The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts
Story 1: Obama The Tyrant Races To Have The United Nations Security Council Pass The Traitorous Terrorist Treaty Before Congress Votes It Down — Congress and President Betray The United States Constitution — Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties — Never Again Fasicism — Videos
Incredible! New George S Patton speech! Iran & modern warfare
The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?
George Pataki: Iran deal is bad for civilized world
White House, Democrats divided over Iran nuclear deal
KEY POINTS OF HISTORIC IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL
Bolton: Nuke Deal ‘Paves the Way’ for Iran to Get Nuclear Weapons
Mitch McConnell Fox News Sunday. McConnell On Iran Deal, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump
July 14, 2015 Fiorina on nuclear deal with Iran: Bad behavior pays
Trump reacts to Obama’s Iran deal presser, El Chapo’s escape
Key Republican Senator Corker Angry Over Iran Nuclear Deal
Blackburn: Iran Nuclear Deal is Bad for the United States
Levin: ‘U.S. Senate Just Capitulated To Obama,’ And Rewrote The Constitution’s Treaty Provision
Just Walk Way From Both Political Parties
Discusses Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act on FOX News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor”
“TREATY” – The Word Congress Won’t Use
Judge Napolitano : Obama pushes World Government by signing U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (Sep 26, 2013)
Obama Bringing Iran Deal to UN, Bypassing Congress
The Four Tops Walk Away Renee
Four Tops – It’s The Same Old Song (1966)
UN ENDORSES IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL WITH 6 WORLD POWERS
The U.N. Security Council on Monday unanimously endorsed the landmark nuclear deal between Iran and six world powers and authorized a series of measures leading to the end of U.N. sanctions that have hurt Iran’s economy.
But the measure also provides a mechanism for U.N. sanctions to “snap back” in place if Iran fails to meet its obligations.
Both U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power and Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Gholamali Khoshroo called the agreement an important achievement for diplomacy, the Iranian promising to be “resolute in fulfilling its obligations” and the American pledging to be vigilant in ensuring they are carried out.
The resolution had been agreed to by the five veto-wielding council members, who along with Germany negotiated the nuclear deal with Iran. It was co-sponsored by all 15 members of the Security Council. The European Union’s foreign ministers endorsed the agreement later Monday in Brussels and pledged to implement it.
Under the agreement, Iran’s nuclear program will be curbed for a decade in exchange for potentially hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of relief from international sanctions. Many key penalties on the Iranian economy, such as those related to the energy and financial sectors, could be lifted by the end of the year.
Iran insists its nuclear program is purely peaceful, aimed at producing nuclear energy and medical isotopes, but the United States and its Western allies believe Tehran’s real goal is to build atomic weapons. U.S. President Barack Obama has stressed that all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon are cut off for the duration of the agreement and Iran will remove two-thirds of its installed centrifuges and get rid of 98 percent of its stockpile of uranium.
Britain’s U.N. Ambassador Matthew Rycroft said “the world is now a safer place in the knowledge that Iran cannot now build a nuclear bomb.” But Israel’s U.N. Ambassador Ron Prosor told reporters immediately after the vote that the Security Council had “awarded a great prize to the most dangerous country in the world,” calling it “a very sad day” not only for Israel but the entire world.
The document specifies that seven resolutions related to U.N. sanctions will be terminated when Iran has completed a series of major steps to curb its nuclear program and the International Atomic Energy Agency has concluded that “all nuclear material in Iran remains in peaceful activities.”
All provisions of the U.N. resolution will terminate in 10 years, including the “snap back” provision on sanctions.
But last week the six major powers – the U.S., Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany – and the European Union sent a letter, seen by The Associated Press, informing U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon that they have agreed to extend the snap back mechanism for an additional five years. They asked Ban to send the letter to the Security Council.
Obama told reporters the vote will send a strong message of international support for the agreement as the best way to ensure “that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon.” He faces strong opposition in the Republican-controlled Congress and expressed hope that members will pay attention to the vote.
Power, the U.S. ambassador, said the nuclear deal doesn’t change the United States’ “profound concern about human rights violations committed by the Iranian government or about the instability Iran fuels beyond its nuclear program, from its support for terrorist proxies to repeated threats against Israel to its other destabilizing activities in the region.”
She urged Iran to release three “unjustly imprisoned” Americans and to determine the whereabouts of Robert Levinson, a former FBI agent who vanished in Iran in 2007.
The message that diplomacy can work ran through many speeches from council members.
Iran’s Khoshroo stressed that only if commitments are fully honored “can diplomacy prevail over conflict and war in a world that is replete with violence, suffering and oppression.”
Russia’s U.N. Ambassador Vitaly Churkin said the agreement “clearly demonstrates that where there’s a political will based on realism and respect for legitimate mutual interests of the international community, the most complex tasks can be resolved.”
“Today, the Security Council has confirmed the inalienable right of Iran to develop its peaceful nuclear program, including to enrich uranium, while ensuring the comprehensive control by the IAEA,” Churkin said.
Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries after the advice and consent of a supermajority of the United States Senate.
Full text of the clause
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur…
One of three types of international accord
In the United States, the term “treaty” is used in a more restricted legal sense than in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from congressional-executive agreements and sole-executive agreements. All three classes are considered treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal United States law. Distinctions among the three concern their method of ratification: by two-thirds of the Senate, by normal legislative process, or by the President alone, respectively. The Treaty Clause  empowers the President to make or enter into treaties with the “advice and consent” of two-thirds of theSenate. In contrast, normal legislation becomes law after approval by simple majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Throughout U.S. history, the President has also made international “agreements” through congressional-executive agreements (CEAs) that are ratified with only a majority from both houses of Congress, or sole-executive agreements made by the President alone. Though the Constitution does not expressly provide for any alternative to the Article II treaty procedure, Article I, Section 10 of the Constitution does distinguish between treaties (which states are forbidden to make) and agreements (which states may make with the consent of Congress). The Supreme Court of the United States has considered congressional-executive and sole-executive agreements to be valid, and they have been common throughout American history. Thomas Jefferson explained that the Article II treaty procedure is not necessary when there is no long-term commitment:
It is desirable, in many instances, to exchange mutual advantages by Legislative Acts rather than by treaty: because the former, though understood to be in consideration of each other, and therefore greatly respected, yet when they become too inconvenient, can be dropped at the will of either party: whereas stipulations by treaty are forever irrevocable but by joint consent….
A further distinction embodied in U.S. law is between self-executing treaties, which do not require additional legislative action, and non-self-executing treaties which do require the enactment of new laws. These various distinctions of procedure and terminology do not affect the binding status of accords under international law. Nevertheless, they do have major implications under U.S. domestic law. In Missouri v. Holland, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to make treaties under the U.S. Constitution is a power separate from the other enumerated powers of the federal government, and hence the federal government can use treaties to legislate in areas which would otherwise fall within the exclusive authority of the states. By contrast, a congressional-executive agreement can only cover matters which the Constitution explicitly places within the powers of Congress and the President. Likewise, a sole-executive agreement can only cover matters within the President’s authority or matters in which Congress has delegated authority to the President. For example, a treaty may prohibit states from imposing capital punishment on foreign nationals, but a congressional-executive agreement or sole-executive agreement cannot.
In general, arms control agreements are often ratified by the treaty mechanism. At the same time, trade agreements (such as the North American Free Trade Agreement and United States accession to the World Trade Organization) are generally voted on as a CEA, and such agreements typically include an explicit right to withdraw after giving sufficient written notice to the other parties. If an international commercial accord contains binding “treaty” commitments, then a two-thirds vote of the Senate may be required.
Between 1946 and 1999, the United States completed nearly 16,000 international agreements. Only 912 of those agreements were treaties, submitted to the Senate for approval as outlined in Article II of the United States Constitution. Since the Franklin Roosevelt presidency, only 6% of international accords have been completed as Article II treaties. Most of these executive agreements consist of congressional-executive agreements.
American law is that international accords become part of the body of U.S. federal law. Consequently, Congress can modify or repeal treaties by subsequent legislative action, even if this amounts to a violation of the treaty under international law. This was held, for instance, in the Head Money Cases. The most recent changes will be enforced by U.S. courts entirely independent of whether the international community still considers the old treaty obligations binding upon the U.S.
Additionally, an international accord that is inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution is void under domestic U.S. law, the same as any other federal law in conflict with the Constitution. This principle was most clearly established in the case of Reid v. Covert. The Supreme Court could rule an Article II treaty provision to be unconstitutional and void under domestic law, although it has not yet done so.
In Goldwater v. Carter, Congress challenged the constitutionality of then-president Jimmy Carter‘s unilateral termination of a defense treaty. The case went before the Supreme Court and was never heard; a majority of six Justices ruled that the case should be dismissed without hearing an oral argument, holding that “The issue at hand … was essentially a political question and could not be reviewed by the court, as Congress had not issued a formal opposition.” In his opinion, Justice Brennan dissented, “The issue of decision making authority must be resolved as a matter of constitutional law, not political discretion; accordingly, it falls within the competence of the courts”. Presently, there is no official ruling on whether the President has the power to break a treaty without the approval of Congress, and the courts also declined to interfere when President George W. Bush unilaterally withdrew the United States from the ABM Treaty in 2002, six months after giving the required notice of intent.
Scope of presidential powers
Presidents have regarded the Article II treaty process as necessary where an international accord would bind a future president. For example, Theodore Roosevelt explained:
The Constitution did not explicitly give me power to bring about the necessary agreement with Santo Domingo. But the Constitution did not forbid my doing what I did. I put the agreement into effect, and I continued its execution for two years before the Senate acted; and I would have continued it until the end of my term, if necessary, without any action by Congress. But it was far preferable that there should be action by Congress, so that we might be proceeding under a treaty which was the law of the land and not merely by a direction of the Chief Executive which would lapse when that particular executive left office. I therefore did my best to get the Senate to ratify what I had done.
A sole-executive agreement can only be negotiated and entered into through the president’s authority (1) in foreign policy, (2) as commander-in-chief of the armed forces, (3) from a prior act of Congress, or (4) from a prior treaty. Agreements beyond these competencies must have the approval of Congress (for congressional-executive agreements) or the Senate (for treaties).
In 1972, Congress passed legislation requiring the president to notify Congress of any executive agreements that are formed.
Although the nondelegation doctrine prevents Congress from delegating its legislative authority to the executive branch, Congress has allowed the executive to act as Congress’s “agent” in trade negotiations, such as by setting tariffs, and, in the case of Trade Promotion Authority, by solely authoring the implementing legislation for trade agreements. The constitutionality of this delegation was upheld by the Supreme Court in Field v. Clark (1892).
Warren F. Kimball, Alliances, Coalitions, and Ententes – The American alliance system: an unamerican tradition
HAMILTON’S WARNING AGAINST OBAMA AND THE IRAN DEAL – FEDERALIST NO. 75
“An ambitious man might make his own aggrandizement, by the aid of a foreign power, the price of his treachery to his constituents.” Thus did Alexander Hamilton warn the American people, in Federalist No. 75, against allowing the president to make treaties alone.
Hamilton, while a supporter of executive power, nevertheless argued for the Senate’s treaty role, because “it would be utterly unsafe and improper to intrust that power to an elective magistrate of four years’ duration.”
It would be unsafe, he said, because even the most virtuous individuals, with the best of intentions, would fall prey to the temptations that negotiations with foreign powers would certainly provide.
How much more so does his advice apply to a president of lesser virtue, such as Barack Obama, who intends to decrease the power of the United States as a matter of ideological conviction, and who seeks narcissistic satisfaction in the attention a deal with Iran would temporarily provide!
Hamilton also anticipated the greed allegedly displayed by Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, whose perambulations around the globe in service of the president’s dubious foreign policy agenda coincided with generous donations from foreign governments to her family’s personal foundation.
“An avaricious man might be tempted to betray the interests of the state to the acquisition of wealth,” Hamilton warns, prescribing the review powers of the Senate as the remedy.
And lest apologists for Obama argue that the nuclear deal with Iran is not actually a “treaty,” but merely an “executive agreement,” Hamilton leaves no doubt as to the scope of arrangements to which the Senate’s review power applies.
“The power of making treaties,” he says, concerns “CONTRACTS with foreign nations, which have the force of law, but derive it from the obligations of good faith” (original emphasis).
Congress should heed Hamilton’s warning before it is too late.
The President… shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur….
ARTICLE II, SECTION 2, CLAUSE 2
Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)
The Treaty Clause has a number of striking features. It gives the Senate, in James Madison’s terms, a “partial agency” in the President’s foreign-relations power. The clause requires a supermajority (two-thirds) of the Senate for approval of a treaty, but it gives the House of Representatives, representing the “people,” no role in the process.
Midway through the Constitutional Convention, a working draft had assigned the treaty-making power to the Senate, but the Framers, apparently considering the traditional role of a nation-state’s executive in making treaties, changed direction and gave the power to the President, but with the proviso of the Senate’s “Advice and Consent.” In a formal sense, then, treaty-making became a mixture of executive and legislative power. Most people of the time recognized the actual conduct of diplomacy as an executive function, but under Article VI treaties were, like statutes, part of the “supreme Law of the Land.” Thus, as Alexander Hamilton explained in The Federalist No. 75, the two branches were appropriately combined:
The qualities elsewhere detailed as indispensable in the management of foreign relations point out the executive as the most fit in those transactions; while the vast importance of the trust and the operation of treaties as laws plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.
Another reason for involving both President and Senate was that the Framers thought American interests might be undermined by treaties entered into without proper reflection. The Framers believed that treaties should be strictly honored, both as a matter of the law of nations and as a practical matter, because the United States could not afford to give the great powers any cause for war. But this meant that the nation should be doubly cautious in accepting treaty obligations. As James Wilson said, “Neither the President nor the Senate, solely, can complete a treaty; they are checks upon each other, and are so balanced as to produce security to the people.”
The fear of disadvantageous treaties also underlay the Framers’ insistence on approval by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. In particular, the Framers worried that one region or interest within the nation, constituting a bare majority, would make a treaty advantageous to it but prejudicial to other parts of the country and to the national interest. An episode just a year before the start of the Convention had highlighted the problem. The United States desired a trade treaty with Spain, and sought free access to the Mississippi River through Spanish-controlled New Orleans. Spain offered favorable trade terms, but only if the United States would give up its demands on the Mississippi. The Northern states, which would have benefited most from the trade treaty and cared little about New Orleans, had a majority, but not a supermajority, in the Continental Congress. Under the Articles of Confederation, treaties required assent of a supermajority (nine out of thirteen) of the states, and the South was able to block the treaty. It was undoubtedly that experience that impelled the Framers to carry over the supermajority principle from the Articles of Confederation.
At the Convention, several prominent Framers argued unsuccessfully to have the House of Representatives included. But most delegates thought that the House had substantial disadvantages when it came to treaty-making. For example, as a large body, the House would have difficulty keeping secrets or acting quickly. The small states, wary of being disadvantaged, also preferred to keep the treaty-making power in the Senate, where they had proportionally greater power.
The ultimate purpose, then, of the Treaty Clause was to ensure that treaties would not be adopted unless most of the country stood to gain. True, treaties would be more difficult to adopt than statutes, but the Framers realized that an unwise statute could simply be repealed, but an unwise treaty remained a binding international commitment, which would not be so easy to unwind.
Other questions, however, remained. First, are the provisions of the clause exclusive—that is, does it provide the only way that the United States may enter into international obligations?
While the clause does not say, in so many words, that it is exclusive, its very purpose—not to have any treaty disadvantage one part of the nation—suggests that no other route was possible, whether it be the President acting alone, or the popularly elected House having a role. On the other hand, while the Treaty Clause was, in the original understanding, the exclusive way to make treaties, the Framers also apparently recognized a class of less-important international agreements, not rising to the level of “treaties,” which could be approved in some other way. Article I, Section 10, in describing restrictions upon the states, speaks of “Treat[ies]” and “Agreement[s]…with a foreign Power” as two distinct categories. Some scholars believe this shows that not all international agreements are treaties, and that these other agreements would not need to go through the procedures of the Treaty Clause. Instead, the President, in the exercise of his executive power, could conclude such agreements on his own. Still, this exception for lesser agreements would have to be limited to “agreements” of minor importance, or else it would provide too great an avenue for evasion of the protections the Framers placed in the Treaty Clause.
A second question is how the President and Senate should interact in their joint exercise of the treaty power. Many Framers apparently thought that the President would oversee the actual conduct of diplomacy, but that the Senate would be involved from the outset as a sort of executive council advising the President. This was likely a reason that the Framers thought the smaller Senate was more suited than the House to play a key role in treaty-making. In the first effort at treaty-making under the Constitution, President George Washington attempted to operate in just this fashion. He went to the Senate in person to discuss a proposed treaty before he began negotiations. What is less clear, however, is whether the Constitution actually requires this process, or whether it is only what the Framers assumed would happen. The Senate, of course, is constitutionally authorized to offer “advice” to the President at any stage of the treaty-making process, but the President is not directed (in so many words) as to when advice must be solicited. As we shall see, this uncertainty has led, in modern practice, to a very different procedure than some Framers envisioned. It seems clear, however, that the Framers expected that the Senate’s “advice and consent” would be a close review and not a mere formality, as they thought of it as an important check upon presidential power.
A third difficult question is whether the Treaty Clause implies a Senate power or role in treaty termination. Scholarly opinion is divided, and few Framers appear to have discussed the question directly. One view sees the power to make a treaty as distinct from the power of termination, with the latter being more akin to a power of implementation. Since the Constitution does not directly address the termination power, this view would give it to the President as part of the President’s executive powers to conduct foreign affairs and to execute the laws. When the termination question first arose in 1793, Washington and his Cabinet, which included Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson, embraced this view. All of them thought Washington could, on his own authority, terminate the treaty with France if necessary to keep the United States neutral.
A second view holds that, as a matter of the general eighteenth-century understanding of the legal process, the power to take an action (such as passing a statute or making a treaty) implies the power to undo the action. This view would require the consent of the President and a supermajority of the Senate to undo a treaty. There is, however, not much historical evidence that many Framers actually held this view of treaty termination, and it is inconsistent with the common interpretation of the Appointments Clause (under which Senate approval is required to appoint but not to remove executive officers).
The third view is that the Congress as a whole has the power to terminate treaties, based on an analogy between treaties and federal laws. When the United States first terminated a treaty in 1798 under John Adams, this procedure was adopted, but there was little discussion of the constitutional ramifications.
Finally, there is a question of the limits of the treaty power. A treaty presumably cannot alter the constitutional structure of government, and the Supreme Court has said that executive agreements—and so apparently treaties—are subject to the limits of the Bill of Rights just as ordinary laws are. Reid v. Covert (1957). InGeofroy v. Riggs (1890), the Supreme Court also declared that the treaty power extends only to topics that are “properly the subject of negotiation with a foreign country.” However, at least in the modern world, one would think that few topics are so local that they could not, under some circumstances, be reached as part of the foreign-affairs interests of the nation. Some have argued that treaties are limited by the federalism interests of the states. The Supreme Court rejected a version of that argument in State of Missouri v. Holland (1920), holding that the subject matter of treaties is not limited to the enumerated powers of Congress. The revival of interest in federalism limits on Congress in such areas as state sovereign immunity, see Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida (1996), and the Tenth Amendment, see Printz v. United States (1997), raises the question whether these limits also apply to the treaty power, but the Court has not yet taken up these matters.
Turning to modern practice, the Framers’ vision of treaty-making has in some ways prevailed and in some ways been altered. First, it is not true—and has not been true since George Washington’s administration—that the Senate serves as an executive council to advise the President in all stages of treaty-making. Rather, the usual modern course is that the President negotiates and signs treaties independently and then presents the proposed treaty to the Senate for its approval or disapproval. Washington himself found personal consultation with the Senate to be so awkward and unproductive that he abandoned it, and subsequent Presidents have followed his example.
Moreover, the Senate frequently approves treaties with conditions and has done so since the Washington administration. If the President makes clear to foreign nations that his signature on a treaty is only a preliminary commitment subject to serious Senate scrutiny, and if the Senate takes seriously its constitutional role of reviewing treaties (rather than merely deferring to the President), the check that the Framers sought to create remains in place. By going beyond a simple “up-or-down” vote, the Senate retains some of its power of “advice”: the Senate not only disapproves the treaty proposed by the President but suggests how the President might craft a better treaty. As a practical matter, there is often much consultation between the executive and members of the Senate before treaties are crafted and signed. Thus modern practice captures the essence of the Framers’ vision that the Senate would have some form of a participatory role in treaty-making.
A more substantial departure from the Framers’ vision may arise from the practice of “executive agreements.” According to the Restatement of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the President may validly conclude executive agreements that (1) cover matters that are solely within his executive power, or (2) are made pursuant to a treaty, or (3) are made pursuant to a legitimate act of Congress. Examples of important executive agreements include the Potsdam and Yalta agreements of World War II, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which regulated international trade for decades, and the numerous status-of-forces agreements the United States has concluded with foreign governments.
Where the President acts pursuant to a prior treaty, there seems little tension with the Framers’ vision, as Senate approval has, in effect, been secured in advance. Somewhat more troublesome is the modern practice of so-called congressional–executive agreements, by which some international agreements have been made by the President and approved (either in advance or after the fact) by a simple majority of both houses of Congress, rather than two-thirds of the Senate. Many of these agreements deal particularly with trade-related matters, which Congress has clear constitutional authority to regulate. Congressional–executive agreements, at least with respect to trade matters, are now well established, and recent court challenges have been unsuccessful. Made in the USA Foundation v. United States (2001). On the other hand, arguments for “complete interchangeability”—that is, claims that anything that can be done by treaty can be done by congressional–executive agreement—seem counter to the Framers’ intent. The Framers carefully considered the supermajority rule for treaties and adopted it in response to specific threats to the Union; finding a complete alternative to the Treaty Clause would in effect eliminate the supermajority rule and make important international agreements easier to adopt than the Framers wished.
The third type of executive agreement is one adopted by the President without explicit approval of either the Senate or the Congress as a whole. The Supreme Court and modern practice embrace the idea that the President may under some circumstances make these so-called sole executive agreements. United States v. Belmont (1937); United States v. Pink (1942). But the scope of this independent presidential power remains a serious question. The Pink and Belmont cases involved agreements relating to the recognition of a foreign government, a power closely tied to the President’s textual power to receive ambassadors (Article II, Section 3). The courts have consistently permitted the President to settle foreign claims by sole executive agreement, but at the same time have emphasized that the Congress has acquiesced in the practice. Dames & Moore v. Regan (1981);American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi (2003). Beyond this, the modern limits of the President’s ability to act independently in making international agreements have not been explored. With respect to treaty termination, modern practice allows the President to terminate treaties on his own. In recent times, President James Earl Carter terminated the U.S.–Taiwan Mutual Defense Treaty in 1977, and President George W. Bush terminated the ABM Treaty with Russia in 2001. The Senate objected sharply to President Carter’s actions, but the Supreme Court rebuffed the Senate in Goldwater v. Carter (1979). President Bush’s action was criticized in some academic quarters but received general acquiescence. In light of the consensus early in Washington’s administration, it is probably fair to say that presidential termination does not obviously depart from the original understanding, inasmuch as the Framers were much more concerned about checks upon entering into treaties than they were about checks upon terminating them.
- Michael D. Ramsey
- Professor of Law
- University of San Diego School of Law
The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 1 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 1, “Themes and Lessons from Colonial America” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 2 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 2, “The Constitution: Four Disputed Clauses” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 3 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 3, “The Principles of ’98” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 4 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 4, “Lysander Spooner and Other Antebellum Radicalism” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 5 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 5, “Secession and the American Experience” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 6 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 6, “Secession and War” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 7 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 7, “Reconstruction” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 8 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 8, “Myths and Facts About Big Business” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 9 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 9, “World War I” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 10 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 10, “The 1920s – Domestic and International” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 11 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 11, “Herbert Hoover and the Great Depression” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 12 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 12, “The Economics of the New Deal and World War II” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 13 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 13, “The History of Foreign Aid Programs” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 14 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 14, “Civil Rights and the Supreme Court” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, Lecture 15 | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Lecture 15, “Welfare Programs and the Great Society” by Dr. Thomas E. Woods, Jr., a senior fellow in history at the Ludwig von Mises Institute, presents this fifteen-lecture course covering the material in his book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History. Presented to the Auburn University Academy for Lifelong Learners, and recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama between September 2006 and March 2007.
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Betrayal of the Constitution An Exposé of the Neoconservative Agenda
Constitution Si, Amnesty No
A Tale of Two Rights by the Southern Avenger
SA@TAC – The Great Neo-Con: Libertarianism Isn’t ‘Conservative’
SA@TAC – Taking the ‘Neo’ Out of ‘Conservative’
William F. Buckley Jr. and the John Birch Society — A Book Review
“…As in the old conservatism, McManus cites a number of sources and lists a number of distinguished conservative personalities that parted ways with Buckley after they became dissatisfied with his “reshaping” of the conservative movement. Among them are the writers Medford Evans (now deceased) and his son M. Stanton Evans, the late free-market economist Murray Rothbard, and journalists Ralph de Toledano and Don Feder of The Boston Herald.
But why did Buckley want to destroy the John Birch Society? McManus provides answers and relates his own personal journey from being a Buckleyite to his eventual membership in the John Birch Society and becoming a follower of its magnanimous founder, Robert Welch. (1)
As to Buckley’s motives, McManus cites the appraisal of Retired Army General Thomas A. Lane, a staunch conservative and also once a former Buckley ally:
“William F. Buckley, Jr., learned about the obstacles which confront every attempt to illuminate the liberal shadows. He made his peace with the liberal powers by launching an attack on the John Birch Society, bracketed with ‘McCarthyism’ as the bogeymen of the liberals. He created a cleavage between Republican highbrows and Democratic commoners, which effectively destroyed all prospect of concerted conservative political action. He was rewarded with liberal acceptance as the spokesman of ‘conservatism.’ ”
Regarding the damage Buckley inflicted upon the conservative movement, McManus provides an exhaustive list, from which I will cite only the following:
1. Provide “conservative” cover for the give-away of the Panama Canal to communist dictator Omar Torrijos in a deal which included $400 million for the Panamanian government.
2. Provide “conservative” cover to sundry CFR internationalists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski (CFR), Henry Kissinger (CFR) and, notably, President Richard Nixon (CFR), who shocked genuine conservatives with his 1971 admission on ABC-TV: “I am now a Keynesian in economics” (followed by the imposition of wage and price controls, the severance of the last tie of paper money to precious metals and other socialist policies in the U.S.).
3. Provide a rationalization for the savage downing of Korean Airlines Flight 007 by a Soviet fighter in which 269 people were killed, including the chairman of the John Birch Society, U.S. Representative Dr. Larry McDonald. Buckley wrote: “The only thing we know for absolute sure that has come out of this is that never again will a Korean airliner carelessly overfly Russian territory. And that, ladies and gentlemen, was the point the Soviet Union sought to make. It has made it.”
4. Provide “conservative” cover for continued U.S. aid to the USSR during the Cold War, aid that prolonged the collapse of Soviet communism. As a result, “Faced with peril from a U.S.-fed Soviet monster following World War II, the American people were persuaded to accept increased taxation, burgeoning federal controls, foreign entanglements, and steady contravention of the Constitution,” writes McManus.
5. Provide “conservative” cover for the U.S. to remain in the U.N. “In the immediate aftermath of the UN General Assembly’s vote to expel Nationalist China (Taiwan) and admit Communist China, Buckley advised that ‘the United Nations has its uses, and the United States would be mistaken recklessly to withdraw from it.’ ” Instead, Buckley recommended that the U.S. refrain from casting votes in the U.N. General Assembly!
This book should be read by all Americans who value freedom, particularly those who have wondered, as I have, why despite repeated turnover of Democrat and Republican administrations no matter which political party wins, we continue our steady march toward less personal freedom, more government and more foreign entanglements and thus more conflicts abroad. …”
‘Bill Buckley: Pied Piper of the Establishment’
Review by Marcus Epstein
“…Fifty years ago, conservatism meant opposition to big government in all its manifestations and a belief in a non-interventionist foreign policy. Today, most people associate it with preserving the legacy of Harry Truman, Martin Luther King Jr., and Hubert Humphrey, while supporting American cultural, economic, and political hegemony across the globe. What conservativism means today is at odds for what it used to stand for. What is the reason? John Birch Society president, John F. McManus, puts the blame squarely on William F. Buckley in his excellent new book, William F. Buckley Jr., Pied Piper for the Establishment.
McManus tells the story of a talented and intelligent man born into privilege. His father, James Buckley, was an exemplar of the Old Right – a staunch opponent of Roosevelt’s New Deal and drive towards war. Buckley followed in his father’s footsteps and was outspoken in his politics, but somewhere he went astray. …”
“…He explains how Buckley then became one of the biggest apologists for the establishment in all its manifestations. Whenever it seemed that the conservative grassroots were ready to turn on the Council on Foreign Relations, Henry Kissinger, the United Nations, The Trilateral Commission, Richard Nixon, or the Rockerfellers, Bill Buckley always managed to defend the hated institutions. In addition to quelling the masses, it allows the establishment to say “Even Bill Buckley believes…” to make any critic of them seem like extremists. The book also explains how Buckley invited the neocons into the conservative movement and helped propel them to its leadership. It also details several leftist positions that Buckley has taken in recent years such as support for legalized abortion, a Martin Luther King Holiday, and special privileges for homosexuals. Looking at Buckley’s legacy, McManus writes,
Buckley is now in the twilight of his life. He has done most of the damage he could ever hope to do. Yet the counterfeit conservatism he has minted is now being circulated by others, including William Bennett, Rush Limbaugh, William Kristol, and George W. Bush. The stakes in the struggle haven’t changed, even though many of the participants have. Many years ago, in his Commonweal article, Buckley recommended “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores… and the attendant centralization of power in Washington” as the means to fight Communism during the Cold War. Today’s neoconservatives are calling for police state powers at home and a coalition of nations under the UN in order to win the war against terrorism. As the French say: “Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.”
While this book does an excellent job of exposing Bill Buckley for the fraud that he is, it fails to fully explain the Right’s transformation. McManus puts a great deal of emphasis on Buckley’s famous Commonweal article from 1952. But while libertarians such as Murray Rothbard and Frank Chodorov condemned it as socialist and statist as soon as the article came out, by McManus’ own account, Robert Welch didn’t say a single critical word about Buckley until National Review turned its guns on the John Birch Society. Why is this? Perhaps it is because Welch overestimated the Soviet threat, and underestimated the importance of an isolationist foreign policy. While the John Birch Society and Robert Welch had reservations about America’s entry foreign wars, they usually gave the same National Review line about how to finish the job.
At the same time, McManus fails to detail how far Buckley and National Review have strayed from their original views since the early 60s. Other than a few differences over conspiracy theories and strategy, the John Birch Society and National Review pretty much saw eye to eye forty years ago. Today they have absolutely nothing in common. Buckley’s membership in the Skull and Bones Club can’t totally account for the change. Perhaps the problem all goes down to foreign policy. Buckley saw the Soviet Union as a great threat that had to be countered by the United States military. To do this he was willing to align himself with liberal anticommunists, but not with conservative non-interventionists. By trying to please these liberal anticommunists, who had much more power and prestige than he, he eventually ended mimicking them.
Despite these few flaws, this book is still a great expose of the establishment’s favorite conservative and essential reading for any person interested in the history of the conservative movement.”
Stiff Right Jab: Pied Piper for the Establishment
“…According to McManus, neo-conservatives have taken over the Republican Party and incrementally remade it in the image of the socialist new world order, with the chief architect of that damning remake being none other than William F. Buckley Jr., the so-called “savior of conservatism,” the founder of National Review.
Mr. Buckley promised in that magazine’s premier issue to stand “athwart at history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one [was] inclined to do so” – and at times, McManus admits, Buckley delivered.
Trouble is, Buckley and NR’s standing athwart at history, taken as a whole, was and is laden with provisos, compromises, incremental abandonment and, importantly, a nebulous, transmutable definition of just what conservatism was – a definition Buckley once described as “a dance along a precipice.”
McManus has another vision of what conservatism ought to be:
- a movement which ought to stand fast by an inspired constitution;
- a movement which ought to uphold the Judeo-Christian ethic as a necessary appendage to successful self government;
- a movement which ought to prefer principle over party, U.S. sovereignty over permanent entangling alliances;
- and a movement which ought to have the guts to call a conspirator a conspirator, a traitor a traitor, a mass murderer a mass murderer.
The neo-conservatives fall woefully short of this standard. Take the neo-conservative mantra on how it is U.S. foreign policy consistently aids and abets communist and socialist movements across the globe, even as we seem to oppose such movements.
The Buckley patented answer, complains McManus (a former Buckley fan): “stupidity and innocent miscalculations.” Likewise, the Buckley explanation as to the march of communism across the globe, McManus notes: “It’s not a conspiracy.”
Buckley, though few see it, takes Marx’s explanation that communism arises here and there as a spontaneous movement among the left-behind poor, and he promotes it.
McManus, the president of the John Birch Society, an organization that Buckley abhors, will have nothing to do with such naïve conclusions. Former Secretary of Agriculture (under Eisenhower) and American patriot Ezra Taft Benson sums up McManus’ take:
“Communism is not a political party, nor a military organization, nor an ideological crusade, nor a rebirth of Russian imperialist ambition, though it comprises and uses all of these. Communism, in its unmistakable reality, is wholly a conspiracy. …”
This is vital. The problem with refusing to call evil “evil” is that while we stick our heads in the sand, communism and its sister isms continue to pop up and prosper (even after the “Fall”) because the West continues to “naïvely” finance, counsel and shape so-called democratic movements of the poor across the globe – in ways which nearly always put the wrong guys in power. …”
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Voices of The American People On Illegal Immigration
Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 1
Numbers USA – Immigration By the Numbers – Part 2 of 2
The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration
Mark Krikorian – Immigration and the Democratic Vote
(Mark Krikorian – Introduction) Panel: Can Conservatism Survive Mass Immigration?
(Discussion Part I) Panel: The Illusionary Allure of Immigration Grand Bargains
Immigration with Mark Krikorian
Mark Krikorian explains why mass immigration is fundamentally incompatible with a modern society.
Support a Moratorium on All Immigration, Legal and Illegal
Ambassador Alan Keyes on Stopping Illegal Immigration
Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration
SA@TAC – Liberty, Limits and Illegal Immigration
Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration
Drinking With Bob
We Need Scientists NOT Landscapers… 2010
Illegal Immigration Perks…2010
What if they Stole Your Springsteen Seats… 2009
I Wanna be an Illegal Immigrant… 2009
Illegal Immigrants Sue Citizen and Win…2009
Illegal Immigrant problem solved… 2007
Illegal Immigrants licensed to drive…2007
Illegal Immigrants!!! … 2006
The American people simply want the illegal aliens to go home and the immigration laws enforced.
Let all the illegal aliens deport themselves.
Illegal aliens should have no jobs, no education, no medical care, no welfare and no transportation home paid for by the American people.
Deport all illegal aliens immediately, just like Mexico.
The American people will not support Gingrich and Perry, closet progressive Republicans, that are soft on illegal immigration.
The American people want the immigration laws enforced–deportation is required by law.
The political establishments of both parties still do not get it and neither does Newt Gingrich.
Enforce the immigration laws.
With 33 million American looking for a full-time job, we do not want to hear any candidate talking about a guest worker program.
Give me a break.
At least 10 million unskilled and inexperienced American citizens do not have jobs because both political parties allowed illegal immigration from Mexico and Central America to enter the country by not enforcing the immigration laws.
The American people keep telling the political ruling class in Washington to enforce the immigration laws and deport illegal aliens.
Both the Democratic and Republican party establishment refuses to listen to the will of the American people.
Both Gingrich and Perry are not be getting my vote because they are “soft” on immigration law enforcement.
I will not listen to or vote for any politician, Democratic or Republican, that will not enforce immigration laws or wants to change the law so that those who came here illegally can stay.
Newt, you lost my vote in 2008 when you did not run.
Newt will not get my vote in 2012 and neither will Romney nor Perry.
The American people want illegal immgration stopped and those here illegally to be deported–enforce the immigration laws.
The American people oppose any form of amnesty whether it be called a pathway to citizenship or a pathway to legality.
The American people support limited and controlled legal immigration where the number of legal immigrants each year is tied to the unemployment rate.
For example, when the unemployment rate is at or above 8% the number of legal immigrants should be limited to 200,000.
When the unemployment rate is at or below 2% the number of legal immigrants should be to 500,000 or less.
Vote and support Ron Paul.
Gingrich: Pay Taxes, Go to Church, Get Amnesty
Newt Gingrich Flunks Immigration 101
Bachmann: Gingrich’s Immigration Stance ‘Most Liberal’ in GOP Race
Bachmann and Romney rip Gingrich on immigration
Michele Bachmann Points Out Newt Gingrich Is A Huge Flip Flopper
Newt Gingrich Pushes Amnesty Plan at CNN GOP Debate
Newt Gingrich – NOT Conservative on Illegal Immigration
Newt Gingrich Immigration Surprise May Cost Him in Iowa:
Ginrich on Immigration
Newt Gingrich Addresses Illegal Immigration and Amnesty
Gingrich Outlines Vision for Immigration Reform
Background Articles and Videos
How Obama is Transforming America Through Immigration
by Mark Krikorian
“…In this penetrating Broadside, Mark Krikorian lays out the details of Obama’s open-borders approach to immigration and its political consequences. Krikorian, one of the leading critics of current immigration policy, examines the Administration’s record of weakening enforcement and describes how legislation crafted by the president’s supporters in Congress would ensure new waves of illegal immigration. Krikorian also explains how continued high levels of immigration, regardless of legal status, would progressively move the United States in the direction of more government and less liberty.”
Newt Gingrich EXPOSED!
Border Security and Illegal Immigration – Newt Gingrich
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( 1 so far )
Occupy Wall Street Protestor on Federal Reserve
Help this video go viral by watching it on YouTube and passing it along to family and friends.
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )
Gary Johnson On Why CNN Banned Him From Republican Debates
Gov. Gary Johnson Responds To Every Question Asked In CNN Debate He Was Excluded From
Who is Gary Johnson?
Gary Johnson or Ron Paul?
Gary Johnson Part 1
Gary Johnson Part 2
Gary Johnson The New Ron Paul! pt.1
Gary Johnson The New Ron Paul! pt.2
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 1/3
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 2/3
Former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson In-Studio: Our America Initiative – Alex Jones Tv 3/3
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
Obama Launches Gun Grab
ATF Attempts to Make Firearms Retailers Spy on Their Customers
ATF Requiring Multiple Sales Reporting of Long Guns; Firearms Industry to File Suit
“…The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) – the trade association for America’s firearms industry – announced today that it will file a lawsuit challenging the legal authority of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) under the Gun Control Act to compel 8,500 federally licensed firearms retailers in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas to report the sale of two or more semi-automatic rifles larger than .22 caliber and capable of accepting a detachable magazine that are purchased following an FBI background check by the same individual within five consecutive business days.
At the time Congress authorized the reporting of multiple sales of handguns it could have required it for the sale of long guns, but it did not. ATF is clearly exceeding its lawful authority under the Gun Control Act. Current ATF Acting Director Ken Melson himself has previously questioned ATF’s legal authority to impose this new requirement.
“While we encourage all retailers, not just those along the southwest border, to continue to cooperate with ATF and report any suspicious activity, this is the proverbial ’slippery slope,’ “ said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “If ATF can require this record keeping and reporting requirement of law-abiding retailers in these four states simply by sending a letter demanding the information, than there is no record or report ATF can not require of any licensee, anywhere in the country for as long as ATF wants. They simply need to send a letter demanding it,” said Keane.
Operation Fast and Furious confirms what ATF has always maintained, that retailers are a vital source of information for law enforcement in combating illegal firearm trafficking. These retailers routinely report questionable transactions to authorities, including ATF. Throughout the Fast and Furious congressional investigation, it was suggested that federally licensed retailers were the original source of information that gave rise to the operation and retailers allowed ATF special agents to stand behind the counter of their shops so that they were better able to observe the transactions.
Even if ATF had the legal authority to require sales reporting for long guns, it is an ill-considered policy that will actually make it more difficult for retailers to cooperate with ATF. Illegal firearms traffickers will simply alter their schemes to avoid and evade the reporting requirement. For example, traffickers could simply recruit more “straw purchasers” and have them illegally purchase firearms from multiple licensees, or simply move their illegal trafficking activities to other states where the reporting requirement does not exist. …”
Exclusive: ATF Intimidates Gun Owners With Home Visits
Federal agency attempts to make firearms retailers spy on their customers under new illegal directive
Paul Joseph Watson & Aaron Dykes
Friday, July 29, 2011
“…As the Justice Department announced earlier this month, “All gun shops in four Southwest border states (Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico) will be required to alert the federal government to frequent buyers of high-powered rifles.”
The ATF letter also orders gun dealers to report to the feds sales of “two or more pistols or revolvers, or any combination of pistols or revolvers totaling two or more.”
The letter, which was subsequently sent out to gun dealers and has since entered the public domain, orders firearms retailers to “Submit to ATF reports of multiple sales or other dispositions whenever, at one time or during any five consecutive business days, you sell to an unlicensed person or otherwise dispose of two or more semi-automatic rifles capable of accepting a detachable magazine and with a caliber greater than .22 (including .223/5.56 caliber).” The directive takes effect from August 14, 2011.
However, what the federal agency isn’t keen to make public is how its agents are using these reports to make threatening home visits to firearms owners, while ordering gun store owners to become de facto informants by telling them to spy on their customers.
According to several gun dealers in Austin as well as one of our own staff members, the ATF is visiting people’s homes, demanding to be allowed inside without a warrant, and implying that gun owners could be terrorists for purchasing two or more firearms at a time.
Illustrating how lawless this is, a central Texas gun dealer who provided Alex Jones with the ATF letter, contacted Daniel Jones, the head of the ATF in Austin two weeks before receiving the letter to ask about news reports that President Obama was going to order the investigation of citizens that bought two or more rifles. Agent Jones told him “no that law is not going to pass, and we can’t enforce something that isn’t law so don’t worry about it.” Of course, the law didn’t pass but the ATF later enforced it anyway.
This is all based on a directive from the federal government that is completely outside of the law and unconstitutional. The law that would have required gun dealers in border states to report sales of two or more semi-automatic rifles to the ATF was “stripped entirely from the text of the regulation” when it came up for a vote in Congress on April 15, but as part of the Obama administration’s dictatorial zeal to accomplish its agenda outside of the law, the program is going ahead anyway.
The federal government is enforcing a law that was never passed. …”
obama launches gun grab
“…The ATF’s intimidation campaign directed against firearms dealers and gun owners is all unfolding while the organization simultaneously comes under scrutiny for the infamous Operation Fast and Furious, a BATF program that. “Sanctioned the purchase of weapons in U.S. gun shops and tracked the smuggling route to the Mexican border. Reportedly, more than 2,500 firearms were sold to straw buyers who then handed off the weapons to gunrunners under the nose of ATF.” Some of the weapons were later used to kill US Border Patrol agents like Brian Terry.
After being caught sending weapons to Mexican criminals that were used to kill U.S. Border Patrol agents, police and citizens, the ATF is now treating American citizens like criminals simply for exercising their second amendment rights, all under the guise of a regulation that was rejected by Congress and never became law.
The Obama administration and the ATF claim that the Fast and Furious program was part of a sting operation to catch leading Mexican drug runners, and yet it’s admitted that the government stopped tracking the firearms as soon as they reached the border, defeating the entire object of the mission, unless the mission was about pushing through gun control in the US and had nothing to do with the drug war.
As the evidence clearly indicates, Operation Fast and Furious was likely a plot on behalf of the administration to discredit the second amendment. While the feds were selling guns to Mexican drug gangs, Obama was simultaneously blaming drug violence on the flow of guns from border states to Mexico.
The ATF’s efforts to intimidate both gun sellers and purchasers also arrives months after President Obama told gun control advocate Sarah Brady that his administration was working “under the radar” to sneak attack the second amendment.
During a March 30 meeting between Jim and Sarah Brady and White House Press Secretary Jay Carney, at which Obama “dropped in,” the president reportedly told Brady, “I just want you to know that we are working on it (gun control)….We have to go through a few processes, but under the radar.”
The quote appeared in an April 11 Washington Post story about Obama’s gun control czar Steve Croley. …”
Related Posts On Pronk Palasades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
The FairTax: It’s Time
EAT THE RICH!
Reagan on Balanced Budget
Shelby Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution
Mark Udall Co-sponsors the Balanced Budget Amendment
Mark Levin “I feel that we can do great things.”
3/09/11: Sen. Rand Paul on balancing the budget
Sen Paul and DeMint at CR Rally
Mike Pence at Continuing Revolution Rally
Advice to Tea Partiers
Debt Ceiling Balanced Budget
New Tea Party Senator will push for balance budget amendment
Today’s Fight is Not the Main Event
Details on the Balanced Budget Amendment
Requires the President to submit a balanced budget to Congress each February.
Requires Congress to appropriate a balanced budget annually.
Caps annual spending at 20% of the economy.
Requires any tax increase be subject to 2/3 House and Senate approval.
All above limitations can be waived by 2/3 majority or by simple majority in times of War or if Congress deems a military conflict to be an imminent risk to national security.
There have been at least 15 attempts to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment.
In 1997, passage of the amendment failed by 1 vote
Rand Paul and Mike Lee on “Glenn Beck” with Judge Napolitano 03/07/11
Fox News Reports on Hatch-Cornyn Balanced Budget Amendment 1-26-11
Hatch Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment
Inhofe: We Need a Balanced Budget Amendment Now More Than Ever
Inhofe Blasts Obama Budget and Federal Spending
MONTHLY STATEMENT OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
OF THE UNITED STATES
MARCH 31, 2011
TABLE I -- SUMMARY OF TREASURY SECURITIES OUTSTANDING, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public Holdings
Bills....................................... 1,694,692 3,809 1,698,501
Notes....................................... 5,843,938 3,933 5,847,871
Bonds....................................... 931,474 3,815 935,289
Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities..... 640,714 125 640,840
Federal Financing Bank 1 ................. 0 10,239 10,239
Total Marketable a........................... 9,110,819 21,921 2 9,132,740
Domestic Series............................. 29,995 0 29,995
Foreign Series.............................. 3,786 0 3,786
State and Local Government Series........... 181,922 0 181,922
United States Savings Securities............ 186,864 0 186,864
Government Account Series................... 136,956 4,596,057 4,733,014
Hope Bonds 19............................... 0 493 493
Other....................................... 1,301 0 1,301
Total Nonmarketable b........................ 540,824 4,596,550 5,137,374
Total Public Debt Outstanding ................ 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
TABLE II -- STATUTORY DEBT LIMIT, MARCH 31, 2011
(Millions of dollars)
Title Debt Held Intragovernmental Totals
By the Public 17, 2Holdings
Debt Subject to Limit: 17, 20
Public Debt Outstanding..................... 9,651,643 4,618,471 14,270,115
Less Amounts Not Subject to Limit:
Other Debt Not Subject to Limit........... 488 0 488
Unamortized Discount 3................... 20,388 20,657 41,046
Federal Financing Bank 1 ............ 0 10,239 10,239
Hope Bonds 19............................. 0 493 493
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit.......... 9,630,767 4,587,082 14,217,849
Other Debt Subject to Limit:
Guaranteed Debt of Government Agencies 4 13 0 13
Total Public Debt Subject to Limit ......... 9,630,780 4,587,082 14,217,862
Statutory Debt Limit 5..................................................................... 14,294,000
Balance of Statutory Debt Limit............................................................. 76,138
COMPILED AND PUBLISHED BY
THE BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
U.S. Debt Clock
Financial Terrorism in America
CAUGHT ON TAPE: Former SEIU Official Reveals Secret Plan To Destroy JP Morgan, Crash The Stock Market, And Redistribute Wealth In America
“…Here are the key remarks:
Unions are almost dead. We cannot survive doing what we do but the simple fact of the matter is community organizations are almost dead also. And if you think about what we need to do it may give us some direction which is essentially what the folks that are in charge – the big banks and everything – what they want is stability.
There are actually extraordinary things we could do right now to start to destabilize the folks that are in power and start to rebuild a movement.
For example, 10% of homeowners are underwater right their home they are paying more for it then its worth 10% of those people are in strategic default, meaning they are refusing to pay but they are staying in their home that’s totally spontaneous they figured out it takes a year to kick me out of my home because foreclosure is backed up
If you could double that number you would you could put banks at the edge of insolvency again.
Students have a trillion dollar debt
We have an entire economy that is built on debt and banks so the question would be what would happen if we organized homeowners in mass to do a mortgage strike if we get half a million people to agree it would literally cause a new finical crisis for the banks not for us we would be doing quite well we wouldn’t be paying anything…
We have to think much more creatively. The key thing… What does the other side fear the most – they fear disruption. They fear uncertainty. Every article about Europe says in they rioted in Greece the markets went down
The folks that control this country care about one thing how the stock market goes what the bond market does how the bonuses goes. We have a very simple strategy:
- How do we bring down the stock market
- How do we bring down their bonuses
- How do we interfere with there ability to be rich…
So a bunch of us around the country think who would be a really good company to hate we decided that would be JP Morgan Chase and so we are going to roll out over the next couple of months what would hopefully be an exciting campaign about JP Morgan Chase that is really about challenge the power of Wall Street.
And so what we are looking at is the first week in May can we get enough people together starting now to really have an week of action in New York I don’t want to give any details because I don’t know if there are any police agents in the room.
The goal would be that we will roll out of New York the first week of May. We will connect three ideas
- that we are not broke there is plenty of money
- they have the money – we need to get it back
- and that they are using Bloomberg and other people in government as the vehicle to try and destroy us
And so we need to take on those folks at the same time. And that we will start here we are going to look at a week of civil disobedience – direct action all over the city. Then roll into the JP Morgan shareholder meeting which they moved out of New York because I guess they were afraid because of Columbus.
There is going to be a ten state mobilization to try and shut down that meeting and then looking at bank shareholder meetings around the country and try and create some moments like Madison except where we are on offense instead of defense
Where we have brave and heroic battles challenging the power of the giant corporations. We hope to inspire a much bigger movement about redistributing wealth and power in the country and that labor can’t do itself that community groups can’t do themselves but maybe we can work something new and different that can be brave enough and daring and nimble enough to do that kind of thing.
Related Posts On Pronk Palisades
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )
“… Meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations … The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for … officials … to bind the employer … The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives …
“Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of government employees. Upon employees in the federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people … This obligation is paramount … A strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent … to prevent or obstruct … Government … Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government … is unthinkable and intolerable.”
~Letter From President Franklin D. Roosevelt
It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. Unions, as well as employers, would vastly prefer to have even Government regulation of labor-management relations reduced to a minimum consistent with the protection of the public welfare…”
~George Meany, AFL-CIO
To the president of the National Federation of Federal Employees in 1937
14 Trillion – U.S. National Debt reaches $14 Trillion dollars, will NEVER be repaid
U.S Debt Clock
Economic Collapse 101 for Dummies
Ron Paul: I’ll Vote Against Raising the Debt Limit
Public Sector Unions vs. America
3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy
Unions Destroying American Economy. Non-Union (Right-to-Work) States better Economys
Wisconsin Gov. Walker: “We’re Broke”
Money Grubbing Thugs: Public Sector Unions Can’t Stop Devouring Taxpayer Money
Unions Threatened Across US
Wisconsin Governor Threatens To Call Out National Guard As Union-Busting Tactic
“Wisconsin Governor & Republican Lawmakers Homes Swarmed By Protesters”
Armand Thieblot on Public Sector Unions (1/2)
Armand Thieblot on Public Sector Unions (2/2)
Unions in America
The war against unions
Unions need to organize unemployed workers
The union non-union gap
Percentage of Workers Who Belong to Unions, 1995-2010
Membership as a Percentage of Wage and Salary Workers
Government Unions Gone Wild!
SEIU & Democrats, the Real Hateful Racists
Wisconsin Union Backers vs Tea Party Activists
Peter Schiff – Do We Need More Labor Unions?
Does Obama Represent the Country or SEIU?
Barack Obama Addresses SEIU’s 2008 Convention
What life in America could be again WITHOUT the UAW and Unions! FORD PLANT CAMACARI
Ari Fleischer Says Obama Needs To Focus On National Debt In SOTU
Rep. Paul Ryan Gives Republican Response to State of the Union Address
Background Articles and Videos
Public Choice – Rent Seeking
Power of the Market – Labor
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [1/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [2/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [3/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [4/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [5/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [6/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
Ep. 8 – Who Protects the Worker [7/7]. Milton Friedman’s Free to Choose (1980)
The New Face of the Union Movement: Government Employees
Published on September 1, 2010 by James Sherk
Abstract: Unions have been a familiar part of American working life for more than 70 years. Less familiar is the state of the union movement today: More union members now work for the government than for private employers. The above-market salaries and benefits that government employees receive are paid for by taxpayers. So, the union movement that began as a campaign to improve working conditions and salaries for workers in the private sector, now pushes for ever-higher taxes to increase the generous compensation that government employees enjoy. Heritage Foundation labor policy expert James Sherk details the changes in the union movement, and explains how Congress can react to this new reality.
“…The American union movement has reached a historic milestone—more union members currently work for the government than for private businesses. As a result, the union movement’s priorities have shifted. Because taxes fund government pay and benefits, unions are now pushing for tax increases across the country. The union movement that once campaigned to raise private-sector workers’ wages has transformed into a government union movement that campaigns to raise their taxes.How did this happen? Union organizing surged after the passage of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) in 1935. But because union contracts raise costs, unionized businesses generally grow more slowly than non-union firms. Market competition has caused union membership to gradually fall in the private sector since the 1950s. The new government unions created in the 1960s could safely demand inflated pay without putting their jobs at risk. Now most union members work for the government.The early trade unionists did not believe that unions had a place in government. They believed the purpose of unions was to redistribute profits from business owners to workers—and the government makes no profits. The government labor movement has become a powerful special interest lobby to raise taxes on working Americans to raise the level of compensation for government workers. Taxpayers should not have to subsidize this lobbying. Congress should prohibit federal unions from using the federal payroll system to automatically deduct union dues from government employees’ paychecks. …”
Union Membership (Annual) News Release
For release 10:00 a.m. (EST) Friday, January 21, 2011 USDL-11-0063
Technical information: (202) 691-6378 * email@example.com * http://www.bls.gov/cps
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 * PressOffice@bls.gov
UNION MEMBERS — 2010
In 2010, the union membership rate–the percent of wage and salary workers who were
members of a union–was 11.9 percent, down from 12.3 percent a year earlier, the U.S.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. The number of wage and salary workers be-
longing to unions declined by 612,000 to 14.7 million. In 1983, the first year for
which comparable union data are available, the union membership rate was 20.1 per-
cent, and there were 17.7 million union workers.
The data on union membership were collected as part of the Current Population Sur-
vey (CPS), a monthly sample survey of about 60,000 households that obtains informa-
tion on employment and unemployment among the nation’s civilian noninstitutional
population age 16 and over. For more information see the Technical Note.
Highlights from the 2010 data:
–The union membership rate for public sector workers (36.2 percent) was
substantially higher than the rate for private sector workers (6.9 percent).
(See table 3.)
–Workers in education, training, and library occupations had the highest
unionization rate at 37.1 percent. (See table 3.)
–Black workers were more likely to be union members than were white, Asian,
or Hispanic workers. (See table 1.)
–Among states, New York had the highest union membership rate (24.2 percent)
and North Carolina had the lowest rate (3.2 percent). (See table 5.)
Industry and Occupation of Union Members
In 2010, 7.6 million public sector employees belonged to a union, compared with 7.1
million union workers in the private sector. The union membership rate for public
sector workers (36.2 percent) was substantially higher than the rate for private
sector workers (6.9 percent). Within the public sector, local government workers
had the highest union membership rate, 42.3 percent. This group includes workers in
heavily unionized occupations, such as teachers, police officers, and fire fighters.
Private sector industries with high unionization rates included transportation and
utilities (21.8 percent), telecommunications (15.8 percent), and construction (13.1
percent). In 2010, low unionization rates occurred in agriculture and related indus-
tries (1.6 percent) and in financial activities (2.0 percent). (See table 3.)
Among occupational groups, education, training, and library occupations (37.1 per-
cent) and protective service occupations (34.1 percent) had the highest unionization
rates in 2010. Sales and related occupations (3.2 percent) and farming, fishing, and
forestry occupations (3.4 percent) had the lowest unionization rates. (See table 3.)
Demographic Characteristics of Union Members
The union membership rate was higher for men (12.6 percent) than for women (11.1 per-
cent) in 2010. (See table 1.) The gap between their rates has narrowed considerably
since 1983, when the rate for men was about 10 percentage points higher than the rate
for women. Between 1983 and 2010, the union membership rate for men declined by almost
half (12.1 percentage points), while the rate for women declined by 3.5 percentage
In 2010, among major race and ethnicity groups, black workers were more likely to be
union members (13.4 percent) than workers who were white (11.7 percent), Asian (10.9
percent), or Hispanic (10.0 percent). Black men had the highest union membership rate
(14.8 percent), while Asian men had the lowest rate (9.4 percent).
By age, the union membership rate was highest among 55- to 64-year-old workers (15.7
percent). The lowest union membership rate occurred among those ages 16 to 24 (4.3
In 2010, 16.3 million wage and salary workers were represented by a union. This group
includes both union members (14.7 million) and workers who report no union affiliation
but whose jobs are covered by a union contract (1.6 million). (See table 1.) Govern-
ment employees (783,000) comprised about half of the 1.6 million workers who were
covered by a union contract but were not members of a union. (See table 3.)
Read Full Post
| Make a Comment ( None so far )