal elite had pinned their hopes on Hillary Clinton ushering in the NWO by tearing down what was left of American sovereignty. From a Bilderberg, Trilateral and CFR perspective, this woman was sociopathic enough to do what would need to be done to complete this task. However, the criminal elite forgot to do one thing. They neglected to manage her public image. It is leaders like Clinton and Cameron which have awakened the masses, through their abject criminality, and the people are saying enough is enough.

Clinton’s role in the emails, her treason by selling uranium to the Russians to raise money for her foundation, the Benghazi affair, etc., etc, are exploding on the national scene. Former Clinton campaign leaders and Secret Service personnel are speaking out against this despot. The genie will not fit back into the bottle. The elite know this and they are on the verge of a mass nervous breakdown. The playground bully has just been punched in the nose by the 98 pound weakling.

Zbigniew Brzezinski saw this awakening coming in 2011 which prompted him to say the following:

brzezinski kill a million

This is what wounded animals do, they lash out in an uncontrollable manner.

The following op-ed piece written for the Council on Foreign Relations captures the criminal elite’s sense of desperation.

The Face of Global Elite Arrogance