No Muslim Presidents — Ben Carson Right — Sharia Law Conflicts With Presidential Oath of Office To Defend U.S. Constitution — Governor Scott Walker Suspends Campaign — Conservatives Disappointed — Videos

Posted on September 22, 2015. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 538: September 22, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 537: September 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 536: September 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 535: September 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 16, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: No Muslim Presidents —  Ben Carson Right — Sharia Law Conflicts With Presidential Oath of Office To Defend U.S. Constitution — Governor Scott Walker Suspends Campaign — Conservatives Disappointed — Videos

U.S. Constitution

Article II

Section 1.

Clause 8: Oath or affirmation

Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:–“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

United States Constitution

Article VI

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlevi

U.S. Bill of Rights

Amendment I (1): Freedom of religion, speech, and the press; rights of assembly and petition
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

https://www.constitutionfacts.com/us-constitution-amendments/bill-of-rights/

Sharia Law

Shariah law

Sharia law is the law of Islam. The Sharia (also spelled Shariah or Shari’a) law is cast from the actions and words of Muhammad, which are called “Sunnah,” and the Quran, which he authored.

The Sharia law itself cannot be altered, but the interpretation of the Sharia law, called “figh,” by imams is given some leeway.

As a legal system, the Sharia law covers a very wide range of topics. While other legal codes deal primarily with public behavior, Sharia law covers public behavior, private behavior and private beliefs. Of all legal systems in the world today, Islam’s Sharia law is the most intrusive and strict, especially against women.

According to the Sharia law:

•  Theft is punishable by amputation of the right hand (above).
•  Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
•  Criticizing or denying Muhammad is a prophet is punishable by death.
•  Criticizing or denying Allah, the moon god of Islam is punishable by death.
•  A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death.
•  A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
•  A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
•  A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
•  Girls’ clitoris should be cut (per Muhammad‘s words in Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
•  A woman can have 1 husband, but a man can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
•  A man can unilaterally divorce his wife but a woman needs her husband’s consent to divorce.
•  A man can beat his wife for insubordination.
•  Testimonies of four male witnesses are required to prove rape against a woman.
•  A woman who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
•  A woman’s testimony in court, allowed only in property cases, carries half the weight of a man’s.
•  A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits.
•  A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
•  A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
•  Meat to be eaten must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah – i.e., be Halal.
•  Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.
•  The list goes on.

http://www.billionbibles.org/sharia/sharia-law.html

Ben Carson: ‘Absolutely I stand by the comments’ about Muslim president

Ben Carson Does Not Believe a Muslim Should Be President Meet The Press

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson said today he would not support a Muslim as president on meet the press The retired neurosurgeon also said Islam, as a religion, was inconsistent with the Constitution. Carson told NBC’s “Meet the Press” he believed a president’s faith should matter “depending on what that faith is.” “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” Carson said. “If it’s [a president’s faith] inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter.” Carson, who has been near the top of several presidential polls, said he would consider voting for a Muslim in Congress “[depending] on who that Muslim is and what their policies are.” ABC News has reached out to Carson’s campaign for comment.
Ben Carson Does ‘Not Advocate’ A Muslim As President Sun, Sep 20 Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson tells Chuck Todd that the faith of a presidential candidate should matter to voters “if it is inconsistent with the values … of America.”

GOP candidate Carson: Muslim shouldn’t be elected president

What Is Sharia Law?

How Is Sharia Law Dangerous for Western Society?

484. Is Islam A Religion Of Peace?

485. Was Muhammad A Prophet Of Peace?

493. What Is Sharia Law?

Muslims should not become President’ Republican candidate

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 1: The Threat Doctrine of Shariah & the Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 2: ‘Civilization Jihad’ in America

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 3: Influence Operations Against Conservatives & the GOP

Muslim Brotherhood in America, Part 4: Suhail Khan, A Case Study in Influence Operations

CAIR – Muslim Mafia

CAIR in Damage Control After Terrorist Designation, Ties to Muslim Brotherhood

CAIR, Muslim American Society Designated as Terrorist Organizations

Election 2016 Presidential Polls

Tuesday, September 22
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Trump 24, Carson 17, Cruz 8, Fiorina 13, Rubio 8, Bush 6, Walker 5, Huckabee 6, Paul 4, Jindal 4, Kasich 2, Santorum 1, Christie 1, Perry, Graham 0 Trump +7
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus PPP (D) Clinton 43, Sanders 22, Biden 17, O’Malley 3, Webb 3, Chafee 2 Clinton +21
Monday, September 21
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination CNN/ORC Clinton 42, Sanders 24, Biden 22, O’Malley 1, Webb 0, Chafee 0 Clinton +18
Sunday, September 20
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination CNN/ORC Trump 24, Carson 14, Bush 9, Rubio 11, Cruz 6, Fiorina 15, Huckabee 6, Paul 4, Kasich 2, Christie 3, Walker 0, Perry, Santorum 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +9
Thursday, September 17
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Michigan Republican Presidential Primary MRG Trump 22, Carson 24, Bush 8, Fiorina 3, Rubio 4, Cruz 3, Huckabee 6, Kasich 2, Walker 2, Christie 1, Paul 2, Santorum 0, Jindal 0 Carson +2
Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary MRG Clinton 41, Sanders 22, Biden 22, O’Malley 1, Chafee 0, Webb 0 Clinton +19
Michigan: Trump vs. Clinton MRG Clinton 43, Trump 40 Clinton +3
Michigan: Bush vs. Clinton MRG Clinton 39, Bush 40 Bush +1
Wednesday, September 16
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary WBUR Trump 22, Carson 18, Kasich 9, Fiorina 11, Bush 9, Cruz 5, Paul 4, Rubio 2, Christie 2, Walker 1, Huckabee 1, Graham 1, Pataki 0, Jindal 0, Santorum 0 Trump +4
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary WBUR Sanders 35, Clinton 31, Biden 14, Webb 2, O’Malley 1, Chafee 1 Sanders +4

Wisconsin Gov Scott Walker Suspends His Presidential Campaign – Mark Steyn – Hannity

Poor debate showings key to Walker’s early

 

Scott Walker drops out of 2016 presidential race

Scott Walker on Donald Trump, Family Politics

Donald Trump: Scott Walker Has ‘a Lot of Problems’

It’s Official – The Kochs Have Chosen Their Candidate

Scott Walker suspends presidential campaign

By Jenna Johnson, Dan Balz and Robert Costa

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has suspended his presidential campaign, effectively ending a once-promising GOP presidential bid that collapsed amid tepid debate performances, confusing statements and other missteps.

“Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to the top of the field,” Walker said in a brief speech in Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday evening. “With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign immediately.”

Walker said that because the field is so crowded, candidates have become focused on personal attacks instead of the substantial issues that matter most to voters. He said Republicans have lost the “optimistic view of America” pushed by President Ronald Reagan, Walker’s political idol, and urged those still running to “get back to the basics” with a focus on creating jobs, reducing the size of government and strengthening the military.

“To refocus the debate on these types of issues will require leadership,” Walker said. “I encourage other Republican presidential candidates to consider doing the same so that the voters can focus on a limited number of candidates who can offer a positive, conservative alternative to the current front-runner. This is fundamentally important to the future of the party and, more importantly, to the future of our country.”

In making that plea, Walker did not directly name the current front-runner, businessman Donald Trump.

The announcement stunned many of Walker’s major supporters, donors, fundraisers and even some of his staff members. Given his tanking poll numbers, many expected dramatic changes to the staff and strategy — but not such a sudden end.

“I’m stunned and saddened because I think Scott has had a tremendous record of accomplishment,” Fred Malek, a longtime party fundraiser who serves as the Republican Governor’s Association’s finance chairman. “He’s a man of the highest character and capacity, and he would have made a great president.”
Wisconsin State Assembly Speaker Robin Vos said in a statement: “Governor Walker has an amazing story to tell about turning Wisconsin around. It is unfortunate that the bluster of candidates overshadowed his substance.”

When Walker launched his presidential campaign in mid-July, he was considered a top-tier candidate. He was an early favorite in Iowa, where many voters liked that he was a mellow, understated and sometimes boring Midwesterner. And a super PAC supporting his candidacy raised more than $20 million in less than three months.

But as the summer wore on, Walker’s campaign quickly became overshadowed by Trump and other candidates who have never held elected office. As Walker slid in early polls, he seemed to struggle to find his place the field, sometimes taking stances or using language that confused some of his longtime supporters. During the first Republican debate, Walker pitched himself as “aggressively normal” but seemed to disappear on the crowded stage. While he tried to be more energetic during the second debate last week, Walker was again overshadowed and hardly spoke during the three-hour faceoff. There were always glimmers of hope within the campaign that the situation would improve, and Walker’s campaign was constantly maneuvering — first targeting Trump’s supporters, then trying to tap into anti-establishment sentiments and then, just last week, focusing all of their energy on Iowa.

[How Donald Trump destroyed Scott Walker’s presidential chances]

Throughout the summer, Walker made a series of confusing or contradictory comments that often took several days to fully clarify. In August, he seemed to endorse ending birthright citizenship, then said he didn’t have a position on the issue, and then said that he did not want to change the constitution, which many believe guarantees citizenship to those born on U.S. soil. In late August, Walker called building a wall along the Canadian border “a legitimate issue for us to look at,” only to say days later that he never supported the idea and that his words were twisted by the media. Over Labor Day weekend, he refused to say if the United States should accept more Syrian refugees, telling reporters that it was a “hypothetical question” and that he wanted to talk about “reality” – only to say soon after that the United States should not accept more refugees.
Several longtime Walker supporters said they no longer recognized the candidate they had watched rise to national prominence from the Wisconsin governor’s office. Walker is best known for aggressively pushing for reforms to the state’s public-sector unions in 2011, riling Democrats both in his state and across the country. He quickly became a favorite of tea-party activists and his calm amid protests at the state capitol landed him on the cover of conservative magazines. He became a regular presence on Fox News. A year later, as he battled and ultimately won a recall election, he was being touted as a possible vice-presidential candidate for GOP nominee Mitt Romney.

“It was nice for him to get that attention in the short run, but it set up expectations he couldn’t hope to maintain,” said Vin Weber, a former Minnesota congressman and adviser to Jeb Bush’s presidential campaign.

Union leadership, which had long considered Walker a top target, reacted quickly Monday to reports that he was suspending his campaign. “Scott Walker is still a disgrace, just no longer national,” AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka said in a terse afternoon statement.

In recent weeks, there were clear signs that Walker’s campaign was in trouble. His poll results began to resemble a ski slope. And although the super PAC was flush with money, supporters worried that the campaign itself was running low on cash.

The large cadre of staff and paid consultants around Walker have been on what one called a “death watch” for the past several weeks. It was clear to many that a single bad debate performance would spell the beginning of a dramatic downsizing of Walker’s campaign, with Walker staffers bracing for spending cuts, layoffs and a shake-up in the campaign leadership. Following last week’s debate, the frustration of many fundraisers and major donors exploded, as they demanded that Walker replace his campaign manager, Rick Wiley. Over the weekend, Walker skipped two previously scheduled appearances in Michigan and California, angering Republicans in states with high numbers of delegates, so that he could instead spend more time in Iowa. There, he struck several people as looking exhausted and beaten down.
There aren’t many loyal Walker voters in the state left to claim, said Steve Grubbs, Iowa strategist for Republican presidential rival Rand Paul. “The reality is that there was a very significant shift from Walker to Trump over the last 8-10 weeks,” he said, adding that it was those voters who might be up for grabs. “As Walker is out, and Trump begins to lose support, those voters will come back into play. And we believe that a lot of those voters are gettable,” said Grubbs.

Then came the latest CNN poll on Sunday that was like a punch in the gut: The governor was now polling nationally at less than one percent – so low that he received an asterisk on some charts instead of an actual number.

Still, the candidate kept his deliberations to quit the race very close, with a full schedule of events planned for this week that included campaign stops in Indiana and Virginia and a fundraiser in New York City at the home of one of his major donors, Joe Ricketts. Most staff, including senior aides, found out only Monday that he had decided to suspend his campaign later in the day.

Walker said on Monday that he reflected on the decision at church on Sunday. In suspending his campaign, he thanked everyone who believed in him — especially his wife, Tonette, and their two sons.

“Most of all, I want to thank God for his abundant grace,” Walker said in closing on Monday. “Win or lose, it is more than enough for any of us.”

[What happened to Scott Walker?]

Trump — who has been credited with quickening if not causing the sudden death of Walker’s campaign — praised Walker’s character and gubernatorial record and said he would reach out to his former rival in the coming days to offer encouragement.

“I really liked him a lot,” Trump said in an interview with The Washington Post on Monday. “I thought he was a terrific person. He has been a terrific governor. I got to know him pretty well. I’m a little surprised that it hasn’t worked out better for him. Many people thought he’d be the primary competition, at least initially.”
Trump, who proudly surrounds himself with a small group of aides, wondered if Walker was hurt by too much advice and management from his political consultants. “He was very loose guy when he came up to see me a few months ago to give me a plaque, but then on the campaign, maybe there were too many people. I think he had too many people, many of them who didn’t know what they were doing,” he said.

Other presidential contenders also offered their praise on Monday evening. In a statement, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) called Walker “a good man, a formidable fighter, and an effective reformer.” Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also used a statement to call Walker “a good man” and “one of the best governors in the country.”

Even before Walker announced the suspension of his campaign, rival campaigns had begun contacting top Walker donors to urge them to come aboard. Vin Weber said Bush’s campaign was aggressively reaching out to Walker donors and staffers Monday afternoon. “We thought it happened a little sooner than expected, but it was inevitable. There was not a path back for him, based on his performance as a candidate. And even though he was an asterisk in the polls, his decision will help to clarify the race, sending a strong message to other candidates who aren’t registering to move on and get the party down to 5 or 6 candidates who are viable.”

Gary Marx, a senior adviser to Walker’s campaign who coordinated outreach to conservative movement groups, said in an interview Monday that he and others are already looking for work. On Tuesday, Marx said, he will interview with three GOP presidential campaigns, which he declined to name.

A major problem of the Walker campaign, he said, was that it was difficult to generate enthusiasm — and campaign funding soon dried up. “No matter how much money was in the super PAC, hard dollars still matter,” he said. “He didn’t have the finances to continue on. Money is ultimately what stops campaigns from going further.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/09/21/scott-walker-suspends-presidential-campaign/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 538

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Biden’s Big Lie: Trump Selling A “Sick Message” About Immigrants (aka Illegal Aliens) in America Based on Xenophobia — The Truth: Obama and Biden Betray Oath of Office By Not Enforcing Immigration Law — The American People Want The Immigration Laws Enforced — Trump on Immigration Plan: ‘Start by Building a Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’ — Live With It Liars! — Trump Fires Back From USS Iowa With All Three Guns Firing — Veteran Voter Victory For Trump! — Video

Posted on September 20, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Culture, Economics, Elections, Employment, Entertainment, Faith, Family, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Television, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Story 1: Biden’s Big Lie: Trump Selling A “Sick Message” About Immigrants (aka Illegal Aliens) in America Based on Xenophobia — The Truth: Obama and Biden Betray Oath of Office By Not Enforcing Immigration Law — The American People Want The Immigration Laws Enforced — Trump on Immigration Plan: ‘Start by Building a Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’ — Live With It Liars! — Trump Fires Back From USS Iowa With All Three Guns Firing — Veteran Voter Victory For Trump! — Video

Joe_Biden_Slams_Donald_Trump8217s-70931083db7d50522d5dfed5c895c75d.cftrump-USS-Iowa

LOS ANGELES, CA - SEPTEMBER 15: Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks during a campaign rally aboard the USS Iowa on September 15, 2015 in Los Angeles, California. Donald Trump is campaigning in Los Angeles a day ahead of the CNN GOP debate that will be broadcast from the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

17-joe-biden-stephanie-carter

Biden thumps Trump for selling ‘sick message’

Biden Speaks Out on Trump’s ‘Xenophobia’: ‘This Will Pass’

Vice President Joe Biden spoke at a Hispanic Heritage Month reception today and took a moment to go after the “xenophobia” being pushed by Donald Trump.

He said with sincerity that people shouldn’t “be down right now” with all the GOP rhetoric, despite “one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia.”

The veep assured the audience that “this will pass” and that the “sick message” they’re hearing-–presumably referring to politically divisive rhetoric––is a problem on both sides.

Biden still hasn’t made up his mind as to whether he’s running or not in 2016, recently saying it’s a tough decision, but his fiery rhetoric recently has gotten people talking.

FNN: Donald Trump speaks on the USS Iowa

Donald Trump spoke to supporters and veterans on September 15, 2015. Aboard the USS Iowa, Trump stated that, “illegal immigrants get better health care than our veterans. That is going to change.”

Karl Rove Destroys Joe Biden

Joe Biden Prevaricates about Law School Class Standing

JOE BIDEN — PLAGIARIST

Joe Biden Says Dumb Things

“The Best of Joe Biden’s Gaffe’s; A Continuing Series…”

Watch Joe Biden Rub, Touch And Kiss His Way To Beck-Like Creepiness

Joe Biden Kisses Woman on Lips at Rally

Vote For A Genuine Scumbag: Joe Biden For Prez

Trump on Immigration Plan: ‘Start by Building a Big, Beautiful, Powerful Wall’

• Mark Levin • Anchor Babies Are Not U.S. Citizens • Hannity • 8/19/15 •

Constitutional scholar Mark Levin disabuses the common notion that children of illegal immigrants are conferred U.S. citizenship by the 14th Amendment of the U.S. constitution. Levin meticulously reviews the history and language of the amendment to demonstrate that only an Act of Congress can grant citizenship to “anchor babies”.

Mark Levin: The Citizenship Clause of 14th Amendment, birthright citizenship & illegal immigration

Trump’s Right: Anchor Babies Are Big Business

Birthright Citizenship Under the 14th Amendment of Persons Born in the United States to Alien Parents Margaret Mikyung Lee Legislative Attorney August 12, 2010

Joe Biden hammers Trump for ‘sick message’ exploiting xenophobia

Vice President Joe Biden on Tuesday said Republican presidential contender Donald Trump was selling a “sick message” about immigrants in America based on xenophobia.

Biden, considering a run for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, told a small group of Latinos gathered at his home that they should not lose heart watching Trump climb in the polls while taking a hard line on immigration.

Trump, leading the pack of Republicans seeking their party’s 2016 nomination, has accused Mexico of sending criminals and rapists to the United States. He has promised to build a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border to keep out illegal immigrants and deport the 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

Biden told his guests that he had seen Trump talking on television just before speaking to the poolside cocktail party, and decided to cast aside remarks his staff had prepared recognizing Hispanic Heritage Month.

“There’s one guy absolutely denigrating an entire group of people, appealing to the baser side of human nature, working on this notion of xenophobia in a way that hasn’t occurred in a long time,” Biden told the group of about 75 people.

“This isn’t about Democrat – Republican. It’s about a sick message. This message has been tried on America many times before. We always, always, always, always overcome,” he said.

Biden, who is Catholic, urged the group not to feel “down” about Trump’s popularity, noting that Pope Francis was about to visit the United States and likely would have a very different message about welcoming immigrants.

“The American people are with us. I know it doesn’t feel that way. But I’m telling you, the American people agree with us,” Biden said.

Biden, whose son Beau died recently, has said he is not sure he has the emotional capacity to make what would be his third run for president.

His poll numbers have climbed as he explores the possibility and as the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton, grapples with a controversy over her use of a private email server while secretary of state.

At the end of his remarks, a few people in the crowd shouted, “Run Joe, run!”

Biden, making the sign of the cross as he hurried away from the podium, said “Oh no, no, no, no, no” as if to stave off the topic.

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/joe-biden-hammers-trump-for-sick-message-exploiting-xenophobia/

Consequences of misinterpreting the 14thAmendment to the United States Constitution

Cost

Births to illegal alien mothers are adding more to the U.S. population each year than did immigration from all sources in an average year prior to 1965.

The Urban Institute estimates the cost of educating illegal alienchildren in the nation’s seven states with the highest concentration of illegal aliens was $3.1 billion in 1993 (which, with the growth of their population to 1.3 million, would be more like $5 billion in 2000). This estimate does not take into account the additional costs of bilingual education or other special educational needs.1

FAIR estimates there are currently between 287,000 and 363,000 children born to illegal aliens each year. This figure is based on the crude birth rate of the total foreign-born population (33 births per 1000) and official estimates of the size of the illegal alien population – between 8.7 and 11 million. It should be noted that the Bear Stearns investment firm and others have concluded that the actual number of illegal aliens in the United States could be as high as 20 million.2,3 Using this higher number would roughly double FAIR’s estimate to approximately 574,000 to 726,000 children born to illegal aliens each year!

As of 2001, the cost of having a baby in the U.S. ranged from $6,000 to $8,000 for a normal delivery and $10,000 to $12,000 for a cesarean birth (to as much as $14,000 in certain parts of the country).10 Assuming that an average birth in the year 2007 now costs $8,000, the total cost for 363,000 anchor babies would be approximately $3 billion. Assuming the more realistic number of 726,000 anchor babies, the total cost would be nearly $6 billion. American taxpayers pay a substantial part of this cost.

In 1994, California paid for 74,987 deliveries to illegal alien mothers, at a total cost of $215.2 million (an average of $2,842 per delivery). Illegal alien mothers accounted for 36 percent of all Medi-Cal funded births in California that year.1 A survey conducted under the auspices of the University of California, found that of new Hispanic mothers in California border hospitals, 15 percent had crossed the border specifically to give birth. Two-thirds of births in Los Angeles County hospitals are to illegal alien mothers who are in the U.S. in violation of our existing immigration laws.

Illegal aliens are not eligible for welfare benefits, but their citizen children qualify for Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and other benefits granted to US citizens. Based on data collected in California for AFDC’s “children only” cases, the California Department of Social Services estimated that in fiscal 1994-1995, 193,800 children of illegal aliens received welfare, costing $553 million.

By not addressing this abuse of the Fourteenth Amendment and enforcing immigration law, the funds that state and local governments must provide to anchor babies amounts to a virtual tax on U.S. citizens to subsidize illegal aliens.

Rule of Law

By deliberately not addressing this loophole, Congress in effect rewards law-breakers and punishes those who have chosen to follow the rules and immigrate legally.

The 14th Amendment stipulates that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions by enactment of legislation, and the power to enforce a law is necessarily accompanied by the authority to interpret that law. Therefore, an act of Congress stating its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, as not to include the offspring of illegal aliens, would fall within Congress’s prerogative.

One Man, One Vote

Congressional district reapportionment weighted by the presence of illegal alien noncitizens is notably unfair to American citizens (both natural-born and naturalized), and clearly violates the principle of “one man, one vote”.

As the number of US House seats is fixed at 435, reapportionment means that if a given state gains a House district, another state must lose one. If non-citizens (illegal aliens) are counted in the decennial Census upon which districts are apportioned, then states with larger illegal alien populations are likely to end up with more districts and therefore more representation in the House. This effectively dilutes the votes citizens in states having relatively low proportions of illegal aliens.

United States Sovereignty

The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”8

The Mexican government recently provided dual nationality to its citizens who naturalize in the United States. No longer looked upon by their countrymen with contempt, those who emigrate (and sneak in) to the United States are seen by Mexico as advocates for its presumed territorial claims to the American Southwest. Mass immigration, while acting as an overpopulation safety valve for Mexico, simultaneously strengthens Mexico’s political presence inside the United States. Mexican dual nationality serves to retain the allegiance of its citizens who become United States citizens, and to discourage assimilation – in spite of the oath of allegiance they take to America.

Unconstrained illegal immigration and disregard for the rule of law are not conducive toward maintaining US sovereignty. Special corporate and political interests want all the cheap foreign labor they can get. Misinterpreting the 14th Amendment and granting automatic birthright citizenship to children of illegal aliens is but one aspect of the dismantling of America.

In April, 2005, President Bush signed the Security Prosperity Partnership with Canada and Mexico, with the stated objective of ensuring the free movement of goods and people across the US border. This treaty, never ratified by Congress, is a significant step towards the North American Union where a sovereign United States will be merely a memory.

Population and environmental consequences

United States population is at roughly 300 million and is projected to double within the lifetimes of children born today.4 Approximately two-thirds of this population growth will be due to mass immigration – that is, immigrants, illegal aliens, and their descendents.5

The United States is past the point of environmental sustainability. Scientists have noted that a sustainable population at today’s consumption levels would be approximately 100 to 150 million people.6 A good and readable overview of the population-environment connection can be found at SUSPS. A visual presentation of the damage illegal immigration does to the environment near our southern border can be seen atDesertInvasion.US.

Other countries

The United Kingdom, for example, formerly allowed Birthright citizenship. In 1981, because of immigration pressures, they restricted it to now require that one parent be a legal resident. In France birthright citizenship has been changed — now children between the ages of 16 and 22 of illegal alien parents must actively seek French citizenship.

It should be noted that on June 11, 2004 Irish voters voted in a national referendum to end automatic citizenship for any child born in Ireland regardless of the parents’ residence status. Ireland was the last member of the European Union to allow pregnant foreigners to gain residence and welfare benefits as a result of birth in the country. (Seattle Post Intelligencer, June 13, 2004.)

Millions of Americans

Millions of Americans have served in defense of the United States of America. Many have died to preserve the freedoms that we take for granted – freedoms granted to United States citizens by the US Constitution. Granting birthright citizenship to the children of illegal aliens whose first act in coming here is to break our laws, cheapens beyond recognition the meaning of our Constitution and the value of the lives lost fighting to preserve it.

Notes and more information:

1.   Anchor Babies: The Children of Illegal Aliens (Federation for American Immigration Reform)

2.   Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface (Bear Stearns, January 3, 2005)

3.   Fred Elbel, Illegal immigration invasion numbers(DesertInvasion.US, August, 2004). Published in the Social Contract under the title How Many Illegals Are There in the U.S.? (A New Methodology) (Fall, 2005)

4.   US Census Bureau.

5.   NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship

6.   SUSPS

7.   James R. Edwards, Jr., Two Sides of the Same Coin – The Connection Between Legal and Illegal Immigration, (Center for Immigration Studies, February, 2006)

8.   Anthony Beilenson, Case for Correction By Constitutional Amendment, The Social Contract (Fall, 1996)

9.   US Citizenship and Immigration Services

10.   The Cost of Having a Baby Dr. Greenfield (Dr. Spock, July 18, 2001)

http://www.14thamendment.us/birthright_citizenship/consequences.html

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-534

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos

Posted on September 12, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Books, Business, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Documentary, Economics, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Newspapers, Nuclear Proliferation, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Terrorism, Trade Policiy, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

 Story 1: Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative and Ted Cruz is Hard Core Conservative — Trump/Cruz Ticket? — Conservatives Intellectuals Need To Focus on Results Not Words — The Republican Party Is Not A Conservative Party — Conservatives and Libertarians Voters Have Been Abandoning Both The Democratic and Republican Parties Who Are Bought and Paid For By The Donor Base — The Tyranny of Two Party System — Corrupt Big Government Parties — The Decline and Fall of American Republic — Remembering 9/11 — Videos

History Documentary – World Trade Center attacks, Rise and Fall of the twin towers

911 Jumpers 9/11 in 18 min Plane Crashes Top World Trade Center Towers September 11 Terror Fact Vid

libertarians-say

reagan libertarian

libertarianwho-is-libertarian

russell kirk ten principlescslewismurray rothbardthomas sowell

Russell Kirk’s Ten Conservative Principles

The Republican Party Has Ceased To be Conservative

Mark Levin • John Boehner’s GOP is NOT a Conservative Party • Hannity • 1/7/15 •

Liberal Party: 10 Reasons You Might Be A Liberal – Learn Liberty

Libertarianism: An Introduction

Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement

Libertarianism | Murray N. Rothbard

Kirzner on Rothbard & Libertarianism

TAKE IT TO THE LIMITS: Milton Friedman on Libertarianism

Jon Stewart’s 19 Tough Questions for Libertarians!

Capitalism Needs Regulation – Why Max Keiser is Correct and Libertarians are Mistaken!

Liberals and Conservatives Will Never Agree – A Conversation with William Gairdner

The History of Classical Liberalism

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

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

FOX NEWS Hates Conservatives And Are WHAT”S WRONG WITH THE GOP PARTY

Mark Levin Eviscerates Megyn Kelly Fox News

Donald Trump vs. Fox News | Republican Presidential Debate Analysis!

McConnell on Iran Deal: ‘Obama Won Short-Term Battle, But We Won the Argument’

House Spars Over Iran Nuclear Agreement

Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse

tube.com/watch?v=Uj9qvBwOeMA]

Conservative Review

State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track State Name Party Score Years in DC Next Election Track

Conservatives and Libertarians

(A-C)

UTSen. Mike Lee R A 100% 4 2016

TXSen. Ted Cruz R A 96% 2 2018

KYSen. Rand Paul R A 93% 4 2016

SCSen. Tim Scott R B 85% 4 2016

NESen. Benjamin Sasse R B 80% 0 2020

GASen. David Perdue R B 80% 0 2020

ALSen. Jeff Sessions R B 80% 18 2020

FLSen. Marco Rubio R B 80% 4 2016

IDSen. Jim Risch R C 78% 6 2020

OKSen. Jim Inhofe R C 77% 28 2020

IDSen. Michael Crapo R C 76% 22 2016

IASen. Charles Grassley R C 72% 40 2016

LASen. David Vitter R C 71% 16 2016


Moderates and Progressives

(D-F)

WISen. Ron Johnson R D 67% 4 2016

ALSen. Richard Shelby R D 66% 36 2016

WYSen. Michael Enzi R D 64% 18 2020

PASen. Pat Toomey R D 63% 10 2016

KSSen. Jerry Moran R D 62% 18 2016

WYSen. John Barrasso R D 61% 8 2018

LASen. Bill Cassidy R D 60% 6 2020

AKSen. Dan Sullivan R D 60% 0 2020

OKSen. James Lankford R D 60% 4 2016

IASen. Joni Ernst R D 60% 0 2020

MTSen. Steve Daines R D 60% 2 2020

ARSen. Tom Cotton R D 60% 2 2020

TXSen. John Cornyn R F 59% 13 2020

NESen. Deb Fischer R F 56% 2 2018

KSSen. Pat Roberts R F 55% 34 2020

OHSen. Rob Portman R F 54% 16 2016

NVSen. Dean Heller R F 52% 8 2018

SDSen. John Thune R F 52% 16 2016

KYSen. Mitch McConnell R F 52% 30 2020

UTSen. Orrin Hatch R F 52% 38 2018

TNSen. Bob Corker R F 51% 8 2018

ARSen. John Boozman R F 50% 14 2016

NCSen. Richard Burr R F 49% 20 2016

INSen. Daniel Coats R F 48% 22 2016

SCSen. Lindsey Graham R F 47% 20 2020

AZSen. John McCain R F 43% 32 2016

NHSen. Kelly Ayotte R F 41% 4 2016

GASen. Johnny Isakson R F 40% 16 2016

NCSen. Thom Tillis R F 40% 0 2020

AZSen. Jeff Flake R F 38% 14 2018

MOSen. Roy Blunt R F 38% 18 2016

MSSen. Thad Cochran R F 33% 41 2020

MSSen. Roger Wicker R F 30% 19 2018

ILSen. Mark Kirk R F 28% 14 2016

NDSen. John Hoeven R F 26% 4 2016

TNSen. Lamar Alexander R F 24% 12 2020

COSen. Cory Gardner R F 20% 4 2020

AKSen. Lisa Murkowski R F 20% 12 2016

SDSen. Mike Rounds R F 20% 0 2020

WVSen. Shelley Capito R F 20% 14 2020

MESen. Susan Collins R F 16% 18 2020 –

https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.9HLKmHG5.dpuf

State Name Score Years in DC Next Election Track
State Name Score Years in DC Next Election Track
VA-7 Rep. David Brat A 100% 0 2016
AL-6 Rep. Gary Palmer A 100% 0 2016
OK-1 Rep. Jim Bridenstine A 96% 2 2016
NC-11 Rep. Mark Meadows A 96% 2 2016
SC-3 Rep. Jeff Duncan A 95% 4 2016
MI-3 Rep. Justin Amash A 95% 4 2016
ID-1 Rep. Raul Labrador A 95% 4 2016
TX-1 Rep. Louie Gohmert A 94% 10 2016
SC-5 Rep. Mick Mulvaney A 93% 4 2016
AZ-6 Rep. David Schweikert A 92% 4 2016
OH-4 Rep. Jim Jordan A 92% 8 2016
KY-4 Rep. Thomas Massie A 92% 2 2016
FL-19 Rep. Curt Clawson A 90% 1 2016
KS-1 Rep. Tim Huelskamp A 90% 4 2016
CA-4 Rep. Tom McClintock A 90% 6 2016
NJ-5 Rep. Scott Garrett B 88% 12 2016
AZ-8 Rep. Trent Franks B 88% 12 2016
AZ-5 Rep. Matt Salmon B 87% 8 2016
FL-6 Rep. Ron DeSantis B 87% 2 2016
CO-4 Rep. Ken Buck B 86% 0 2016
SC-1 Rep. Mark Sanford B 86% 8 2016
IA-1 Rep. Rod Blum B 86% 0 2016
SC-4 Rep. Trey Gowdy B 85% 4 2016
TN-2 Rep. John Duncan Jr. B 84% 26 2016
CO-5 Rep. Doug Lamborn B 83% 8 2016
TX-14 Rep. Randy Weber B 83% 2 2016
WI-5 Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner B 82% 36 2016
LA-4 Rep. John Fleming B 82% 6 2016
IN-3 Rep. Marlin Stutzman B 81% 4 2016
TN-4 Rep. Scott DesJarlais B 81% 4 2016
CA-48 Rep. Dana Rohrabacher B 80% 26 2016
UT-3 Rep. Jason Chaffetz B 80% 6 2016
AL-5 Rep. Mo Brooks B 80% 4 2016
AZ-4 Rep. Paul Gosar B 80% 4 2016
TX-19 Rep. Randy Neugebauer B 80% 12 2016
OH-1 Rep. Steven Chabot B 80% 18 2016
TX-24 Rep. Kenny Marchant C 79% 10 2016
TX-26 Rep. Michael Burgess C 79% 12 2016
MD-1 Rep. Andy Harris C 78% 4 2016
GA-8 Rep. Austin Scott C 78% 4 2016
FL-8 Rep. Bill Posey C 78% 6 2016
WY-0 Rep. Cynthia Lummis C 78% 6 2016
GA-3 Rep. Lynn Westmoreland C 78% 10 2016
KS-4 Rep. Mike Pompeo C 78% 4 2016
TX-25 Rep. Roger Williams C 77% 2 2016
IA-4 Rep. Steve King C 77% 12 2016
GA-14 Rep. Tom Graves C 77% 5 2016
TX-3 Rep. Sam Johnson C 76% 24 2016
LA-1 Rep. Steve Scalise C 74% 7 2016
TX-2 Rep. Ted Poe C 74% 10 2016
IL-14 Rep. Randy Hultgren C 73% 4 2016
FL-11 Rep. Richard Nugent C 73% 4 2016
WV-2 Rep. Alex Mooney C 71% 0 2016
GA-11 Rep. Barry Loudermilk C 71% 0 2016
MI-2 Rep. Bill Huizenga C 71% 4 2016
FL-15 Rep. Dennis Ross C 71% 4 2016
WV-3 Rep. Evan Jenkins C 71% 0 2016
TX-5 Rep. Jeb Hensarling C 71% 12 2016
FL-1 Rep. Jeff Miller C 71% 13 2016
SC-2 Rep. Joe Wilson C 71% 13 2016
TX-4 Rep. John Ratcliffe C 71% 0 2016
NY-1 Rep. Lee Zeldin C 71% 0 2016
NM-2 Rep. Steve Pearce C 71% 10 2016
TN-7 Rep. Marsha Blackburn C 70% 12 2016
UT-1 Rep. Rob Bishop C 70% 12 2016
PA-4 Rep. Scott Perry C 70% 2 2016
FL-3 Rep. Ted Yoho C 70% 2 2016
GA-6 Rep. Tom Price C 70% 10 2016
NC-3 Rep. Walter Jones C 70% 20 2016
TX-6 Rep. Joe Barton D 69% 30 2016
TN-3 Rep. Chuck Fleischmann D 68% 4 2016
WI-8 Rep. Reid Ribble D 68% 4 2016
VA-5 Rep. Robert Hurt D 68% 4 2016
CA-50 Rep. Duncan Hunter D 67% 6 2016
NH-1 Rep. Frank Guinta D 67% 2 2016
TN-8 Rep. Stephen Fincher D 67% 4 2016
TX-17 Rep. Bill Flores D 66% 4 2016
TN-6 Rep. Diane Black D 66% 4 2016
VA-9 Rep. Morgan Griffith D 66% 4 2016
VA-6 Rep. Robert Goodlatte D 66% 22 2016
NC-5 Rep. Virginia Foxx D 66% 10 2016
MO-7 Rep. Billy Long D 65% 4 2016
GA-9 Rep. Doug Collins D 65% 2 2016
CA-1 Rep. Doug LaMalfa D 65% 2 2016
NC-13 Rep. George Holding D 65% 2 2016
OK-2 Rep. Markwayne Mullin D 65% 2 2016
AL-1 Rep. Bradley Byrne D 64% 1 2016
CA-39 Rep. Ed Royce D 64% 22 2016
CO-6 Rep. Mike Coffman D 64% 6 2016
TX-22 Rep. Pete Olson D 64% 6 2016
OH-5 Rep. Robert Latta D 64% 7 2016
TX-27 Rep. Blake Farenthold D 63% 4 2016
FL-10 Rep. Daniel Webster D 63% 4 2016
KS-3 Rep. Kevin Yoder D 63% 4 2016
NC-10 Rep. Patrick McHenry D 63% 10 2016
TX-32 Rep. Pete Sessions D 63% 18 2016
GA-7 Rep. Rob Woodall D 63% 4 2016
MI-7 Rep. Tim Walberg D 63% 6 2016
TX-8 Rep. Kevin Brady D 62% 18 2016
IN-4 Rep. Todd Rokita D 62% 4 2016
FL-17 Rep. Tom Rooney D 62% 6 2016
OH-2 Rep. Brad Wenstrup D 61% 2 2016
UT-2 Rep. Chris Stewart D 61% 2 2016
TX-7 Rep. John Culberson D 61% 14 2016
PA-12 Rep. Keith Rothfus D 61% 2 2016
TX-10 Rep. Michael McCaul D 61% 10 2016
SC-7 Rep. Tom Rice D 61% 2 2016
MO-8 Rep. Jason Smith D 60% 2 2016
FL-7 Rep. John Mica D 60% 22 2016
KS-2 Rep. Lynn Jenkins D 60% 6 2016
TX-13 Rep. Mac Thornberry D 60% 20 2016
VA-4 Rep. Randy Forbes D 60% 14 2016
CO-3 Rep. Scott Tipton D 60% 4 2016
NE-3 Rep. Adrian Smith F 58% 8 2016
TX-21 Rep. Lamar Smith F 58% 28 2016
WI-1 Rep. Paul Ryan F 58% 16 2016
VA-1 Rep. Robert Wittman F 58% 7 2016
NC-6 Rep. Mark Walker F 57% 0 2016
TX-36 Rep. Brian Babin F 57% 0 2016
AR-4 Rep. Bruce Westerman F 57% 0 2016
GA-1 Rep. Buddy Carter F 57% 0 2016
CA-49 Rep. Darrell Issa F 57% 14 2016
NC-7 Rep. David Rouzer F 57% 0 2016
IA-3 Rep. David Young F 57% 0 2016
AR-2 Rep. French Hill F 57% 0 2016
LA-6 Rep. Garret Graves F 57% 0 2016
WI-6 Rep. Glenn Grothman F 57% 0 2016
GA-10 Rep. Jody Hice F 57% 0 2016
UT-4 Rep. Mia Love F 57% 0 2016
LA-5 Rep. Ralph Abraham F 57% 0 2016
NC-8 Rep. Richard Hudson F 57% 2 2016
GA-12 Rep. Rick Allen F 57% 0 2016
OK-5 Rep. Steve Russell F 57% 0 2016
NJ-3 Rep. Tom MacArthur F 57% 0 2016
OH-6 Rep. Bill Johnson F 56% 4 2016
PA-16 Rep. Joe Pitts F 56% 18 2016
IL-6 Rep. Peter Roskam F 56% 8 2016
TN-1 Rep. Phil Roe F 56% 6 2016
LA-3 Rep. Charles Boustany Jr. F 55% 10 2016
TX-31 Rep. John Carter F 55% 12 2016
TX-11 Rep. Mike Conaway F 55% 10 2016
MN-3 Rep. Erik Paulsen F 54% 6 2016
OH-16 Rep. Jim Renacci F 54% 4 2016
MO-6 Rep. Sam Graves F 54% 14 2016
IN-9 Rep. Todd Young F 54% 4 2016
MO-4 Rep. Vicky Hartzler F 54% 4 2016
AL-4 Rep. Robert Aderholt F 53% 18 2016
MI-10 Rep. Candice Miller F 52% 12 2016
CA-22 Rep. Devin Nunes F 52% 12 2016
FL-12 Rep. Gus Bilirakis F 52% 8 2016
AL-3 Rep. Mike Rogers F 52% 12 2016
CA-8 Rep. Paul Cook F 52% 2 2016
NC-2 Rep. Renee Ellmers F 52% 4 2016
IN-8 Rep. Larry Bucshon F 51% 4 2016
OH-7 Rep. Bob Gibbs F 50% 4 2016
MN-2 Rep. John Kline F 50% 12 2016
AR-1 Rep. Rick Crawford F 50% 4 2016
WI-7 Rep. Sean Duffy F 50% 4 2016
NY-23 Rep. Tom Reed F 50% 4 2016
KY-2 Rep. Brett Guthrie F 49% 6 2016
WA-5 Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers F 49% 10 2016
MI-1 Rep. Dan Benishek F 49% 4 2016
TX-12 Rep. Kay Granger F 49% 18 2016
VA-2 Rep. Scott Rigell F 49% 4 2016
MS-4 Rep. Steven Palazzo F 49% 4 2016
FL-16 Rep. Vern Buchanan F 49% 8 2016
MO-3 Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer F 48% 6 2016
IN-6 Rep. Luke Messer F 48% 2 2016
AL-2 Rep. Martha Roby F 48% 4 2016
OH-10 Rep. Michael Turner F 48% 12 2016
NC-9 Rep. Robert Pittenger F 48% 2 2016
PA-9 Rep. Bill Shuster F 47% 14 2016
MS-3 Rep. Gregg Harper F 47% 6 2016
WV-1 Rep. David McKinley F 46% 4 2016
OH-12 Rep. Pat Tiberi F 46% 14 2016
OK-4 Rep. Tom Cole F 46% 12 2016
PA-10 Rep. Tom Marino F 46% 4 2016
FL-13 Rep. David Jolly F 45% 1 2016
OK-3 Rep. Frank Lucas F 45% 21 2016
NE-1 Rep. Jeff Fortenberry F 45% 10 2016
CA-23 Rep. Kevin McCarthy F 45% 8 2016
PA-18 Rep. Tim Murphy F 45% 12 2016
NY-19 Rep. Chris Gibson F 44% 4 2016
OR-2 Rep. Greg Walden F 44% 16 2016
SD-0 Rep. Kristi Noem F 44% 4 2016
PA-3 Rep. Mike Kelly F 44% 4 2016
KY-6 Rep. Andy Barr F 43% 2 2016
MO-2 Rep. Ann Wagner F 43% 2 2016
VA-10 Rep. Barbara Comstock F 43% 0 2016
ME-2 Rep. Bruce Poliquin F 43% 0 2016
FL-26 Rep. Carlos Curbelo F 43% 0 2016
NV-4 Rep. Cresent Hardy F 43% 0 2016
WA-4 Rep. Dan Newhouse F 43% 0 2016
OH-14 Rep. Dave Joyce F 43% 2 2016
MI-11 Rep. Dave Trott F 43% 0 2016
KY-1 Rep. Edward Whitfield F 43% 20 2016
NY-21 Rep. Elise Stefanik F 43% 0 2016
IN-2 Rep. Jackie Walorski F 43% 2 2016
NY-24 Rep. John Katko F 43% 0 2016
MI-4 Rep. John Moolenaar F 43% 0 2016
AZ-2 Rep. Martha McSally F 43% 0 2016
MI-8 Rep. Mike Bishop F 43% 0 2016
IL-12 Rep. Mike Bost F 43% 0 2016
CA-45 Rep. Mimi Walters F 43% 0 2016
PA-6 Rep. Ryan Costello F 43% 0 2016
MT-0 Rep. Ryan Zinke F 43% 0 2016
CA-25 Rep. Steve Knight F 43% 0 2016
MN-6 Rep. Tom Emmer F 43% 0 2016
TX-23 Rep. Will Hurd F 43% 0 2016
MI-6 Rep. Fred Upton F 42% 28 2016
NJ-7 Rep. Leonard Lance F 42% 6 2016
PA-5 Rep. Glenn Thompson F 41% 6 2016
WA-3 Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler F 41% 4 2016
ID-2 Rep. Mike Simpson F 41% 16 2016
FL-4 Rep. Ander Crenshaw F 40% 14 2016
KY-5 Rep. Harold Rogers F 40% 34 2016
IL-16 Rep. Adam Kinzinger F 39% 4 2016
NJ-4 Rep. Christopher Smith F 39% 34 2016
AK-0 Rep. Don Young F 39% 42 2016
CA-10 Rep. Jeffrey Denham F 39% 4 2016
IL-15 Rep. John Shimkus F 39% 18 2016
NJ-11 Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen F 39% 20 2016
AR-3 Rep. Steve Womack F 39% 4 2016
PA-11 Rep. Lou Barletta F 38% 4 2016
NV-2 Rep. Mark Amodei F 38% 3 2016
OH-15 Rep. Steve Stivers F 38% 4 2016
NV-3 Rep. Joe Heck F 37% 4 2016
CA-42 Rep. Ken Calvert F 37% 22 2016
PA-8 Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick F 37% 8 2016
IL-10 Rep. Bob Dold F 36% 2 2016
IL-13 Rep. Rodney Davis F 36% 2 2016
NY-27 Rep. Chris Collins F 35% 2 2016
WA-8 Rep. Dave Reichert F 35% 10 2016
OH-8 Rep. John Boehner F 35% 24 2016
ND-0 Rep. Kevin Cramer F 35% 2 2016
NY-2 Rep. Peter King F 35% 22 2016
IN-5 Rep. Susan Brooks F 35% 2 2016
PA-15 Rep. Charlie Dent F 34% 10 2016
NJ-2 Rep. Frank LoBiondo F 34% 20 2016
FL-25 Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart F 32% 12 2016
PA-7 Rep. Pat Meehan F 32% 4 2016
NY-22 Rep. Richard Hanna F 31% 4 2016
FL-27 Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen F 30% 26 2016
CA-21 Rep. David Valadao F 26% 2 2016

– See more at: https://www.conservativereview.com/scorecard#sthash.7BNr4KT7.dpuf

Party Affiliation

Trend: Party affiliation in U.S. plus leaners

NATIONAL REVIEW’S JONAH GOLDBERG: ‘COUNT ME OUT’ OF ANY CONSERVATIVE MOVEMENT WITH DONALD TRUMP

By  BEN SHAPIRO

On Saturday, National Review senior editor Jonah Goldbergpenned a controversial column in which he rejected Donald Trump and his followers from the conservative movement. “Well, if this is the conservative movement now, I guess you’re going to have to count me out,” Goldberg writes.

Goldberg goes on to suggest that the embrace of Trump perverts conservatism itself, broadening the definition of the movement in order to include Trump.

Goldberg, whom I consider a friend and a brilliant commentator, is right to label Trump insufficiently conservative. I have specifically argued that Trump ought not be the nominee thanks to his insufficient conservatism—so has Michelle Malkin, so have numerous other conservative commentators.

But here is the sad truth: Many of the same people appalled by Trump made Trump’s candidacy possible.

Trump is a product of a conservatism-less Republicanism, prepared for and championed by the intellectual elites who told us to ignore Mitt Romney’s creation of Romneycare and

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) 43% ’s campaign finance reform, who told conservatives to shut up and get in line, who explained that conservatives had to throw over Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) 96% and his government shutdowns in favor of
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) 52% and his pathological inability to take a hard stand against President Obama using the tools at his disposal.

Over at National Review, even as Goldberg condemns Trump for his non-conservatism, another columnist simultaneously urges a ticket with Governor “God Told Me To Use Obamacare Money To Expand Medicaid” John Kasich (R-OH) and Sen. Marco “Immigration Gang of Eight” Rubio (R-FL). Goldberg himself championed Romney’s candidacy because he wasn’t a conservative, writing back in 2012:

Even if Romney is a Potemkin conservative (a claim I think has merit but is also exaggerated), there is an instrumental case to be made for him: It is better to have a president who owes you than to have one who claims to own you. A President Romney would be on a very short leash.

Why wouldn’t the same logic apply to Trump?

And while Goldberg today raps Trump on the knuckles for his support of socialized medicine, going so far as to label opposition to such policy a “core tenet of American conservatism from Day One,” Goldberg used Romneycare as a point in favor of Romney in 2012: “He is a man of duty and purpose. He was told to ‘fix’ health care in ways Massachusetts would like… He did it all. The man does his assignments.”

Goldberg today says that Trump doesn’t deserve to be a part of the conservative movement, and his followers have excised themselves from the conservative community. But in 2012, he warned that anyone saying the same of Mitt Romney threatened the possibility of conservative victory. In 2012, Goldberg explicitly opposed purges and purity tests:

That’s certainly reason enough to be mad at the establishment. But replacing the current leadership with even more ardent, passionate and uncompromising conservatives is far from a guaranteed formula for making the Republican Party more popular or powerful. To do that, the GOP needs to persuade voters to become a little more conservative, not to hector already-conservative politicians to become even more pure as they go snipe-hunting for the Rockefeller Republicans.

What requirements did Mitt Romney, and John Kasich, and John McCain, and Mitch McConnell fulfill that Trump does not? Goldberg is right that Trump has “no ideological guardrails whatsoever” when it comes to taxes and “knows less than most halfway-decent DC interns about foreign policy.” Goldberg could have added that Trump has made an enormous amount of money utilizing eminent domain, that he supports affirmative action, and that he opposes free trade, among other pernicious positions. There is a reason that this weekend full-fledged economic idiot Paul Krugman endorsed Trump’s economic policies.

The question is: Why are so many Republicans backing him? There are two answers: first, he’s tough on illegal immigration, the only issue many conservatives believe matters. The second answer is more telling, however: Trump has heavy support because Republicans rejected ideological purity a long time ago. And here’s the irony: Goldberg and others can’t call Tea Partiers to Jesus on Trump because, according to polls, Tea Partiers don’t support Trump in outsized numbers. The reality is that the same people who don’t like ideological litmus tests support Trump. Just a few weeks back, the Washington Post concluded that Trump’s fans “are more moderate than Tea Partiers were,” significantly more likely to call themselves Republicans than Tea Partiers were, far younger and less religious and blue collar than Tea Partiers.

As Sallah from Raiders of the Lost Ark would put it, “Jonah, you’re digging in the wrong place.”

If you want to target Trump supporters for failing to take conservatism seriously, try starting with those who don’t take conservatism seriously. Most of them were trained in the acceptability of “victory before conservatism” Republicanism by the some of the same folks now deriding the poll-leading Trump.

I’ve lived this story before: I’m from California. Trump is Arnold Schwarzenegger without the Austrian accent. He’s a know-nothing with a huge name and a Teflon personality, and people get behind him because he’s a celebrity and because victory matters more than principle. I know that’s so, because I made the same mistake with regard to Schwarzenegger, explicitly endorsing him in spite of his insufficient conservatism on the grounds that voters in California would get used to voting Republican.

That was a failure. Schwarzenegger was terrible, and what followed him was a shift to radical leftism unthinkable in the early days of his candidacy. I learned that lesson, and in January 2012, I said that the conservative embrace of Mitt Romney would pervert the movement itself, in the same way Goldberg now accuses Trump of perverting conservatism:

Yes, defeating horrible politicians like Barack Obama is the top goal — but that doesn’t justify redefining conservatism entirely…. When we deliberately broaden conservatism to encompass government-forced purchase of health insurance or raising taxes or appointing liberal judges or enforcing same-sex marriage or using taxpayer money to bail out business or pushing trade barriers, we destroy conservatism from within. If we do that, why would our politicians even bother to pay lip service to the standard?

Like Goldberg, I fear the same from Trump: I fear that he’ll be a wild card with no governing principle, that even if he were to win, he’d irrevocably split conservatism. But I also recognize that Trump isn’t a departure for Republicans abandoning principle: he’s the political love child of Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, a combination of the non-conservative “victory mentality” and the arrogance of a dictatorial left many conservatives want to see countered with fire.

In sum, I’m happy to welcome establishment Republicans who want to revivify conservative litmus tests to the party. But from now on, let’s be consistent: if we’re going to oust Trump based on his ideology, those requirements can’t be waived for others.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/07/national-reviews-jonah-goldberg-count-me-out-of-any-conservative-movement-with-donald-trump/

The Words Trump Doesn’t Use

by JIM GERAGHTY

Did you ever think you would see the day when the GOP front-runner rarely uttered the words “freedom” and “liberty”? Perhaps some Republicans can be accused of loving liberty and freedom too much — or at least using those words as rhetorical crutches. Donald Trump is not one of them. The current GOP presidential front-runner rarely uses the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his remarks at all.

Trump didn’t use the words “freedom” or “liberty” in his announcement speech. He didn’t use those words in his Nashville speech on August 29, or his Nashville rally on August 21, or his appearance at the Iowa State Fair on August 15, or his rally and news conference in New Hampshire on August 14, or his news conference in Birch Run, Mich., or his press conference in Laredo, Texas, on July 23.

He didn’t use those words while discussing his signing of the Republican National Committee’s pledge last Thursday, or in his contentious interview with Hugh Hewitt the same day.

Trump did use the term “free-market” once during his Meet the Press interview with Chuck Todd, in a defense of his qualified support for affirmative action: “Well, you know, you have to also go free market. You have to go capability. You have to do a lot of things. But I’m fine with affirmative action.” The word “liberty” didn’t even come up.

This is an unusual vocabulary for a Republican front-runner. It wasn’t that long ago that grass-roots conservatives showed up at Tea Party rallies with signs reading, “Liberty: All the Stimulus We Need.” The Tea Party named itself after an event organized by the Sons of Liberty. The GOP platform declares the party was “born in opposition to the denial of liberty.”

Trump’s lexicon is another indicator of the dramatic shift he would represent in moving the Republican party from a libertarian-leaning one to a populist one. During the Obama era, self-identified libertarians have asked whether the Tea Party and the GOP are truly dedicated to liberty and individual rights, or if their real objection to big government is that it’s controlled by Democrats. The embrace of Trump suggests their skepticism was well-founded.

It’s no accident that Trump has been labeled a populist by outlets across the political spectrum, from The American Interest to NPR. His speeches and off-the-cuff remarks make clear that he doesn’t see the world through the lens of free and unfree; he sees it through the lens of strength and weakness: For me, conservatism as it pertains to our country is fiscal. We have to be strong and secure and get rid of our debt. The military has to be powerful and not necessarily used but very powerful. I am on the sort of a little bit social side of conservative when it comes — I want people to be taken care of from a health-care standpoint. But to do that, we have to be strong. I want to save Social Security without cuts. I want a strong country. And to me, conservative means a strong country with very little debt.

The man whose slogan is “Make America Great Again” doesn’t seem particularly worried about a Leviathan state infringing upon its citizens’ liberties. He sees a disordered society whose people are threatened by violent criminals coming across the border, undermined by poor negotiation in foreign-trade and security agreements, and asked by free-riding allies to shoulder way too much of the burden in a dangerous world.

That philosophy is dramatically different from the liberty-focused message Republicans have become accustomed to since the rise of the Tea Party in 2009. And, at least for now, it has made Trump the front-runner by a wide margin.

 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423819/donald-trump-speeches-no-liberty-freedom?target=author&tid=814

Donald Trump on Abortion
Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

  • I have evolved on abortion issue, like Reagan evolved. (Aug 2015)
  • Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health. (Jun 2015)
  • I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice. (Apr 2011)
  • I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories. (Apr 2011)
  • I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding. (Feb 2011)
  • Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion. (Jul 2000)
  • Favors abortion rights but respects opposition. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Budget & Economy
Click here for 6 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.

  • If debt reaches $24T, that’s the point of no return. (Jun 2015)
  • Prepare for upcoming crash, bigger than 1929. (Jul 2000)
  • Optimistic about future of Atlantic City. (Jul 1990)
  • Rent control only benefits a privileged minority. (Jul 1987)
  • One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)
  • Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Civil Rights
Click here for 5 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.

  • Disinvited from RedState gathering for misogynistic comments. (Aug 2015)
  • Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem. (Aug 2015)
  • Same-sex marriage is a state issue. (Jun 2015)
  • No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits. (Mar 2011)
  • Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Corporations
Click here for 5 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.

  • I’ve used bankruptcy laws to do a great job for my companies. (Aug 2015)
  • 2002: Participated in development boom of Jersey City. (Apr 2012)
  • 0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs. (Dec 2011)
  • Fight crony capitalism with a level playing field. (Dec 2011)
  • Wealthy move assets around globally based on tax incentives. (Apr 2011)
Donald Trump on Crime
Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.

  • Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is. (Jul 2000)
  • Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray. (Jul 2000)
  • Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences. (Jul 2000)
  • For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Drugs
Click here for 4 full quotes on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

  • Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education. (Apr 2011)
  • Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs. (Feb 2011)
  • Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence. (Dec 2006)
  • Never touched drugs, nor alcohol, tobacco, or coffee. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Education
Click here for 8 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education.

  • Common Core is a disaster. (Jun 2015)
  • Cut the Department of Education way, way down. (Jun 2015)
  • Founded Trump University to teach the art of deal-making. (Jun 2015)
  • Opposes Common Core. (Feb 2015)
  • Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”. (Jul 2000)
  • End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”. (Jul 2000)
  • Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls. (Jul 2000)
  • School choice will improve public schools. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Energy & Oil
Click here for 7 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

  • Climate change is a hoax. (Jun 2015)
  • No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood. (Dec 2011)
  • Jobs will slump until our lifeblood–oil–is cheap again. (Dec 2011)
  • Enough natural gas in Marcellus Shale for 110 year supply. (Dec 2011)
  • Libya: No oil, no support; no exceptions. (Dec 2011)
  • It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil. (Mar 2011)
  • Oil is the lifeblood of all economies. (Apr 2010)
Donald Trump on Environment
Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment.

  • Good development enhances the environment. (Jan 2008)
  • FactCheck: Yes, hybrid family vehicles are available in US. ()
Donald Trump on Families & Children
Click here for the full quote on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.

  • Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life. (Jun 2015)
Donald Trump on Foreign Policy
Click here for 9 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.

  • More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel. (Jun 2015)
  • China is our enemy; they’re bilking us for billions. (Dec 2011)
  • When you love America, you protect it with no apologies. (Dec 2011)
  • By 2027, tsunami as China overtakes US as largest economy. (Dec 2011)
  • Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement. (Jul 2000)
  • Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker. (Jul 2000)
  • Support Russia, but with strings attached. (Jul 2000)
  • China: lack of human rights prevents consumer development. (Jul 2000)
  • Be tougher on China-we’re too eager to please. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Free Trade
Click here for 11 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.

  • We don’t beat China or Japan or Mexico in trade. (Aug 2015)
  • China and Japan are beating us; I can beat China. (Jun 2015)
  • 35% import tax on Mexican border. (Jun 2015)
  • Stupid people negotiate our trade bills, & trade won’t work. (Jun 2015)
  • 20% tax on all imported goods. (Dec 2011)
  • Fair trade instead of embarrassing deal with South Korea. (Dec 2011)
  • Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing. (Dec 2011)
  • Embrace globalization and international markets. (Jan 2008)
  • Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements. (Jul 2000)
  • President should be nation’s trade representative. (Dec 1999)
  • World views US trade officials as ‘saps’. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Government Reform
Click here for 6 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.

  • I give to politicians; and they give back: that’s broken!. (Aug 2015)
  • Two-term limit on NYC mayor is a terrible idea. (Sep 2010)
  • Government scrutiny is greatest threat to American Dream. (Jul 2000)
  • Ban soft money; but allow unlimited personal contributions. (Jul 2000)
  • Government should do public works & safety & little else. (Jul 2000)
  • Rebuilt Wollman Rink in 4 months; city failed for 6 years. (Jul 1987)
Donald Trump on Gun Control
Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

  • A very strong person on the Second Amendment. (Jun 2015)
  • I am against gun control. (Feb 2011)
  • Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns. (Jul 2000)
  • For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Health Care
Click here for 8 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care.

  • The insurance companies have total control over politicians. (Aug 2015)
  • ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced. (Jun 2015)
  • Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits. (Jun 2015)
  • ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless. (Jun 2015)
  • Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone. (Jan 2015)
  • Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight. (Dec 2011)
  • Increase insurance competition across state lines. (Dec 2011)
  • We must have universal health care. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Homeland Security
Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.

  • Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old. (Jun 2015)
  • Increased Veterans Day parade audience from 100 to 1 million. (Jun 2015)
  • Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists. (Jan 2015)
  • American interests come first; no apologies. (Dec 2011)
  • All freedoms flow from national security. (Dec 2011)
  • 3% of GNP for military is too low. (Jul 2000)
  • Missile defense is inappropriate; focus on terrorism. (Jul 2000)
  • Prepare for bio-terrorism attack. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Immigration
Click here for 14 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

  • We need wall on Mexican border, but ok to have a door in it. (Aug 2015)
  • Mexican government is sending criminals across the border. (Aug 2015)
  • OpEd: businesses & Republicans condemn anti-Mexico terms. (Jul 2015)
  • Half of the undocumented residents in America are criminals. (Jun 2015)
  • Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists. (Jun 2015)
  • Build great wall on southern border; have Mexico pay for it. (Jun 2015)
  • We need strong borders; we need a wall. (Feb 2015)
  • Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission. (Mar 2013)
  • 351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B. (Dec 2011)
  • Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment. (Dec 2011)
  • Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US. (Dec 2011)
  • Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border. (Dec 2011)
  • Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult. (Jul 2000)
  • Limit new immigration; focus on people already here. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Jobs
Click here for 4 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs.

  • Real unemployment rate is 20%; don’t believe 5.6%. (Jun 2015)
  • Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas. (Dec 2011)
  • Unions fight for pay; managers fight for less; consumers win. (Jul 2000)
  • Foreign companies are taking jobs from US. (Dec 1999)
Donald Trump on Principles & Values
Click here for 26 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.

  • I want to win as a Republican, but might run as Independent. (Aug 2015)
  • In NYC almost everyone is Democrat, but I’m Republican. (Aug 2015)
  • Attended military academy & Wharton Business School. (Jun 2015)
  • Stoked Tea Party suspicions about Obama’s legitimacy. (Jan 2012)
  • No more morning in America; we’ll be mourning FOR America. (Dec 2011)
  • 5-point plan to return America to her former greatness. (Dec 2011)
  • USA is the greatest force for freedom world has ever known. (Dec 2011)
  • Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard. (Apr 2011)
  • One hour to produce my birth certificate; Obama should too. (Feb 2011)
  • If I run & win, our country will be great again. (Feb 2011)
  • Never give up; look at the solution, not the problem. (Jan 2008)
  • To negotiate well, prepare and know as much as possible. (Jan 2008)
  • In the best negotiations, everyone wins. (Jan 2008)
  • Failure is not permanent. (Jan 2008)
  • Tell people you’re successful or they won’t know it. (Mar 2004)
  • Good management requires hiring good people. (Mar 2004)
  • Lessons: stay focused on big picture. (Mar 2004)
  • Surround yourself with people you can trust. (Mar 2004)
  • 3 principles: One term, two-fisted policies, zero excuses. (Jul 2000)
  • Non-politicians are the wave of the future. (Jul 2000)
  • In business & politics, stands for getting things done. (Jul 2000)
  • Burned by press too often to be available any more. (Jul 1990)
  • Rules for surviving the perils of success. (Jul 1990)
  • Separated from Ivana after long less-than-perfect marriage. (Jul 1990)
  • Toughness is equally strength, intelligence, & self-respect. (Jul 1990)
  • Appealing to middle Americans leery of political elite. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Social Security
Click here for 6 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security.

  • Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections. (Mar 2013)
  • Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal. (Dec 2011)
  • Disability Racket: $25B in fraudulent disability filings. (Dec 2011)
  • Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund. (Jul 2000)
  • Let people invest their own retirement funds. (Jul 2000)
  • No government investment of retirement funds. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Tax Reform
Click here for 10 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.

  • One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt. (Jun 2015)
  • 4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax. (Dec 2011)
  • Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic. (Dec 2011)
  • Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts. (Apr 2011)
  • Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax. (Jul 2000)
  • Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes. (Jul 2000)
  • Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much. (Jul 2000)
  • Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it. (Dec 1999)
  • One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt. (Nov 1999)
  • Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years. (Nov 1999)
Donald Trump on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology.

  • Rebuild our infrastructure on time & on budget. (Jun 2015)
  • Emmy award & Hollywood Walk of Fame for “The Apprentice”. (Jun 2015)
  • China threatens US with cyber warfare & industrial espionage. (Dec 2011)
Donald Trump on War & Peace
Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.

  • Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization. (Aug 2015)
  • Disgraceful deal gives Iran a lot & gets nothing for us. (Aug 2015)
  • Boots on the ground to fight ISIS. (Jun 2015)
  • I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East. (Jun 2015)
  • Hit ISIS hard and fast. (Feb 2015)
  • Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims. (Mar 2013)
  • Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation. (Dec 2011)
  • Stop Iran’s nuclear programs by any & all means necessary. (Dec 2011)
  • John McCain’s actions in Vietnam were not “heroic”. (Sep 2000)
  • Use force to stop North Korean nuke development. (Jul 2000)
  • Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier. (Jul 2000)
  • No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats. (Jul 2000)
Donald Trump on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for 4 full quotes on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.

  • I don’t like firing people; work makes people better. (Dec 2011)
  • Food stamps should be temporary; not a decade on the dole. (Dec 2011)
  • Apply welfare-to-work to 76 other welfare programs. (Dec 2011)
  • Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance. (Jul 2000)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)
Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
(-3 points on Social scale)
Ban late abortions; exceptions for rape, incest or health: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Stress importance of a strong family, & a culture of Life: Opposes topic 1
I am now pro-life; after years of being pro-choice: Strongly Opposes topic 1
I changed my views to pro-life based on personal stories: Opposes topic 1
I am pro-life; fight ObamaCare abortion funding: Opposes topic 1
Pro-choice, but ban partial birth abortion: Favors topic 1
Favors abortion rights but respects opposition: Favors topic 1
Strongly Opposes topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Political correctness is country’s problem, not my problem: Strongly Opposes topic 2
Bad students (like Obama) shouldn’t go to Harvard: Opposes topic 2
Opposes topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(-3 points on Social scale)
Same-sex marriage is a state issue: Opposes topic 3
No gay marriage; no same-sex partner benefits: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Tolerate diversity; prosecute hate crimes against gays: Favors topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(-5 points on Social scale)
Teach citizenship; stop “dumbing down”: Favors topic 4
End “creative spelling,” “estimating,” & “empowerment”: Favors topic 4
Let “saints” help teen moms; restrict public assistance: Strongly Favors topic 4
Opposes topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(+2 points on Economic scale)
ObamaCare is a catastrophe that must be repealed & replaced: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Don’t cut Medicare; grow the economy to keep benefits: Favors topic 5
ObamaCare deductibles are so high that it’s useless: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Save Medicare & Medicaid without cutting them to the bone: Favors topic 5
Kill ObamaCare before it becomes a trillion-ton weight: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Increase insurance competition across state lines: Strongly Opposes topic 5
We must have universal health care: Strongly Favors topic 5
Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Cannot change Medicare or Soc.Sec. and still win elections: Opposes topic 6
Social Security isn’t an “entitlement”; it’s honoring a deal: Opposes topic 6
Pay off debt; put $3T interest savings into Trust Fund: Opposes topic 6
Let people invest their own retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6
No government investment of retirement funds: Strongly Favors topic 6
Strongly Favors topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Common Core is a disaster: Strongly Favors topic 7
Opposes Common Core: Favors topic 7
Bring on the competition; tear down the union walls: Favors topic 7
School choice will improve public schools: Strongly Favors topic 7
Favors topic 8:
EPA regulations are too restrictive
(-3 points on Social scale)
Good development enhances the environment: Favors topic 8
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(-5 points on Social scale)
Capital punishment isn’t uncivilized; murderers living is: Strongly Favors topic 9
Death penalty deters like violent TV leads kids astray: Favors topic 9
Hold judges accountable; don’t reduce sentences: Favors topic 9
For tough anti-crime policies; not criminals’ rights: Favors topic 9
Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+2 points on Economic scale)
A very strong person on the Second Amendment: Strongly Favors topic 10
I am against gun control: Strongly Favors topic 10
Dems and Reps are both wrong on guns: Neutral on topic 10
For assault weapon ban, waiting period, & background check: Opposes topic 10
Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-3 points on Economic scale)
One-time 14% tax on wealthy to pay down national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11
Raising business tax causes businesses to move jobs overseas: Strongly Opposes topic 11
4 brackets; 1-5-10-15%; kill death tax & corporate tax: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Repeal the inheritance tax to offset one-time wealth tax: Opposes topic 11
Simplify tax code; end marriage penalty & other hidden taxes: Opposes topic 11
Opposes flat tax; benefits wealthy too much: Strongly Favors topic 11
Personally avoids sales tax, but knows many people like it: Opposes topic 11
One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Strongly Favors topic 11
Predicts 35% boost to economy from eliminating national debt: Favors topic 11
Tax assets over $10 million, paid over 10 years: Strongly Favors topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(-5 points on Social scale)
Mexico & Latin America send us drugs, crime, and rapists: Strongly Opposes topic 12
We need strong borders; we need a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Citizenship for illegal immigrants is a GOP suicide mission: Strongly Opposes topic 12
351,000 illegal aliens are in our prisons; costing $1.1B: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Anchor babies were NEVER the intent of the 14th Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Invite foreigners graduating from college to stay in US: Favors topic 12
Triple-layered fence & Predator drones on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Control borders; even legal immigration should be difficult: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Limit new immigration; focus on people already here: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)
35% import tax on Mexican border: Strongly Opposes topic 13
20% tax on all imported goods: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Repatriate jobs that China has been stealing: Opposes topic 13
Embrace globalization and international markets: Strongly Favors topic 13
Renegotiate tougher & fairer trade agreements: Opposes topic 13
President should be nation’s trade representative: Favors topic 13
World views US trade officials as ‘saps’: Opposes topic 13
Foreign companies are taking jobs from US: Strongly Opposes topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 14:
Support American Exceptionalism
(+5 points on Economic scale)
More sanctions on Iran; more support of Israel: Favors topic 14
American interests come first; no apologies: Strongly Favors topic 14
Use force to stop North Korean nuke development: Strongly Favors topic 14
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the military
(-5 points on Social scale)
Our nuclear arsenal doesn’t work; it’s 30 years old: Strongly Favors topic 15
All freedoms flow from national security: Strongly Favors topic 15
3% of GNP for military is too low: Strongly Favors topic 15
No opinion on topic 16:
Make voter registration easier
(0 points on Social scale)
(No votes on which to base response)
Favors topic 17:
Avoid foreign entanglements
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposed Iraq war in 2004 & predicted Mideast destabilization: Strongly Favors topic 17
I said “don’t hit Iraq,” because it destabilized Middle East: Strongly Favors topic 17
Hit ISIS hard and fast: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Defeat ISIS and stop Islamic terrorists: Opposes topic 17
Take $1.5T in oil from Iraq to pay for US victims: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Iraq should pick up the tab for their own liberation: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Criticized Buchanan’s view on Hitler as appeasement: Favors topic 17
Post-Cold War: switch from chess player to dealmaker: Strongly Favors topic 17
Support Russia, but with strings attached: Favors topic 17
Support Israel, our unsinkable Mideast aircraft carrier: Strongly Favors topic 17
No humanitarian intervention; only to direct threats: Opposes topic 17
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Climate change is a hoax: Strongly Opposes topic 18
No Cap-and-Tax: oil is this country’s lifeblood: Strongly Opposes topic 18
It’s incredible how slowly we’re drilling for oil: Strongly Opposes topic 18
No opinion on topic 19:
Marijuana is a gateway drug
(0 points on Social scale)
Legalize drugs and use tax revenue to fund drug education: Strongly Opposes topic 19
Never drinks, smokes, nor does drugs: Favors topic 19
Fired Miss USA crown winner due to drug over-indulgence: Favors topic 19
Strongly Opposes topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale)
0% corporate tax would create millions of jobs: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Cutting tax rates incentivizes a strong national work ethic: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Previously supported wealth tax; now supports Bush tax cuts: Strongly Opposes topic 20
One-time 14.25% tax on wealth, to erase national debt: Favors topic 20

Donald Trump is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch

Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions.  It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt!Social Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Candidate’s Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

Social Score 25%
Economic Score 78%
 Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy.  Based on the above score, the candidate is a Libertarian-Leaning Conservative.

Political Map

 
Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. 

Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. 
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question:

  • We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table.
  • We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.
  • We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.
  • If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
  • If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
  • If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
  • If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
  • If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.
  • When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.
  • To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations.
  • The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).
  • The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.
Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy.  The candidate’s answers are on the left.

  • A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
  • A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Social Issues The candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage
Question 8. Human needs over animal rights
Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
Question 17. Stay out of Iran
Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere
Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime
Question 15. Expand the military
Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds
Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Economic Issues The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 2. Legally require hiring women & minorities
Question 5. Expand ObamaCare
Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy
Question 18. Prioritize green energy
Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery
Question 6. Privatize Social Security
Question 7. Vouchers for school choice
Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership
Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade
Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN
The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Final Notes

To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions.

Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales.

Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

Ted Cruz on Abortion
Click here for 7 full quotes on Abortion OR other candidates on Abortion OR background on Abortion.

  • Allow vote to end Planned Parenthood’s funding. (Aug 2015)
  • Prosecute Planned Parenthood for criminal violations. (Aug 2015)
  • Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion. (Mar 2015)
  • Companies can deny insuring birth control. (Apr 2012)
  • Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban. (Jul 2011)
  • Opposes public abortion funding. (Oct 2012)
  • Opposes churches providing birth control. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Budget & Economy
Click here for 11 full quotes on Budget & Economy OR other candidates on Budget & Economy OR background on Budget & Economy.

  • Top 1% under Obama got fat & happy while workers are hurting. (Feb 2015)
  • Lost Generation: Obama agenda hammers young people. (Mar 2014)
  • Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country. (Mar 2014)
  • Choice is more federal spending, or free markets & liberty. (Aug 2012)
  • FactCheck: Yes, gross federal debt now exceeds GDP. (Aug 2012)
  • Demand a Balanced Budget amendment. (Jul 2010)
  • Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate. (Jul 2010)
  • Supports a constitutional BBA. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge. (Jan 2012)
  • Endorsed by the Club for Growth, for pro-growth stances. (Aug 2012)
  • Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans. (Feb 2013)
Ted Cruz on Civil Rights
Click here for 11 full quotes on Civil Rights OR other candidates on Civil Rights OR background on Civil Rights.

  • Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. (Apr 2015)
  • Liberals obsessed with mandatory gay marriage in 50 states. (Apr 2015)
  • Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty. (Apr 2015)
  • Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage. (Mar 2015)
  • Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment. (Oct 2014)
  • Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage. (Feb 2012)
  • One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society. (Jul 2011)
  • Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway. (Jul 2011)
  • Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act. (Feb 2013)
  • Supports defining traditional marriage. (Oct 2012)
  • Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Corporations
Click here for 2 full quotes on Corporations OR other candidates on Corporations OR background on Corporations.

  • Slash corporate tax rates to 15 percent. (Mar 2015)
  • Get senseless obstacles from Washington out of the way. (Jan 2015)
Ted Cruz on Crime
Click here for 4 full quotes on Crime OR other candidates on Crime OR background on Crime.

  • Convert regulatory crimes into civil offenses. (Apr 2015)
  • World Court should have no say in Texas executions. (Jul 2011)
  • Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice. (Jul 2011)
  • Supports the death penalty. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Drugs
Click here for the full quote on Drugs OR other candidates on Drugs OR background on Drugs.

  • Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs. (Apr 2015)
Ted Cruz on Education
Click here for 5 full quotes on Education OR other candidates on Education OR background on Education.

  • Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool. (Mar 2015)
  • We should thank parents who homeschool. (Mar 2015)
  • Local control of education instead of Common Core. (Mar 2015)
  • Education decisions best made at local level. (Jun 2012)
  • Denounce the Common Core State Standards. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Energy & Oil
Click here for 5 full quotes on Energy & Oil OR other candidates on Energy & Oil OR background on Energy & Oil.

  • Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration. (Jul 2011)
  • Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP. (Aug 2012)
  • Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures. (Jul 2010)
  • Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low. (Jul 2010)
  • Let states lease energy rights on federal lands. (Jun 2013)
Ted Cruz on Environment
Click here for 2 full quotes on Environment OR other candidates on Environment OR background on Environment.

  • Don’t pick winners & losers like RFS’ ethanol in gasoline. (Mar 2015)
  • Voted NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on Families & Children
Click here for 2 full quotes on Families & Children OR other candidates on Families & Children OR background on Families & Children.

  • Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism. (Apr 2015)
  • Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage. (Mar 2015)
Ted Cruz on Foreign Policy
Click here for 5 full quotes on Foreign Policy OR other candidates on Foreign Policy OR background on Foreign Policy.

  • Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize. (Oct 2014)
  • Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine. (Jul 2014)
  • America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership. (Jun 2014)
  • Sanctions on Putin for Ukraine: tyrants respond to weakness. (Mar 2014)
  • US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad. (Mar 2014)
Ted Cruz on Free Trade
Click here for 4 full quotes on Free Trade OR other candidates on Free Trade OR background on Free Trade.

  • End the Export-Import Bank. (Aug 2015)
  • The Export-Import bank is corporate welfare. (Mar 2015)
  • Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft. (May 2012)
  • Dewhurst lying about defending Chinese intellectual property. (May 2012)
Ted Cruz on Government Reform
Click here for 15 full quotes on Government Reform OR other candidates on Government Reform OR background on Government Reform.

  • If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy. (Aug 2015)
  • Executive actions override Congress & the Constitution. (Nov 2014)
  • Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’. (Mar 2014)
  • Presidents should not pick & choose laws to enforce. (Mar 2014)
  • End Washington cronyism via Congressional term limits. (Mar 2014)
  • Obama dishonors Constitution by bypassing Congress. (Jan 2014)
  • Obama’s executive orders is open door for future lawlessness. (Jan 2014)
  • Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending. (Jan 2014)
  • Dems want to get as many Americans as possible dependent. (Oct 2012)
  • Head of the Center for Tenth Amendment Studies. (Jul 2011)
  • Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud. (Jul 2011)
  • Identify constitutionality in every new congressional bill. (Jul 2010)
  • Audit federal agencies, to reform or eliminate them. (Jul 2010)
  • Moratorium on all earmarks until budget is balanced. (Jul 2010)
  • Prohibit IRS audits targeting Tea Party political groups. (Feb 2014)
Ted Cruz on Gun Control
Click here for 4 full quotes on Gun Control OR other candidates on Gun Control OR background on Gun Control.

  • Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions. (Jul 2011)
  • Voted NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets. (Apr 2013)
  • Opposes restricting the Second Amendment. (Oct 2012)
  • Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty. (Sep 2013)
Ted Cruz on Health Care
Click here for 16 full quotes on Health Care OR other candidates on Health Care OR background on Health Care.

  • Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty. (Feb 2015)
  • Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare. (Jan 2015)
  • Government shutdown on ObamaCare worked: GOP won in 2014. (Nov 2014)
  • Suspend commercial air travel to Ebola-infected areas. (Oct 2014)
  • To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it. (Mar 2014)
  • Obama changed ObamaCare mandate deadline by a blog post. (Jan 2014)
  • Obama asked companies to disobey ObamaCare rules for a year. (Jan 2014)
  • 5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare. (Jan 2014)
  • Vow to repeal ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)
  • Save Medicare by raising eligibility age. (Aug 2012)
  • Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare. (Apr 2012)
  • Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government. (Jul 2011)
  • Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market. (Jul 2010)
  • Repeal any federal health care takeover. (Aug 2012)
  • Supports repealing ObamaCare. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports market-based health insurance. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Homeland Security
Click here for 8 full quotes on Homeland Security OR other candidates on Homeland Security OR background on Homeland Security.

  • Label the enemy that Obama won’t: radical Islamic terrorists. (Aug 2015)
  • Torture was rightly outlawed, but keep tactics classified. (Dec 2014)
  • Americans who join ISIS should be barred from coming home. (Sep 2014)
  • Vital role for deploying military force abroad. (Mar 2014)
  • Opposes TSA and National Defense Authorization Act. (Sep 2012)
  • Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military. (Jul 2011)
  • Supports banning military gay marriage. (Oct 2012)
  • Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty. (Mar 2013)
Ted Cruz on Immigration
Click here for 9 full quotes on Immigration OR other candidates on Immigration OR background on Immigration.

  • Support Kate’s Law: oppose our leaders who won’t enforce. (Aug 2015)
  • Path to citizenship is profoundly unfair to legal immigrants. (Feb 2015)
  • End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances. (Nov 2014)
  • Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded. (Nov 2014)
  • No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas. (Oct 2012)
  • Give police more power to ask about immigration status. (Jun 2012)
  • Boots on the ground, plus a wall. (Apr 2012)
  • Triple the size of the Border Patrol. (Mar 2012)
  • Strengthen border security and increase enforcement. (Jul 2011)
Ted Cruz on Jobs
Click here for 3 full quotes on Jobs OR other candidates on Jobs OR background on Jobs.

  • Raising minimum wage by executive fiat opposes rule of law. (Jan 2014)
  • Lowest labor force participation in over three decades. (Jan 2014)
  • Extending unemployment benefits exacerbates joblessness. (Aug 2012)
Ted Cruz on Principles & Values
Click here for 9 full quotes on Principles & Values OR other candidates on Principles & Values OR background on Principles & Values.

  • I’m a consistent conservative, not a campaign conservative. (Aug 2015)
  • I’m despised by GOP establishment, but so was Reagan. (Feb 2015)
  • We win elections by bold principles & a positive agenda. (Mar 2014)
  • Washington would be better with more farmers & fewer lawyers. (Mar 2014)
  • Great Awakening: response to mess from career politicians. (Aug 2012)
  • OpEd: His law firm donated $200,000 to Obama’s campaign. (Apr 2012)
  • Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge. (Jul 2011)
  • Endorsed Member of the Tea Party movement. (Aug 2012)
  • Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state. (Jan 2013)
Ted Cruz on Social Security
Click here for 3 full quotes on Social Security OR other candidates on Social Security OR background on Social Security.

  • Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate. (Aug 2012)
  • Transition younger workers into personal savings system. (Jun 2012)
  • Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance. (Jan 2013)
Ted Cruz on Tax Reform
Click here for 7 full quotes on Tax Reform OR other candidates on Tax Reform OR background on Tax Reform.

  • Abolish the IRS. (Feb 2015)
  • Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code. (Apr 2012)
  • Adopt a single-rate tax system. (Jul 2010)
  • Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax. (Jul 2010)
  • Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge. (Aug 2012)
  • Opposes increasing tax rates. (Oct 2012)
  • Supports eliminating the inheritance tax. (Oct 2012)
Ted Cruz on Technology
Click here for 3 full quotes on Technology OR other candidates on Technology OR background on Technology.

  • Of course China & Russia have conducted cyberwarfare on US. (Aug 2015)
  • Net neutrality is ObamaCare for the Internet. (Nov 2014)
  • Voted NO on authorizing states to collect Internet sales taxes. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on War & Peace
Click here for 12 full quotes on War & Peace OR other candidates on War & Peace OR background on War & Peace.

  • If you wage jihad on America, you sign your death warrant. (Aug 2015)
  • Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America. (Mar 2015)
  • Provide defensive weapons for Ukraine against Russia. (Feb 2015)
  • Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support. (Feb 2015)
  • Focused, direct military objective of destroying ISIS. (Feb 2015)
  • Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age. (Oct 2014)
  • Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS. (Oct 2014)
  • Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS. (Sep 2014)
  • Bomb ISIS back into the Stone Age, with Congress’ approval. (Sep 2014)
  • Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine. (Jun 2014)
  • Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long. (Jun 2012)
  • Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves. (May 2013)
Ted Cruz on Welfare & Poverty
Click here for the full quote on Welfare & Poverty OR other candidates on Welfare & Poverty OR background on Welfare & Poverty.

  • Government checks create dependency. (Aug 2012)
VoteMatch Responses
(Click here for VoteMatch quiz)
VoteMatch Question & Answer
(Click on question for explanation and background)
Based on these stances:
(Click on topic for excerpt & citation)
Strongly Opposes topic 1:
Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
(-5 points on Social scale)
Ban taxpayer funding of abortion & partial birth abortion: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Companies can deny insuring birth control: Opposes topic 1
Protect innocent human life with partial-birth ban: Strongly Opposes topic 1
Opposes public abortion funding: Opposes topic 1
Opposes churches providing birth control: Opposes topic 1
No opinion on topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(0 points on Economic scale)
Disallow Ku Klux Klan from participating in Adopt-A-Highway: Favors topic 2
NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act: Opposes topic 2
Strongly Opposes topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(-5 points on Social scale)
Pray against a court decision legalizing same-sex marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Zealotry on same-sex marriage leaves out religious liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Most states can ignore Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Opposes the unrelenting assault on traditional marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Overturn Supreme Court with anti-gay marriage Amendment: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Opposes gay pride parades and opposes gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
One-man-one-woman marriage is building block of society: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Supports defining traditional marriage: Opposes topic 3
Supports banning military gay marriage: Opposes topic 3
Sponsored state definition of marriage supersedes federal gay marriage: Strongly Opposes topic 3
Strongly Favors topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(-5 points on Social scale)
Defend Judeo-Christian values against liberal fascism: Strongly Favors topic 4
Stop IRS from asking: ‘tell me the content of your prayers’: Strongly Favors topic 4
Government checks create dependency: Favors topic 4
Defend Ten Commandments and “under God” in the Pledge: Strongly Favors topic 4
Rated 100% by the AU, indicating opposition to separation of church & state: Strongly Favors topic 4
Strongly Opposes topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Washington wants ObamaCare, the people want liberty: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Support nuns’ battle for religious liberty against ObamaCare: Opposes topic 5
To repeal ObamaCare, show Dems they’d lose by supporting it: Opposes topic 5
5 million had health insurance canceled because of ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Vow to repeal ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Save Medicare by raising eligibility age: Favors topic 5
Throw my body in front of a train to stop ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Defeat ObamaCare; rein in the federal government: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Defund, repeal, & replace federal care with free market: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Repeal any federal health care takeover: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Supports repealing ObamaCare: Strongly Opposes topic 5
Supports market-based health insurance: Opposes topic 5
Strongly Favors topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Raise retirement age; cap increases to inflation rate: Favors topic 6
Transition younger workers into personal savings system: Favors topic 6
Rated 0% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance: Strongly Favors topic 6
Strongly Favors topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Right to education: public, private, charter, or homeschool: Strongly Favors topic 7
Education decisions best made at local level: Favors topic 7
Denounce the Common Core State Standards: Favors topic 7
Favors topic 8:
EPA regulations are too restrictive
(-3 points on Social scale)
NO on protecting ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes ecosystems: Favors topic 8
Strongly Favors topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(-5 points on Social scale)
World Court should have no say in Texas executions: Strongly Favors topic 9
Fully monitor sexual predators & bring them to justice: Favors topic 9
Supports the death penalty: Strongly Favors topic 9
Strongly Favors topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions: Strongly Favors topic 10
Opposes restricting the Second Amendment: Favors topic 10
NO on banning high-capacity magazines of over 10 bullets: Strongly Favors topic 10
Opposes topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(+2 points on Economic scale)
Abolish the IRS: Strongly Favors topic 11
Permanent Washington elite protects the tax code: Opposes topic 11
Adopt a single-rate tax system: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Repeal tax hikes in capital gains and death tax: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Supports the Taxpayer Protection Pledge: Strongly Opposes topic 11
Opposes increasing tax rates: Opposes topic 11
Supports eliminating the inheritance tax: Opposes topic 11
Strongly Opposes topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(-5 points on Social scale)
End Obama’s illegal amnesty via Congress’ checks & balances: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Defund amnesty; and refuse any nominees until rescinded: Strongly Opposes topic 12
No path to citizenship for 1.65 million illegals in Texas: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Give police more power to ask about immigration status: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Boots on the ground, plus a wall: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Triple the size of the Border Patrol: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strengthen border security and increase enforcement: Strongly Opposes topic 12
Strongly Favors topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Defended Chinese company on intellectual property theft: Strongly Favors topic 13
Strongly Favors topic 14:
Support American Exceptionalism
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Cuba is oppressive but never misses chance to propagandize: Favors topic 14
America is indispensable; our allies need our leadership: Strongly Favors topic 14
US has a responsibility to defend our values abroad: Favors topic 14
Sponsored opposing the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty: Strongly Favors topic 14
Oppose the United Nations’ Arms Trade Treaty: Favors topic 14
Strongly Favors topic 15:
Expand the military
(-5 points on Social scale)
Vital role for deploying military force abroad: Strongly Favors topic 15
Fierce advocate of recruiting and growing the military: Strongly Favors topic 15
No opinion on topic 16:
Make voter registration easier
(0 points on Social scale)
If you like special interests, I ain’t your guy: Favors topic 16
Require voters to show ID to avoid voter fraud: Opposes topic 16
Opposes topic 17:
Avoid foreign entanglements
(-3 points on Social scale)
Toughen sanctions on Iran, to safeguard America: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Arm the Kurds to fight ISIS, with US air support: Opposes topic 17
Bomb ISIS back to the Stone Age: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Arm & aid the Peshmerga Kurds against ISIS: Strongly Opposes topic 17
Don’t arm Syrian rebels without a clear plan to combat ISIS: Favors topic 17
Vigorous sanctions against Putin; help eastern Ukraine: Opposes topic 17
Install Eastern European ABMs; stand up to Russia in Ukraine: Opposes topic 17
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan went on too long: Favors topic 17
Sponsored shutting down Iranian foreign reserves: Opposes topic 17
Strongly Opposes topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Fight against Gulf moratorium on offshore exploration: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Signed the No Climate Tax Pledge by AFP: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Cap-and-trade has no impact on global temperatures: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Explore proven energy reserves & keep energy prices low: Opposes topic 18
Let states lease energy rights on federal lands: Strongly Opposes topic 18
Opposes topic 19:
Marijuana is a gateway drug
(+2 points on Social scale)
Lower minimums and mandatory sentencing for drugs: Opposes topic 19
Strongly Opposes topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(+5 points on Economic scale)
Balanced budget amendment to stop bankrupting our country: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Debt ceiling limits “blank check” of federal spending: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Limit federal spending growth to per-capita inflation rate: Strongly Opposes topic 20
Supports the Cut-Cap-and-Balance Pledge: Opposes topic 20
Audit the Federal Reserve & its actions on mortgage loans: Opposes topic 20

Ted Cruz is a Hard-Core Conservative.
Click here for explanation of political philosophy.
Click here for VoteMatch quiz.

VoteMatch

Candidate’s Political Philosophy

The below is a way of thinking about the candidate’s political philosophy by dividing the candidate’s VoteMatch answers into “social” and “economic” questions.  It is only a theory – please take it with a grain of salt!Social Questions:  Liberals and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while conservatives and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Economic Questions:  Conservatives and libertarians agree in choosing the less-government answers, while liberals and populists agree in choosing the more-restrictive answers.

Candidate’s Score

The candidate scored the following on the VoteMatch questions:

Social Score 18%
Economic Score 93%
 Where the Candidate Fits In

Where the candidate’s Social score meets the Economic score on the grid below is the candidate’s political philosophy.  Based on the above score, the candidate is a Hard-Core Conservative.

Political Map

 
Social ScoreThis measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s personal lives or on social issues. These issues include health, morality, love, recreation, prayer and other activities that are not measured in dollars.

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in tolerance for different people and lifestyles.
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that standards of morality & safety should be enforced by government. 

Economic Score

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

  • A high score (above 60%) means the candidate believes in personal responsibility for financial matters, and that free-market competition is better for people than central planning by the government. 
  • A low score (below 40%) means the candidate believes that a good society is best achieved by the government redistributing wealth. The candidate believes that government’s purpose is to decide which programs are good for society, and how much should be spent on each program.

This measures how much the candidate believes government should intervene in people’s economic lives. Economic issues include retirement funding, budget allocations, and taxes. 

How We Score Candidates

How we determine a candidate’s stance on each VoteMatch question:

  • We collect up votes, excerpts from speeches, press releases, and so on, which are related to each question. Each of these are shown on the candidate’s VoteMatch table.
  • We assign an individual score for each item on the list. The scores can be: Strongly Favor, Favor, Neutral/Mixed, Oppose, Strongly Oppose. The scoring terms refer to the text of the question, not whether the candidate strongly opposed a bill, for example.
  • We then average the individual scores, using the numeric scale: Strongly Favor = 2, Favor = 1, Neutral/Mixed = 0, Oppose = -1, Strongly Oppose = -2.
  • If the average is above 1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Favor.
  • If the average is above 0, the overall answer to the question is Favor.
  • If the average is exactly 0, the overall answer to the question is Neutral.
  • If the average is below 0, the overall answer to the question is Oppose.
  • If the average is below -1, the overall answer to the question is Strongly Oppose.
  • When you do a VoteMatch quiz, your answers are compared to each candidates’ overall answer to come up with a matching percentage.
  • To get the political philosophy of the candidate, we sum up the answers on two scales, the Personal/Social scale and the Economic Scale. Some questions aren’t used in the political philosophy calculations.
  • The VoteMatch table indicates the number of scale points from each answer (any one question can provide from 0 to 10 scale points on one scale or the other).
  • The combination of social/moral scales and economic scales produces a political philosophy description. A more detailed explanation appears below.
Examples

The chart below indicates how four “hard-core” political philosophers would answer the questions. From this example, you can see how the candidate fits in with each philosophy.  The candidate’s answers are on the left.

  • A “hard-core liberal” would answer social questions to minimize government involvement, but would answer economic questions to include government intervention.
  • A “hard-core libertarian” would answer both social and economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core conservative” would answer social questions to include government intervention, but would answer economic questions to minimize government involvement.
  • A “hard-core populist” would answer both social and economic questions with proposals that include government intervention.

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Social Issues The candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 1. Abortion is a woman’s unrestricted right
Question 3. Comfortable with same-sex marriage
Question 8. Human needs over animal rights
Question 12. Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
Question 17. Stay out of Iran
Question 4. Keep God in the public sphere
Question 9. Stricter punishment reduces crime
Question 15. Expand the military
Question 16. Stricter limits on political campaign funds
Question 19. Never legalize marijuana

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Economic Issues The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist
Question 2. Legally require hiring women & minorities
Question 5. Expand ObamaCare
Question 11. Higher taxes on the wealthy
Question 18. Prioritize green energy
Question 20. Stimulus better than market-led recovery
Question 6. Privatize Social Security
Question 7. Vouchers for school choice
Question 10. Absolute right to gun ownership
Question 13. Support and expand Free Trade
Question 14. Maintain US sovereignty from UN
The Candidate Hard-core Liberal Hard-core Libertarian Hard-Core Conservative Hard-Core Populist

= Strongly Support    = Support    = No Opinion    = Oppose    = Strongly Oppose

Final Notes

To ensure balance among political viewpoints, we arranged the wording of the questions so that half the time, the answer involving more government is answered by “support”, and half the time by “oppose.” Hence, each of the “hard core” philosophers would choose “support” for 5 of the Social questions and for 5 of the Economic questions.

Many of these statements cross over the line between social issues and economic issues. And many people might answer what we call a “Social” issue based on economic reasoning. But we have tried to arrange a series of questions which separates the way candidates think about government activities in these two broad scales.

Political Map and some content from Advocates for Self-Government.

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Why Do Many of The Fox News Talking Heads Attack Trump? Sucking Up To Roger Ailes’ Boss Rupert Murdock Who Favors Open Borders And Does Not Want Immigration To Be A Wedge Issue and Supports Bloomberg! — Trump Is Right — The Only Reason Fox Was Talking About Immigration Was Trump — Results Count — 24 Million Plus Viewers — Trump Should Attack Rupert Murdock’s Open Borders Position — American People Demand Enforcement of Existing Immigration Laws and Not Immigration Reform — Videos

Posted on September 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Economics, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Macroeconomics, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Money, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Psychology, Radio, Radio, Rants, Religious, Security, Speech, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: Why Do Many of The Fox News Talking Heads Attack Trump? Sucking Up To Roger Ailes’ Boss Rupert Murdock Who Favors Open Borders And Does Not Want Immigration To Be A Wedge Issue and Supports Bloomberg! — Trump Is Right — The Only Reason Fox Was Talking About Immigration Was Trump — Results Count — 24 Million Plus Viewers — Trump Should Attack Rupert Murdock’s Open Borders Position — American People Demand Enforcement of Existing Immigration Laws and Not Immigration Reform — Videos

Tuesday, August 25
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
New Hampshire 2016 Democratic Primary PPP (D) Sanders 42, Clinton 35, Biden, Webb 6, O’Malley 4, Chafee 2 Sanders +7
New Hampshire Republican Presidential Primary PPP (D) Trump 35, Kasich 11, Bush 7, Walker 7, Carson 6, Christie 4, Fiorina 10, Cruz 4, Paul 3, Rubio 4, Huckabee 0, Perry 2, Jindal 0, Graham 1, Santorum 1 Trump +24
Iowa Democratic Presidential Caucus Suffolk University Clinton 54, Sanders 20, Biden 11, O’Malley 4, Webb 1, Chafee 0 Clinton +34
South Carolina Republican Presidential Primary Monmouth Trump 30, Carson 15, Bush 9, Walker 4, Huckabee 3, Graham 4, Rubio 6, Cruz 5, Fiorina 6, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Paul 3, Perry 0, Jindal 0 Trump +15

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Trump Outlines Immigration Plan

Immigration Gumballs Short Version

Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform

News Corporation Chairman, CEO and Founder, Rupert Murdoch, explains why immigration reform is needed to keep America the most creative and economically competitive nation in the world.

Fox News Owner Rupert Murdoch Calls For Immigration Reform

Partnership for a New American Economy Launches on Fox & Friends

Mayor Bloomberg on the Partnership for a New American Economy

Trump trolls Megyn Kelly on Twitter

Krauthammer: Trump had a “bad night” at GOP Debate.

Donald Trump: Charles Krauthammer is a jerk

George Will: Do We Really Want to Give Nuclear Weapons to Donald Trump? – Fox News Sunday – 8-16-15

George Will on Donald Trump Run

George Will: Trump Is a One-Man Todd Akin fox news sunday

Unions Muscle Big Business on Immigration Reform – WSJ Opinion

Sen Ted Cruz Amendments to increase immigration 2x, Worker Visas 5x, legalize illegals.

Ted Cruz would Double Immigration, add 500% worker Visas and legalize illegals.

Sen. Ted Cruz at Hearing on the Administration’s Immigration Enforcement

Rand Paul: More Immigrants, More Tax Revenue

Rand Paul sounds off on fallout over immigration plan

Scott Walker talks immigration, presidential debate

Jeb Bush Discusses Immigration Reform

Roger Ailes Nukes Trump: New Attack on Megyn Kelly Is ‘Disturbing’

The Donald renewed his verbal assault on Megyn Kelly last night, and the head of Fox News struck back for the first time in public, demanding an apology.
Donald Trump—self-avowed “ratings machine” though he might be—has finally gone too far for Fox News Chairman Roger Ailes.The Republican presidential front-runner, who has spent the past day tweeting and re-tweeting nasty insults about Fox News star Megyn Kelly, owes her an apology, Ailes demanded in an extraordinary broadside against the reality-show billionaire, issued on Tuesday afternoon.“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing,” Ailes said about Trump, who has been a frequent interview guest on Fox & Friends, The O’Reilly Factor,Hannity, and other Fox News programs since the Republican presidential debate that Fox News broadcast on August 6 at which Kelly asked him a tough question about his history of calling women “fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals.”Trump immediately fired back in a statement.“I totally disagree with the FOX statement. I do not think Megyn Kelly is a quality journalist. I think her questioning of me, despite all of the polls saying I won the debate, was very unfair. Hopefully in the future I will be proven wrong and she will be able to elevate her standards to a level of professionalism that a network such as FOX deserves.”

“Donald Trump’s surprise and unprovoked attack on Megyn Kelly during her show last night is as unacceptable as it is disturbing.”

Ailes issued his statement a little more than 12 hours after Trump’s angry tweet storm.

“Megyn Kelly represents the very best of American journalism and all of us at FOX News Channel reject the crude and irresponsible attempts to suggest otherwise,” Ailes continued, referring to a raging series of Trump tweets in which the candidate claimed Kelly was “off her game” on her first show after a 10-day vacation, and retweeted a crass assertion that the former Washington litigator is a “bimbo.”

Ailes, who scheduled The Kelly File at the all-important 9 p.m. prime-time slot, went on:

“I could not be more proud of Megyn for her professionalism and class in the face of all of Mr. Trump’s verbal assaults. Her questioning of Mr. Trump at the debate was tough but fair, and I fully support her as she continues to ask the probing and challenging questions that all presidential candidates may find difficult to answer.

“Donald Trump rarely apologizes, although in this case, he should. We have never been deterred by politicians or anyone else attacking us for doing our job, much less allowed ourselves to be bullied by anyone and we’re certainly not going to start now. All of our journalists will continue to report in the fair and balanced way that has made FOX News Channel the number one news network in the industry.”

Ailes’s verbal howitzer against the front-running Republican—a highly unusual deployment for any news organization, let alone one that has been the GOP establishment and home of conservative viewers—comes after what seemed a coordinated defense of Kelly by at least 10 other Fox News personalities today on Twitter and on air.

According to CNN’s Brian Stelter, the pro-Kelly comments included Fox & Friendsco-host Brian Kilmeade opining on Tuesday’s show that Trump is “totally out of control”; The Five co-host Dana Perino tweeting, “The intelligence, class & grace of Megyn Kelly shined last night after her week’s vacation with her family”; anchor Bret Baier, Kelly’s co-moderator at the debate, tweeting that Trump “has made his feelings clear. But THIS needs to stop;” and Sean Hannity tweeting to Trump, “Leave @Megynkelly Alone.”

So far, there has been no word on whether Trump will be welcome on Fox News if he continues his attacks and refuses to apologize.

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER TO INTRODUCE DONALD TRUMP IN IOWA

Eleven-time New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter will introduce 2016 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump at a rally in Iowa on Tuesday, Breitbart News has learned exclusively.

“This is the first time I’ve thought there was hope for our country again since Nov. 7, 2012,” Coulter said in an email to Breitbart News when asked why she is introducing Trump.

Coulter, the author of the bestselling ¡Adios America! about immigration, is extraordinarily pleased by Trump’s immigration reform plan. On Breitbart News Sunday this weekend on Sirius XM Patriot, Coulter walked through how happy she was.

Coulter will be signing copies of her book at a Trump campaign rally in Dubuque, Iowa, at 4:30 p.m. CT and will be speaking before Trump in front of an expected crowd of 1,600.

Trump’s immigration reform plan aims to put Americans ahead of foreigners and special interests and has several aspects in it designed to do that. He wants to build a wall on the border, make Mexico pay for it, end birthright citizenship for anchor babies, and put restrictions on legal immigration designed to ensure Americans have first access to jobs instead of illegal immigrants or future foreigners.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/08/25/exclusive-ann-coulter-to-introduce-donald-trump-in-iowa/

Immigration Reform Can’t Wait

There is rarely a good time to do hard things, and America won’t advance if legislators act like seat-warmers.

When I learned that House Majority Leader Eric Cantor had lost his Republican primary, my heart sank. Not simply because I think he is an intelligent and talented member of Congress, or because I worry about the future of the Republican Party.

Like others who want comprehensive immigration reform, I worried that Mr. Cantor’s loss would be misconstrued and make Congress reluctant to tackle this urgent need. That would be the wrong lesson and an undesirable national consequence of this single, local election result.

People are looking for leadership—those who stand for something and offer a vision for how to take America forward and keep our nation economically competitive. One of the most immediate ways to revitalize our economy is by passing immigration reform.

Newly naturalized U.S. citizens celebrate after taking the oath of citizenship in Washington, D.C., June 17. ENLARGE
Newly naturalized U.S. citizens celebrate after taking the oath of citizenship in Washington, D.C., June 17. GETTY IMAGES

I chose to come to America and become a citizen because America was—and remains—the most free and entrepreneurial nation in the world. Our history is defined by people whose character and culture have been shaped by ambition, imagination and hard work, bound together by a dream of a better life.

Is the idea of immigration reform complicated by the fact that some immigrants went outside the legal system to be here? Yes. It is complicated even more by the fear some Americans have, quite naturally, of how changing populations might also change our culture, communities and economic circumstances.

Well, of course immigration means change. Immigrants enrich our culture and add to our economic prosperity.

You don’t have to take one immigrant’s word for it. The Partnership for a New American Economy, a bipartisan group of political and business leaders, reports that people who moved here from abroad or their children founded more than 40% of America’s Fortune 500 companies—businesses that collectively employ millions of people.

Do Americans really wish Google, eBay, Pfizer or Home Depot were headquartered in Eastern Europe or China instead of America? Whether it’s a high-profile tech company or a small business employing just 10 people, 28% of all new American businesses started in 2011 were founded by immigrants. Those are entrepreneurial people we want to continue to attract to our economy.

I don’t believe that people come to America to sit on their hands. The vast majority of America’s immigrants are hardworking, family-minded individuals with strong values. They are drawn here from many different places by a common belief that this is still the land of opportunity for those willing to work hard.

We need to give those individuals who are already here—after they have passed checks to ensure they are not dangerous criminals—a path to citizenship so they can pay their full taxes, be counted, and become more productive members of our community.

Next, we need to do away with the cap on H-1B visas, which is arbitrary and results in U.S. companies struggling to find the high-skill workers they need to continue growing. We already know that most of the applications for these visas are for computer programmers and engineers, where there is a shortage of qualified American candidates. But we are held back by the objections of the richly funded labor unions that mistakenly believe that if we keep innovation out of America, somehow nothing will change. They are wrong, and frankly as much to blame for our stalemate on this issue as nativists who scream about amnesty.

If we are serious about advancing our economic future and about creating job growth here in America, then we must realize that it is suicidal to suggest closing our doors to the world’s entrepreneurs, or worse, to continue with large-scale deportations.

That is not to suggest we don’t need to do a far better job securing our border. Border security should be an integral part of a comprehensive solution, and we should not dismiss the concerns of states that are struggling to deal with the consequences of ongoing illegal immigration.

Some politicians and pundits will argue that this is not the time to bring immigration reform to the congressional floor—that it will frighten an already anxious workforce and encourage more extreme candidates, especially on the right. They may be right about the short-term politics, but they are dead wrong about the long-term interests of our country.

Maybe, as someone who came here as an immigrant, I have more faith in the compassion and fortitude of the American people, and in their ability to reject extreme views on either side of the political spectrum. Or maybe, as a businessman, I have learned that there is rarely a good time to do the hard things.

That is why I was pleased to see Sen. Rand Paul and Grover Norquist,president of Americans for Tax Reform, step up their efforts to lobby for immigration reform.

President Obama has shown wise restraint despite pressure from the left to act, recognizing that a bipartisan approach on such an immense issue would be best. Remember ObamaCare?

However, if Congress fails to even try to have this important debate, the president might feel tempted to act via executive order. I hope it doesn’t get to that point, given the furious political firestorm that would result.

All the more reason, then, to recognize that the facts are on the side of reform, and democratic societies don’t advance when our elected officials act like seat-warmers.

Mr. Murdoch is executive chairman of News Corp, which owns The Wall Street Journal.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/rupert-murdoch-immigration-reform-cant-wait-1403134311

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-521

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos

Posted on June 13, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Banking, Blogroll, Books, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Politics, Press, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Congress Using Fast Track Authority To Open The Back Door To Millions of H-1 B Visas For Foreign Workers Replacing American Workers (Trade In Services Agreement) — The Selling Out of The American People By Political Elitist Establishment (PEE) For Corporate Campaign Contributions — Vote The Bastards Out of Office — Videos

158-fast-track-trade

Obama-Fast-TrackObam-Train

George Carlin on

the American Dream

‘Fast-track’ Trade Bill Derailed in House in Blow to Obama

Democrats Derail Obama’s Trade Deal for Now

The Fall of Cover Garbage

SR in 60: House lawmakers vote to derail Obama’s trade agenda

McConnell Says Pres Obama Has Done An Excellent Job Pushing Trade Deal Jeff Sessions Lou Dobbs

Investor Jim Rogers on why TPP is so secret

No one knows what the TPP is

Wikileaks Releases Part of the Trans-Pacific Partnership Text…

WikiLeaks Launches Campaign to Offer $100,000 “Bounty” for Leaked Drafts of Secret TPP Chapters

Belgium: Assange slams EU/US plans revealed in leaked TiSA documents

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

Breaking! TPA Passes House While TAA Fails

Disney Fires Hundreds Of American Tech Workers, Forced To Train Foreign Replacements

Disney Setting Up High Tech Sweatshops In US (TPP Foreshadow)

TPP: The Dirtiest Trade Deal You’ve Never Heard Of

Infowars Blows The Lid Off TPP Agreement

The Truth About Free Trade Agreements | Trans-Pacific Partnership TPP

Free Trade and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Revolt over TPP: Senate Dems Rebuke Obama by Blocking Debate on Secretive Trade Deal

Cruz Supports Giving Fast Track Authority on Trade to Obama

Sen Ted Cruz Wants to DOUBLE Immigration

Sen. Cruz Amendment to Immigration Legislation to Increase H-1B Visas

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

PEDRO SANTANA/AFP/Getty Images

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jenks also spotted another issue with the application process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

By  Daniel Costa and Ron Hira

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Professional services:

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

Computer and related services:

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

Research and Development services:

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

Other business services

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

Construction and related engineering services:

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

Environmental services:

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

[CH propose: Financial Services]

[CH propose: Financial advisors]

Tourism and travel related services:

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

[CH propose: Transport services

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

Recreational, cultural and sporting services:

38. Sporting and other recreational services (CPC 964)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revealed: The Secret Immigration Chapter in Obama’s Trade Agreement
Image Credits: Backbone Campaign / Flickr.

by ALEX SWOYER | BREITBART | JUNE 10, 2015
Share on Facebook89Tweet about this on Twitter65Share on Google+0Email this to someonePrint this page
Discovered inside the huge tranche of secretive Obamatrade documents released by Wikileaks are key details on how technically any Republican voting for Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) that would fast-track trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal would technically also be voting to massively expand President Obama’s executive authority when it comes to immigration matters.

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

The president’s Trade in Services Act (TiSA) documents, which is one of the three different close-to-completely-negotiated deals that would be fast-tracked making up the president’s trade agreement, show Obamatrade in fact unilaterally alters current U.S. immigration law. TiSA, like TPP or the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (T-TIP) deals, are international trade agreements that President Obama is trying to force through to final approval. The way he can do so is by getting Congress to give him fast-track authority through TPA.
TiSA is even more secretive than TPP. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill can review the text of TPP in a secret, secured room inside the Capitol—and in some cases can bring staffers who have high enough security clearances—but with TiSA, no such draft text is available.

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

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

http://www.infowars.com/revealed-the-secret-immigration-chapter-in-obamas-trade-agreement/

The congressional trade debate, explained in 6 factions

By Amber Phillips

Few issues shuffle Washington around into weird alliances like trade policy. President Obama’s two ambitious, legacy-defining trade deals with Pacific Rim countries and Europe are no different.

Obama is trying to get Congress to let him negotiate the deals without lawmakers’ input until the very end, when Congress would get a yes-or-no vote on each deal. It’s known as “fast-track authority.” The Senate approved the president’s power to do that in last month, but the bigger challenge is in the House of Representatives.

It’s a tough sell, but not for the reasons you might think. Broadly speaking, House Republicans are on board; Democrats, not so much.

A major reason for the division is labor unions, which fear trade deals can take manufacturing jobs away from American workers and ship them overseas. Labor unions are also huge supporters of Democrats. So Obama and Republicans are in the odd situation of trying to convince Democrats to reluctantly give the president what he wants.

As they scramble to find the votes ahead of a potential vote on Friday, here are the six factions Congress falls into on trade.

1. The Labor Democrats

Sen.Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) is not a fan of Obama’s trade deals. (REUTERS/Joshua Roberts)
Who they are: Pretty much all House and Senate Democrats who don’t want labor unions spending big money against them in their next campaigns. In the House, that’s about two-thirds of the party’s 180 Democrats. Labor unions have become the most vocal group on either side of the trade debate, and they appear to be putting their money where their mouth is. Politico reports labor activists say they’ll run $84,000 in TV ads against a California Democrat who supports the fast-track bill.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut and Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts lead the charge for this group. On the campaign trail, Democratic presidential candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and former Maryland governor Martin O’Malley also oppose the trade deals.

What they believe: That opening up U.S. markets to foreign countries will also open up American workers to lower wages and job losses, particularly while U.S. manufacturing companies take advantage of open borders to move plants overseas for cheaper labor.

There’s some truth to that, economists say. By allowing goods and services to flow more freely across borders, trade deals helps countries specialize in just a few goods and services they’re really good at. That makes economies more efficient but means some workers will inevitably lose out.

But the size of which industries like manufacturing will lose out in these trade deals is debatable, as many such low-wage jobs have already moved overseas.

Key talking point: Warren: The deals are “going to help the rich get richer and leave everyone else behind.”

2. Silicon Valley Democrats

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg is among those who support Obama’s trade deals. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu)
Who they are: A relatively small group of about 40 pro-business, moderate Democrats who are allied with Silicon Valley executives. The Washington Post’s David Nakamura notes those executives include the influential Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents 390 companies, including Facebook, Google and Microsoft, and is aligned with tech CEOs from Cisco Systems, Oracle and AT&T in lobbying for fast track.

What they believe: That the trade deals — and particularly Obama’s massive 12-nation deal with Pacific Rim countries — protects one of America’s top money-makers: intellectual property. The deals as drafted strengthen patents and extend copyright protections for the things Americans are good at inventing, like pharmaceuticals, movies and technology start-ups.

This argument offers Democrats an alternative to labor unions’ message: Perhaps some manufacturing jobs will indeed ship overseas, but low-wage manufacturing isn’t where America’s economy is headed anyways.

Key talking point: Obama made the best argument for this group recently: “If we are going to capture the future, then we’ve got to open up markets to the kinds of things that we’re really good at, that can’t be duplicated overseas.”

3. On-the-fence Democrats

U.S. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) speaks to the press about the potential for a U.S. government shutdown, alongside House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.), are torn on trade. (REUTERS/Jason Reed )
Who’s in this camp: A handful of Democrats who are torn between supporting their president and the labor unions’ strong pull. These Democrats include House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland. This group is small but significant; Obama and Republicans need about 25 Democrats to support the fast-track legislation when it comes to a vote, so the president is lobbying these people hard.

What they think: Two competing thoughts here: Let’s give our president what he wants … but I don’t know if that’s worth risking a primary challenge supported by labor unions.

With the vote count coming down to the wire, the AP’s Josh Lederman reports Obama has promised to help campaign in 2016 for anyone in this group who crosses the line and votes yes for fast-track legislation.

Key talking point: “There’s a difference between growing the economy and helping American companies grow the bottom line and creating jobs.” Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) told The Hill.
4. Gung-ho trade supporters

House Speaker John A. Boehner, left, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are Obama’s biggest advocates on trade. (AP Photo/PennLive.com, Mark Pynes )
Who’s in this camp: Establishment Republicans, including leaders like House Speaker John A. Boehner (Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), have Obama’s back on fast-track legislation and the two trade bills. In the House, they have the support of about 110 Republicans, according to The Hill’s whip count.

What they believe: Trade deals are job creators, because they allow the United States to require other countries to the same labor and environmental standards that our businesses must follow. That makes a more even global playing field for Americans. And fast-tracking the deals is the only way to get them negotiated; imagine if every country involved allowed its legislative bodies to chime in. Nothing would get done!

Key talking point: “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms,” said Rep. Paul Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who is central to crafting the fast-track legislation. “We have a chance here to write the rules on our terms, to raise other countries to our standards, to create more opportunity for our people.”

5. The anti-Obama Republicans

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) has warned about the dangers of giving Obama fast track trade authority. (AP Photo/CBS News, Chris Usher)
Who’s in this camp: Republicans who might support fast-track legislation and the trade deals but who are wary of giving the president so much authority to negotiate them without Congress’s input. This camp encompasses about 50 of Republicans’ Southern and tea party-leaning lawmakers.

What they believe: By voting for fast-track legislation, they’re essentially blocking themselves from the discussion about what should be put in the trade deals.

Key talking point: Here’s one from Alabama Rep. Bradley Byrne’s (R) office: “Congressman Byrne is a strong supporter of free trade, which supports almost 3,000 jobs in the 1st district alone. That said, he believes Congress must have a seat at the table as the trade negotiations continue.”

6. The swing-state Republicans

Rep. Dave Joyce (R-Ohio) is among a small group of swing state House Republicans who are worried about a vote on trade. (AP Photo/Mark Duncan)
Who’s in this camp: About 12-20 recently elected House Republicans who came into power during midterm Republican waves and now represent swing districts with decisive moderate constituents who might not like Obama’s trade deals. They include Midwestern lawmakers like Ohio’s David Joyce and Long Island’s Rep. Lee Zeldin.

The environmentalist group Sierra Club recently held a rally in Zeldin’s district to convince him to oppose the fast-track legislation.
What they believe: This group usually aligns with the Republican establishment on most issues. But on trade, these lawmakers carry the same concerns as Labor Democrats: A vote for fast track could mean a vote for them out of office.

Key talking point: “I support trade,” Zeldin told Facebook supporters in March. But on the trade deals and fast-track authority, “I will read it and decide at that time whether to vote for it or against it.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/10/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-trade-debate-explained-by-6-house-factions/

Obama makes last-ditch plea to Dems ahead of showdown vote on trade

President Obama went to Capitol Hill Friday morning to make a final plea to congressional Democrats for his trade agenda, ahead of a showdown vote in the House.

The president met with House Democratic leaders ahead of a caucus meeting. While it is extremely rare for a president to make a visit like this before a big vote, the last-minute lobbying comes after the president also made a surprise appearance at the annual congressional baseball game between Democrats and Republicans the night before. His personal involvement underscores how fragile the effort is — Fox News is told the effort is still short on the votes — and how important he sees it to his second-term legacy.

The night before, a bizarre scene unfolded as the crowd crammed inside Nationals Park lurched into a chant about the legislation.

“TPA! TPA! TPA!” chanted Republican congressional aides seated near the first base dugout when Obama stepped onto the field at the top of the fourth inning.

This wasn’t quite the drunken, Bronx throng at Yankee Stadium cantillating “Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE! Reg-GIE!” after Reggie Jackson swatted three consecutive home runs in Game Six of the 1977 World Series. This was gamesmanship, Washington-style. A game in which most congressional Republicans find themselves backing the Democratic president’s efforts to pass Trade Promotion Authority (TPA), a framework for a big trade deal the administration hopes to advance later this year.

TPA, which would give the president the ability to “fast-track” future trade deals, is one of two bills due up in the House on Friday. And it’s anybody’s guess if the bills will pass. Members of Congress may have been mixing it up on the diamond. But there is just as much gamesmanship underway on Capitol Hill as lawmakers try to leverage passage or defeat of the trade legislation.

More on this…

  • Stage set for vote to give Obama fast-track trade authority

First, the basics.

Most House Republicans want to approve TPA. But they don’t quite have the votes to do it on their own. They need Democratic support. Yet the irony is that even though Obama is pushing the deal, only about 20-plus House Democrats support their own chief executive on this issue.

So various political gambits kick in.

Republicans find it absurd that Obama can’t persuade more than two-dozen Democratic members to support the trade plan. Conversely, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., is stunned that House Republicans, boasting a 246-188 majority, can’t excavate at least 200 GOPers to approve the package.

So Pelosi and House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, cut a deal. Neither side promised a certain number of votes to the other. But both House leaders forged a plan which could conceivably reward both sides with a political victory and concurrently test their respective abilities to gin up votes.

Pelosi and Boehner engineered a deal to advance the trade framework to the floor – so long as Democrats scored a vote on something called Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA).

TAA is a program near and dear to the hearts of many Democrats. It’s a method to cushion the blow for various workers and industries damaged by business reallocations in trade agreements. So House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., teed up  two votes for Friday: One for TAA and one on TPA. But a TPA vote was contingent on the House first adopting TAA. The procedural maneuver would require Republicans to carry most of the freight to adopt TPA. But to get there, Democrats would be expected to provide the lion’s share of votes for TAA. If the House doesn’t approve TAA, everything comes to a screeching halt and there’s no vote on TPA.

Further complicating matters, Pelosi has spoken openly against the trade accord but has yet to definitively say how she’ll vote.

Capitol Hill is weird. Weird enough to have Republicans serving as Obama’s TPA cheerleaders – both at the ballpark and in the House chamber. It’s even weirder to have House Democrats working against Obama on this. And then there’s Pelosi – stuck in the middle.

On trade, Pelosi is a switch-pitcher. She’s trying to keep the Democratic caucus from embarrassing Obama with a paltry vote total for TPA. Yet she’s working to make sure most of her caucus gets what it wants: a defeat of TPA. At the same time, Pelosi secured a deal for the TAA vote – which could help pass TPA … or blow it up.

Major League Baseball has a rule for ambidextrous pitchers, few as there may be. Such cross-hurlers must first declare whether they intend to pitch left-handed or right-handed to each batter. There’s no such rule on Capitol Hill. That’s why when it comes to trade, Pelosi is chucking political curveballs from both sides of the mound.

But Democrats are working against Pelosi. A senior House GOP leadership source says Republicans can only provide 50 to 70 votes for TAA. Democrats must make up the difference. However, many Democrats now see a means to an end. Some intend to vote no on TAA simply to detonate the entire process and never get the TPA bill to the floor — which they so despise.

The House nearly voted to truncate the entire process before the first pitch, coming close to voting down a procedural vote just to get the measures to the floor.

Some observers interpreted the uneven procedural vote as a harbinger of things to come Friday on the trade bills. Some lawmakers wondered if Obama – fresh off his dugout diplomatic mission — might ring up lawmakers and implore them to vote aye.

One longtime Democratic member doubted that would happen, noting that Obama had already done all of the calling he could do.

There are games here, too. The same lawmaker signaled that some colleagues might not even take the call if the president phones. In fact, they might even keep their phones switched off.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/06/12/house-obama-trade-agenda/

Obama-backed trade bill fails in the House

By David Nakamura and Paul Kane

President Obama suffered a major defeat to his Pacific Rim free trade initiative Friday as House Democrats helped derail a key presidential priority despite his last-minute, personal plea on Capitol Hill.

The House voted 302 to 126 to sink a measure to grant financial aid to displaced workers, fracturing hopes at the White House that Congress would grant Obama fast-track trade authority to complete an accord with 11 other Pacific Rim nations.

“I will be voting to slow down fast-track,” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said on the floor moments before the vote, after keeping her intentions private for months. “Today we have an opportunity to slow down. Whatever the deal is with other countries, we want a better deal for American workers.”

The dramatic defeat could sink the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a sweeping free trade and regulatory pact that Obama has called central to his economic agenda at home and his foreign policy strategy in Asia. Obama’s loss came after a months-long lobbying blitz in which the president invested significant personal credibility and political capital.

Republican leaders, who had backed the president’s trade initiative, pleaded with their colleagues to support the deal or risk watching the United States lose economic ground in Asia.

“The world is watching us right now,” Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said before the vote.

Obama had rushed to Capitol Hill on Friday morning to make a last-ditch plea to an emergency meeting of the Democratic caucus. The president urged members to vote with their conscience and “play it straight,” urging them to support the financial package for displaced workers, which Democrats have long supported.

“I don’t think you ever nail anything down around here,” Obama told reporters on his way out of the Capitol. “It’s always moving.”

But anti-trade Democrats pushed hard to block the financial aid plan, knowing that its defeat would also torpedo a companion measure to grant Obama fast-track authority to complete the TPP. That bill was later approved with overwhelming Republican support in what amounted to a symbolic vote because it could not move forward into law without the related worker assistance package.

The legislation is now paralyzed in the House — “stuck in the station,” as Pelosi described in her speech. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) has decided to give Obama the weekend to try to coax enough Democrats into supporting the worker assistance package by bringing it up for reconsideration next Tuesday.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest insisted that the president’s trade agenda was still alive and vowed that Obama would continue to urge passage of the package in the coming days. He noted that the Senate approved the fast track legislation last month after initially voting to block it.

“To the surprise of very few, another procedural snafu has emerged,” Earnest said in an attempt to play down the outcome.

In a message on Twitter, AFL-CIO President Richard L. Trumka, one of the most vehement opponents of the trade deal, hailed Pelosi as “a champion for workers.”

[The trade deal, explained for people who fall asleep hearing about trade deals]

Obama made an impassioned plea during his visit to Capitol Hill. But he appeared not to have changed many minds among fellow Democrats. After the president departed, two anti-trade Democrats, Louise Slaughter of New York and Gene Green of Texas, came out of the meeting determined to oppose Obama.

“I don’t want this trade bill to go through,” Slaughter, who represents the economically depressed area of Rochester, said of the fast-track bill.

Several members said Obama took no questions and received applause on several occasions when discussing his previous efforts to deliver on Democratic priorities.

Lawmakers said the White House had pushed harder on trade than any legislative issue since the health-care reform effort during his first year. After keeping trade on the back burner, Obama joined forces with business-friendly Republicans after the midterm elections in pursuit of a rare bipartisan deal and launched a fierce effort to win support from his usual Democratic allies over the intense opposition of labor unions.

“The president and his counselors understand that this is a legacy vote for his second term,” Rep. Gerald E. Connolly (D-Va.), who supported the fast-track bill, said Thursday. “It’s a philosophical battle, a political battle and an economic battle. The president finds himself in the crossfire with the base.”

The debate among Democrats has at times been raw and personal, and it has exposed old divisions on trade as the party attempts to coalesce around a common agenda ahead of the 2016 campaign to select Obama’s successor. Other Democratic leaders, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), have questioned Obama’s commitment to workers and the middle class, while union officials accused the president of marginalizing them.

“I would ask that you not mischaracterize our positions and views — even in the heat of a legislative battle,” Trumka wrote this week in a letter to the president. “You have repeatedly isolated and marginalized labor and unions.”

White House officials had cast the dispute with labor as a difference of opinion that does not reflect a deeper divide within a party focused on stemming the nation’s growing wealth divide. Obama has framed the 12-nation TPP as a way to lock in rules to ensure U.S. economic primacy in the fast-growing Asian-Pacific region against increasing competition from China. In the president’s view, that would benefit American workers as the world’s economy shifts toward high-tech industries in which the United States maintains an advantage.

A failure on fast-track could lend weight to Chinese claims that the United States does not have staying power in Asia.

The president’s pitch was met with widespread skepticism among Democrats who blame past trade deals for killing jobs and depressing wages for Americans in traditional manufacturing work.

[What Chicago Democrats tell us about Obama’s problems on trade]

On Thursday night, Obama made a surprise visit to the annual Congressional Baseball Game for Charity at Nationals Park to woo Pelosi and other Democrats.

“The president is personally engaged on this,” Wyden said Thursday. “He’s all in.”

Despite the intensive campaign, however, Obama struggled to convince more than a sliver of House Democrats to back his push for the fast-track authority. The legislation would have allowed him to submit the trade pact to Congress for a vote in a specified timetable without lawmakers being able to amend it.

The White House has called such powers crucial to persuading the other 11 nations involved in the TPP negotiations to put their best offers on the table in the final round of talks this summer.

But opponents said they feared that approving the fast-track measure would be akin to ratifying a pact that is still being negotiated and whose terms have been kept largely hidden from public view. (Lawmakers are permitted to read draft sections of the agreement in a classified setting and are prevented from talking about specifics in public.)

On Thursday, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and other Obama aides huddled with House Democrats in a bid to alleviate objections.

But at each turn, the administration was met by a determined coalition of opponents, made up of labor unions, environmental groups and progressive Democrats. Led by Rep. Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn.), the coalition has been meeting for two years with individual Democrats, and with small groups, to pressure them to oppose a fast-track bill.

Trumka met with the same House Democrats on Thursday soon after the White House officials had departed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/president-obama-is-all-in-on-trade-sees-it-as-a-cornerstone-of-his-legacy/2015/06/12/32b6dce8-1073-11e5-a0dc-2b6f404ff5cf_story.html

Fast track (trade)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is in a list format that may be better presented using prose. You can help by converting this article to prose, if appropriate. Editing help is available. (June 2015)
The fast track negotiating authority for trade agreements is the authority of the President of the United States to negotiate international agreements that Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. Also called trade promotion authority (TPA) since 2002, fast track negotiating authority is a temporary and controversial power granted to the President by Congress. The authority was in effect from 1975 to 1994, pursuant to the Trade Act of 1974, and from 2002 to 2007 by the Trade Act of 2002. Although it expired for new agreements on July 1, 2007, it continued to apply to agreements already under negotiation until they were eventually passed into law in 2011. In 2012, the Obama administration began seeking renewal of the authority.

Enactment and history
Congress started the fast track authority in the Trade Act of 1974, § 151–154 (19 U.S.C. § 2191–2194). This authority was set to expire in 1980, but was extended for eight years in 1979.[1] It was renewed in 1988 for five years to accommodate negotiation of the Uruguay Round, conducted within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT).[2] It was then extended to 16 April 1994,[3][4][5] which is one day after the Uruguay Round concluded in the Marrakech Agreement, transforming the GATT into the World Trade Organization (WTO). Pursuant to that grant of authority, Congress then enacted implementing legislation for the U.S.-Israel Free Trade Area, the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

In the second half of the 1990s, fast track authority languished due to opposition from House Republicans.[6]

Republican Presidential candidate George W. Bush made fast track part of his campaign platform in 2000.[7] In May 2001, as president he made a speech about the importance of free trade at the annual Council of the Americas in New York, founded by David Rockefeller and other senior U.S. businessmen in 1965. Subsequently, the Council played a role in the implementation and securing of TPA through Congress.[8]

At 3:30 a.m. on July 27, 2002, the House passed the Trade Act of 2002 narrowly by a 215 to 212 vote with 190 Republicans and 27 Democrats making up the majority. The bill passed the Senate by a vote of 64 to 34 on August 1, 2002. The Trade Act of 2002, § 2103–2105 (19 U.S.C. § 3803–3805), extended and conditioned the application of the original procedures.

Under the second period of fast track authority, Congress enacted implementing legislation for the U.S.–Chile Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Singapore Free Trade Agreement, the Australia–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Morocco Free Trade Agreement, the Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Bahrain Free Trade Agreement, the U.S.–Oman Free Trade Agreement, and the Peru–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement. The authority expired on July 1, 2007.[9]

In October 2011, the Congress and President Obama enacted into law the Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement, the South Korea–U.S. Free Trade Agreement, and the Panama–U.S. Trade Promotion Agreement using fast track rules, all of which the George W. Bush administration signed before the deadline.[10]

In early 2012, the Obama administration indicated that renewal of the authority is a requirement for the conclusion of Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations, which have been undertaken as if the authority were still in effect.[11] In July 2013, Michael Froman, the newly confirmed U.S. Trade Representative, renewed efforts to obtain Congressional reinstatement of “fast track” authority. At nearly the same time, Senator Elizabeth Warren questioned Froman about the prospect of a secretly negotiated, binding international agreement such as TPP that might turn out to supersede U.S. wage, safety, and environmental laws.[12] Other legislators expressed concerns about foreign currency manipulation, food safety laws, state-owned businesses, market access for small businesses, access to pharmaceutical products, and online commerce.[10]

In early 2014, Senator Max Baucus and Congressman Dave Camp introduced the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities Act of 2014,[13] which sought to reauthorize trade promotion authority and establish a number of priorities and requirements for trade agreements.[14] Its sponsors called it a “vital tool” in connection with negotiations on the Trans-Pacific Partnership and trade negotiations with the EU.[13] Critics said the bill could detract from “transparency and accountability”. Sander Levin, who is the ranking Democratic member on the House Ways and Means committee, said he would make an alternative proposal.[15]

Procedure[edit]
If the President transmits a fast track trade agreement to Congress, then the majority leaders of the House and Senate or their designees must introduce the implementing bill submitted by the President on the first day on which their House is in session. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(c)(1).) Senators and Representatives may not amend the President’s bill, either in committee or in the Senate or House. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(d).) The committees to which the bill has been referred have 45 days after its introduction to report the bill, or be automatically discharged, and each House must vote within 15 days after the bill is reported or discharged. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(1).)

In the likely case that the bill is a revenue bill (as tariffs are revenues), the bill must originate in the House (see U.S. Const., art I, sec. 7), and after the Senate received the House-passed bill, the Finance Committee would have another 15 days to report the bill or be discharged, and then the Senate would have another 15 days to pass the bill. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(e)(2).) On the House and Senate floors, each Body can debate the bill for no more than 20 hours, and thus Senators cannot filibuster the bill and it will pass with a simple majority vote. (19 U.S.C. § 2191(f)-(g).) Thus the entire Congressional consideration could take no longer than 90 days.

Negotiating objectives[edit]
According to the Congressional Research Service, Congress categorizes trade negotiating objectives in three ways: overall objectives, principal objectives, and other priorities. The broader goals encapsulate the overall direction trade negotiations take, such as enhancing the United States’ and other countries’ economies. Principal objectives are detailed goals that Congress expects to be integrated into trade agreements, such as “reducing barriers and distortions to trade (e.g., goods, services, agriculture); protecting foreign investment and intellectual property rights; encouraging transparency; establishing fair regulatory practices; combating corruption; ensuring that countries enforce their environmental and labor laws; providing for an effective dispute settlement process; and protecting the U.S. right to enforce its trade remedy laws”. Consulting Congress is also an important objective.[16]

Principal objectives include:

Market access: These negotiating objectives seek to reduce or eliminate barriers that limit market access for U.S. products. “It also calls for the use of sectoral tariff and non-tariff barrier elimination agreements to achieve greater market access.”
Services: Services objectives “require that U.S. negotiator strive to reduce or eliminate barriers to trade in services, including regulations that deny nondiscriminatory treatment to U.S. services and inhibit the right of establishment (through foreign investment) to U.S. service providers.”
Agriculture: There are three negotiating objectives regarding agriculture. One lays out in greater detail what U.S. negotiators should achieve in negotiating robust trade rules on sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures. The second calls for trade negotiators to ensure transparency in how tariff-rate quotas are administered that may impede market access opportunities. The third seeks to eliminate and prevent the improper use of a country’s system to protect or recognize geographical indications (GI). These are trademark-like terms used to protect the quality and reputation of distinctive agricultural products, wines and spirits produced in a particular region of a country. This new objective is intended to counter in large part the European Union’s efforts to include GI protection in its bilateral trade agreements for the names of its products that U.S. and other country exporters argue are generic in nature or commonly used across borders, such as parma ham or Parmesan cheese.”

Investment/Investor rights: “The overall negotiating objectives on foreign investment are designed “to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade distorting barriers to foreign investment, while ensuring that foreign investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than domestic investors in the United States, and to secure for investors important rights comparable to those that would be available under the United States legal principles and practices.”[17]

Scope
Fast track agreements were enacted as “congressional-executive agreements” (CEAs), which must be approved by a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.

Although Congress cannot explicitly transfer its powers to the executive branch, the 1974 trade promotion authority had the effect of delegating power to the executive, minimizing consideration of the public interest, and limiting the legislature’s influence over the bill to an up or down vote:[18]

It allowed the executive branch to select countries for, set the substance of, negotiate and then sign trade agreements without prior congressional approval.

It allowed the executive branch to negotiate trade agreements covering more than just tariffs and quotas.
It established a committee system, comprising 700 industry representatives appointed by the president, to serve as advisors to the negotiations. Throughout trade talks, these individuals had access to confidential negotiating documents. Most members of Congress and the public had no such access, and there were no committees for consumer, health, environmental or other public interests.
It empowered the executive branch to author an agreement’s implementing legislation without Congressional input.

It required the executive branch to notify Congress 90 days before signing and entering into an agreement, but allowed unlimited time for the implementing legislation to be submitted.
It forced a floor vote on the agreement and its implementing legislation in both chambers of Congress; the matters could not “die in committee.”

It eliminated several floor procedures, including Senate unanimous consent, normal debate and cloture rules, and the ability to amend the legislation.

It prevented filibuster by limiting debate to 20 hours in each chamber.
It elevated the Special Trade Representative (STR) to the cabinet level, and required the Executive Office to house the agency.

The 1979 version of the authority changed the name of the STR to the U.S. Trade Representative.[18]

The 2002 version of the authority created an additional requirement for 90-day notice to Congress before negotiations could begin.[18]

Arguments in favor[edit]
Helps pass trade agreements: According to AT&T Chairman and CEO Randall L. Stephenson, Trade Promotion Authority is “critical to completing new trade agreements that have the potential to unleash U.S. economic growth and investment”. Jason Furman, chairman of Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, also said “the United States might become less competitive globally if it disengaged from seeking further trade openings: ‘If you’re not in an agreement—that trade will be diverted from us to someone else—we will lose out to another country'”.[19]

Congress is allowed more say and members are shielded: According to I.M. Destler of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, fast track “has effectively bridged the division of power between the two branches. It gives executive branch (USTR) negotiators needed credibility to conclude trade agreements by assuring other nations’ representatives that Congress won’t rework them; it guarantees a major Congressional role in trade policy while reducing members’ vulnerability to special interests”.[20]
Assurance for foreign governments: According to President Reagan’s Attorney General Edwin Meese III, “it is extremely difficult for any U.S. President to negotiate significant trade deals if he cannot assure other nations that Congress will refrain from adding numerous amendments and conditions that must then be taken back to the negotiating table”. The very nature of Trade Promotion Authority requires Congress to vote on the agreements before they can take effect, meaning that without TPA, “those agreements might never even be negotiated”.[21]

Arguments against
Unconstitutional: Groups opposed to Trade Promotion Authority claim that it places too much power in the executive branch, “allowing the president to unilaterally select partner countries for ‘trade’ pacts, decide the agreements’ contents, and then negotiate and sign the agreements—all before Congress has a vote on the matter. Normal congressional committee processes are forbidden, meaning that the executive branch is empowered to write lengthy legislation on its own with no review or amendments.”[22]

Lack of transparency: Democratic members of Congress and general right-to-know internet groups are among those opposed to trade fast track on grounds of a lack of transparency. Such Congressmen have complained that fast track forces “members to jump over hurdles to see negotiation texts and blocks staffer involvement. In 2012, Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) complained that corporate lobbyists were given easy access while his office was being stymied, and even introduced protest legislation requiring more congressional input.”[23]

Renewed Interest
As recently as May 21, 2015, the United States Senate has utilized the fast-track process to move a trade bill between the U.S. as well as Japan and 10 other countries. Although the bill has yet to move to the House, the renewed interest in this tract is intriguing given the 2016 election cycle beginning to pick up. [24]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_track_(trade)

Trade Adjustment Assistance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) is a federal program of the United States government to act as a way to reduce the damaging impact of imports felt by certain sectors of the U.S. economy. The current structure features four components of Trade Adjustment Assistance: for Workers, Firms, Farmers, and Communities. Each Cabinet level Department was tasked with a different sector of the overall Trade Adjustment Assistance program. The program for workers is the largest, and administered by the U.S. Department of Labor. The program for Farmers is administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Firms and Communities programs are administered by the U.S. Department of Commerce.

History

Trade Adjustment Assistance consists of four programs authorized under the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 and defined further under the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. § 2341 et seq) (Trade Act). The original idea for a trade compensation program goes back to 1939.[1] Later, it was proposed by President John F. Kennedyas part of the total package to open up free trade. President Kennedy said: “When considerations of national policy make it desirable to avoid higher tariffs, those injured by that competition should not be required to bear the full brunt of the impact. Rather, the burden of economic adjustment should be borne in part by the Federal Government.”[2]

Justification

TAA for workers

Supporters argue that free trade offers widespread benefits among consumers, workers and firms in the U.S. in terms of lower prices, higher efficiency and quality, and more jobs. They claim that gains from negotiated trade deals are large and widely distributed across sectors. For example, in 2011 there were 9.7 million jobs supported by exports, nearly 15% more than in 2010.[3] Benefits from free trade agreements (FTA) with Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco, and South Korea for the U.S. economy are estimated in $4 billion, $17 billion, $19 billion, $6 billion and $30 billion, respectively.[4]

In order to achieve trade benefits, however, the U.S. economy must reallocate production factors between sectors. Thus, free trade also leads to costs associated with workers displaced by import competition and offshore outsourcing. According to the Department of Labor (DOL), displaced workers are defined as “persons 20 years of age and older who lost or left jobs because their plant or company closed or moved, there was insufficient work for them to do, or their position or shift was abolished”.[5] The International Labour Organization (ILO) states that workers bore high adjustment costs such as unemployment, lower wage during transition, obsolescence of skills, training costs, and personal costs (e.g. mental suffering). These trade costs, albeit relatively smaller than the benefits, are highly concentrated by region, industry and worker demographics. For instance, some occupations, like teacher, have not experienced import competition while for shoe manufacturing occupations import competition has increased by 40 percentage points.[6]

In general, manufacturing workers are most affected by import competition compare to workers in other sectors. Furthermore, while gains from trade require a long time to take full effect, costs are felt rapidly, particularly in less competitive sectors.[7]

There is a strong correlation between import penetration and unemployment. Ebenstein et al. (2009) find that a 1 percentage point increase in import penetration leads to a 0.6 percentage point decrease in manufacturing employment in the U.S. resulting in a reduction of manufacturing jobs of almost 5%.[8] According to a report by the Progressive Policy Institute, between 2007 and 2011, 1.3 million direct and indirect jobs were lost to increasing imports of goods and services.[9]Similarly, Kletzer (2005) estimations suggest that industries facing high import competition account for 40% of manufacturing job losses.[10] The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) estimates that by 2015 the overall U.S. trade deficit will correspond to the loss of additional 214,000 jobs.[11]

Although trade-dislocated workers are not significantly different from workers displaced by other reasons, they present some slight differences. They tend to be older, less educated, more tenured and production-oriented, have higher earnings on the lost job and fewer transferable skills, and the prevalence on women is higher than for other displaced workers. These characteristics are associated with limited labor mobility and reemployment difficulties, especially for workers with obsolete skills who do not receive additional training, no matter the reason of displacement.[12] Furthermore, asymmetric information in absence of good job-search skills and geographic mismatch lead to prolong unemployment.[13] Hence, trade-displaced workers face longer periods to find a new job and have low reemployment rates (63% during the last two decades according to Kletzer, 2005). Reemployment is particularly challenging for older workers. The DOL (2012) reports that in 2012 reemployment rates for workers ages 55 to 64 and 65 years and over were 47 and 24% respectively while the rate for those ages 20 to 54 was about 62%.[5]

Once dislocated workers obtain a new job, they suffer significant wage reductions.[14] About two thirds of dislocated workers have lower wages in the new job and one quarter of displaced workers from manufacturing who find a new full-time job suffer earning losses of 30% or more.[15] The reason is that many workers find jobs in services sector where salaries are lower. Ebenstein et al. (2009) find that displaced workers from manufacturing who find a job in the services sector suffer a wage decline of between 6 and 22%. They conclude that a 1 percentage point increase in occupation-specific import competition is associated with a 0.25 percentage point decline in real wages.[8]

Import competition impacts negatively not only dislocated workers but also their families and communities. Displaced workers fall behind in their mortgage payments and in providing health care to their families. Families must spend down assets to smooth consumption.[16] There is evidence that displaced workers are in worse health after losing a job.[17] According to a Report by the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED), more than 46% of the jobless lack health insurance and 31% of workers without insurance do not see a doctor although sick. If the worker is able to be relocated in other job in other region the whole family is displaced and children are uprooted from their schools, increasing domestic tensions. The phenomenon of displaced workers has a broader impact because it also affects aggregate demand for goods and services and tax collections.[18]

In brief, trade leads to an unequal redistribution of costs and benefits. The adjustment process impacts not only displaced workers but also the whole society and economy. Furthermore, labor reallocation from inefficient to competitive sectors aimed at realizing the benefits of trade can be impeded by several obstacles described above, prolonging the transition period and increasing the adjustment costs. In this framework, several scholars and policy-makers have argued that trade-related adjustment costs merit a policy response.[13] The TAA has persisted for more than five decades showing ample political support.[19] Having an assistance program targeted exclusively at trade-displaced workers enjoyed wide political support among Congressional representatives in the past because the program served to decrease political resistance to and workers’ lobbying efforts against FTAs.[20] As a 2012 Report by the Joint Economic Committee states: “TAA needs to remain an integral part of trade policy because it compensates those harmed by import competition without sacrificing the larger demonstrable benefits of trade.”[21]

Specific Programs

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers

The Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration program, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Workers, provides a variety of reemployment services including training and job-searching assistance and benefits to displaced workers who have lost their jobs or suffered a reduction of hours and wages as a result of increased imports or shifts in production outside the United States. The TAA program aims to help program participants obtain new jobs faster, ensuring they retain employment and earn wages comparable to their prior employment. Among the main benefits are: trade readjustment allowances (TRA) in addition to regular unemployment insurance (UI) up to 117 weeks of cash payments for all workers concurrently enrolled only in full-time training (workers must be enrolled in training 8 weeks after certification or 16 weeks after layoff, whichever is later, to receive TRA), and Reemployment Trade Adjustment Assistance (RTAA) or supplementary wages for workers age 50 and over, and earning less than $50,000 per year in reemployment. It provides a wage supplement equal to 50% of the difference between a worker’s reemployment wage and wage at the worker’s certified job with a maximum benefit of $10,000 over a period of up to two years (workers must be reemployed within 26 weeks). The TAA used to include a Health Coverage Tax Credit Program which will definitively expire at the end of 2013 and other tax credits related to health coverage will become available (e.g. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The program promotes retraining since workers receive the TRAs only if they participate in a full-time TAA training (or are under a waiver).[22] The program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL) in cooperation with the 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico.

The Secretary of Labor was authorized to implement Trade Readjustment Assistance (TRA) and relocation allowances through cooperating state agencies. TRA are income support payments that were, at that time, paid in addition to an individual’s regular unemployment compensation. The original program had no training or reemployment component. The program was rarely used until 1974, when it was expanded as part of the Trade Act of 1974. The Trade Act of 1974 established the training component of the program. In 1981, the program was sharply curtailed by the Congress at the request of the Reagan Administration.[23] In 2002, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Reform Act (TAARA) expanded the program and it was combined with the trade adjustment program provided under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).[24]

The TAA has recently suffered several amendments. In 2009, the TAA program was expanded by the Trade and Globalization Adjustment Assistance Act (TGAAA) of 2009, which was part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. These benefits were extended through February 2011 by the Omnibus Trade Act of 2010. After that, the program reverted to the pre-expansion provisions under the TAARA of 2002. In October 2011, the Trade Adjustment Assistance Extension Act (TAAEA) of 2011 was signed into law, reinstating most of the benefits included in the TGAAA of 2009. The TAA is authorized through December 31, 2014 but with some modifications. The TAA will operate under its current provisions through December 31, 2013. For the additional year until its expiration on December 31, 2014, the TAA is set to operate under the eligibility and benefit levels established by the TAARA of 2002.[22]

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms

The Department of Commerce program, Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms,[25] provides financial assistance to manufacturers and service firms affected by import competition. Sponsored by the Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA), this cost-sharing federal assistance program helps pay for projects that improve firms’ competitiveness. EDA, through a national network of 11 Trade Adjustment Assistance Centers (TAACs), provides technical assistance on a cost-shared basis to U.S. manufacturing, production, and service firms in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms provides import impacted companies with professional guidance, business recovery plan development, and cost-sharing for outside consulting services. Eligibility is established along similar lines, with companies showing that there has been a recent decrease in sales and employment, in part due to customers shifting purchases away from the applicant and to imported goods. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 expanded eligibility to service firms as well as the traditional manufacturing companies that had been the sole focus of the program. This expansion for service firms and workers was scheduled to expire on December 31, 2010, and the program would revert to the pre-ARRA structure without a vote to extend the authorization.

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers

Trade Adjustment Assistance for Farmers, created in 2002 by wide-ranging trade legislation (P.L. 107-210, Sec. 141), authorizes the expenditure of up to $90 million per year through FY2007. Under the program, certain agricultural producers can each receive payments of up to $10,000 per year if price declines for their commodity were at least partly caused by imports. To be eligible for such assistance, such producers must be members of certified groups and meet a number of criteria specified by the law. The program is administered by the Department of Agriculture.

Program Eligibility

TAA for workers

Workers must be directly impacted by imports or by a shift in production of their firm to any country with a free trade agreement with the United States or to beneficiary countries under the Andean Trade Preference, the African Growth and Opportunity, or by certain other shifts in production. Employees of upstream suppliers are eligible if the product supplied to the primary firm consists 20% of the production or sales of the secondary workers’ firm, or their employer’s loss of business with the primary firm contributed significantly to the secondary workers’ separation from work.

Employees of downstream producers are eligible if they perform additional, value-added production processes for articles produced by primary firms, and the primary certification was based on an increase in imports or a shift in production to Canada or Mexico.

In order to receive the benefits displaced workers must fill a petition as a group to initiate the investigation to address the reasons of their layoff. Once the DOL finds that trade has contributed notably to the layoff, the group is certified but the individual worker must still apply for benefits at a local One-Stop Career Center.[22]

Under the current law, as modified in 2009, workers in most service jobs (call center operators, for example) are eligible for trade adjustment assistance. In 2004, a group of computer experts displaced by overseas labor tried to apply for trade adjustment assistance but were rejected because computer software was not considered an “article” by the DOL. After a series of scathing decisions by the United States Court of International Trade criticizing the DOL’s approach, the DOL revised its policies in April 2006 to extend trade adjustment assistance to more workers producing digital products such as software code.[26] Nevertheless, the program under the TAARA of 2002 starting on January 1, 2014 does not include trade-displaced workers in services sectors.[22]

TAA for farmers

Farmers and ranchers adversely impacted by trade will be eligible to participate in a new program operated by the Department of Agriculture and are potentially eligible to receive training under TAA. They are not eligible for the Trade Readjustment Allowance.

Program Cost

TAA for workers

There are several components of the overall cost of the program. The principal spending of the program is in reemployment services which are set to the annual funding levels of the Trade Act of 2002: $220 million for state grants (plus administrative allotments equal to 15% of each state’s grant). The TRA income support and RTAA wage insurance program are uncapped entitlements. In FY 2011, the cost of TRA was $234,126,500 and the cost of RTAA was $43,227,212, based on the number of participants of each program in this year (25,689 and 1,133 participants respectively).[27]

Program Effectiveness

TAA for workers

The TAA for workers have demonstrated overall low effectiveness so far which is reflected in the controversy to reauthorize the program before the 112th Congress and the fact that the TAA will be discontinued in 2015.

First, the program is not very effective providing support during the transition because a significant portion of workers does not receive TRA. In FY2011 there were over 196,000 TAA participants and only around 46,000 received TRA.[27] One reason is that the training enrollment deadline of 8/16 weeks seriously limits the ability of workers to enroll in training programs and receive the benefit. Moreover, even for those workers receiving TRA and UI, only a portion of the lost income is replaced.[28] The program provides health insurance coverage but in the past it has not been very effective since participation in TAA was associated with decreased coverage in the period following job loss like a joint report by Mathematica Policy Research and Social Policy Research (SPR) prepared for the DOL evaluating the TAA program under the Trade Act of 2002 shows.[29]

The effectiveness of the program in terms of fostering reemployment is very low too. Data on post-TAA outcomes for program exiters based on DOL estimations shows that the entered employment rate was 66% in 2011.[22] The Mathematica Policy Research and SPR report finds that the TAA is not effective in terms of increasing employability. There is positive effect on the reemployment rate for participants but it is not statistically different from that for non-participants.[29]

The effectiveness of the program in terms of mitigating earning losses in the new job is very low too as several studies report. Reynolds and Palatucci (2008) estimate that “participating in the TAA program causes a wage loss approximately 10 percentage points greater than if the displaced worker had chosen not to participate in the program.”[20] The report by Mathematica Policy Research and SPR states that TAA was estimated to have no effect on earnings and compared to a sample of UI claimants, TAA participants worked about the same number of weeks but had lower earnings.[29]

Moreover, a 2007 GAO report shows that in FY 2006 only 5% or less of TAA participants received wage insurance. The program is ineffective closing the earning gap because in order to be eligible for wage insurance workers must find a job within 26 weeks after being laid off, which proved to be a very short period.[30]Additionally, the program only replaces half of the losses.

Finally, the implementation of this program overlaps extensively with others such as Workforce Investment Act generating extra costs and duplicating administrative efforts.[13] The process to allocate training funds is also problematic. States receive funds at the beginning of the fiscal year but it does not properly reflect the state´s demand for training services. In addition, states do not receive funds for case management and lack flexibility to use the funds for training. Thus, states face challenges in providing services to workers properly.[30]

Policy Alternatives

TAA for workers

Over last years, the TAA program has been subject to diverse critics due to its flawed performance and extremely high cost. The TAA was only extended to the end of 2014 and the last reauthorization process before the 112th Congress exposed a lack of consensus about the program.[19] Several scholars from different institutions have proposed policy alternatives.

Integrated Adjustment Assistance Program

The Financial Services Forum, through its 2008 white paper “Succeeding in the Global Economy: An Adjustment Assistance Program for American Workers,” proposes to combine the UI and TAA programs into a single integrated program for all displaced workers who qualify for UI no matter the reason of displacement[31]The program includes: wage insurance, portability of health insurance (under the current program COBRA), and reemployment services such as assistance with geographic relocation and retraining. The wage insurance would cushion the cost of lower wages in the new job for workers age 45 and older. The program replaces 50% of workers’ lost wages for up to two years, for up to $10,000 per year, for workers that hold the previous job for at least two years. Regarding retraining, workers would be able to deduct from their gross income, for tax purposes, the full cost of education and training expenses, and there will be no limitations in terms of area of training.

The estimated annual cost of the program is $22 billion. The Financial Services Forum proposes to replace the current tax system with a flat 1.2% tax on all earning at the state level, and a flat rate of 0.12% on all earnings at the federal level to pay for the program.

Wage Insurance and Subsidies for Medical Insurance Program

Scholars at the Brookings Institution and the Institute for International Economics proposed a twofold program including a wage insurance and subsidy for medical insurance in addition to the UI program for eligible workers.[32] On the one hand, the program covers workers displaced by any reason, not just trade, who suffer an earning loss after reemployment. Displaced workers defined as “workers displaced due to plant closing or relocation, elimination of position or shift, and insufficient work”.[33]

It would replace a portion between 30% and 70% of the difference between earnings on the old and new job. In order to be eligible, workers must have been employed full-time at their previous job for at least two years, and suffered a wage decrease that can be documented. The insurance would be paid only after workers found a new job and they will receive it for up to two years from the original date of job loss. Annual payments would be capped at $10,000 or $20,000 per year. The payments would be administered through state UI.[32]

In addition, the program would also offer a health insurance subsidy for all full-time displaced workers, for up to 6 months, or until they found a new job (whichever is earlier). Workers would be limited to receiving the subsidy no more frequently than once during a certain period, probably 3 or 4 years, in order to prevent job churning.[32]

Kletzer and Litan (2001) estimate that about 20% of displaced workers reemployed full-time would have had at least 2 years’ tenure on their previous job and suffered a wage loss in the new one. The program would cost from $2 to $5 billion per year. This cost is estimated with a national unemployment rate between 4.2% and 4.9%.[32] In 2012, the average national unemployment rate was 8.9%.[33] Consequently, the projected cost would be higher if the program would be implemented today.

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

Trans-Pacific Partnership: Summary of U.S. Objectives
The United States is participating in negotiations of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Agreement with 11 other Asia-Pacific countries (Australia, Brunei Darussalam, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam) – a trade agreement that will open markets, set high-standard trade rules, and address 21st-century issues in the global economy.  By doing so, TPP will promote jobs and growth in the United States and across the Asia-Pacific region.

The Obama Administration is pursuing TPP to unlock opportunities for American manufacturers, workers, service providers, farmers, and ranchers – to support job creation and wage growth.  We are working hard to ensure that TPP will be a comprehensive deal, providing new and meaningful market access for goods and services; strong and enforceable labor standards and environmental commitments; groundbreaking new rules designed to ensure fair competition between state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and private companies; commitments that will improve the transparency and consistency of the regulatory environment to make it easier for small- and medium-sized businesses to operate across the region; a robust intellectual property (IP) rights framework to promote innovation, while supporting access to innovative and generic medicines and an open Internet; and obligations that will promote a thriving digital economy, including new rules to ensure the free flow of data.

This document describes the Administration’s goals and objectives for TPP, and presents the main elements of each chapter from the United States’ perspective.  Negotiations toward a TPP Agreement are ongoing, and many of the elements detailed below are not settled.  These are our objectives; there is still work to be done to achieve them.  This document lays out the Administration’s vision, which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative is advancing, of harnessing trade as a tool for economic growth and supporting jobs, and building opportunity for Americans in the context of an agreement that will benefit all TPP countries.

We are committed to providing the public information on what we are working to achieve through trade negotiations, and we will continue to share this information through the press, social media, and at www.ustr.gov as we move forward in the TPP negotiations.

TRADE IN GOODS

The United States ships more than $1.9 billion in goods to TPP countries every day.  In today’s highly competitive global marketplace, even small increases in a product’s cost due to tariffs or non-tariff barriers can mean the difference between success and failure for a business.  That is why the United States is working to negotiate in TPP comprehensive and preferential access across an expansive duty-free trading region for the industrial goods, food and agriculture products, and textiles, which will allow our exporters to develop and expand their participation in the value chains of the fastest-growing economies in the world.

The United States exported more than $622.5 billion of manufactured products to TPP countries in 2013.  With the elimination of TPP countries’ tariffs on manufactured products, including innovative and high technology products, such as industrial and electrical machinery, precision and scientific instruments, and chemicals and plastics, U.S. products will compete on a more level playing field with goods from TPP countries’ other free trade agreement (FTA) partners – including China, India, and the EU.  As just one example, certain U.S. auto parts currently face a 27-percent tariff entering Vietnam.  Other countries that have an FTA with Vietnam, such as China, Thailand, and Indonesia, export their auto parts to Vietnam duty free.  By eliminating duties U.S. auto parts companies face, TPP would help boost their competitiveness in the Vietnamese market.

Twenty percent of U.S. farm income comes from agricultural exports and those exports support rural communities.  In fact, U.S. food and agricultural exports to the world reached an all-time high in 2013 of over $148 billion.  Of that total, we exported more than $58 billion to TPP countries – a figure that would increase as a result of tariff elimination under TPP.  As just one example:  U.S. poultry currently faces a 40-percent tariff in Malaysia.  U.S. poultry would become more affordable in Malaysia under a TPP agreement that reduces these duties to zero.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Elimination of tariffs and commercially-meaningful market access for U.S. products exported to TPP countries; and
  • Provisions that address longstanding non-tariff barriers, including import licensing requirements and other restrictions.

TEXTILES

U.S. textile and apparel manufacturers sold more than $10 billion worth of products to TPP countries in 2013, an increase of 5.4 percent from the previous year.  Many U.S. yarns, fabrics, and apparel currently face tariffs as high as 20 percent upon entering some TPP countries.  Our goal in the TPP negotiations is to remove tariff and non-tariff barriers to textile and apparel exports to enhance the competitiveness of our producers in the Asia-Pacific region.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Elimination of tariffs on textile and apparel exports to TPP countries;
  • A “yarn forward” rule of origin, which requires that textile and apparel products be made using U.S. or other TPP country yarns and fabrics to qualify for the benefits of the agreement, so as to ensure that non-qualifying textiles and apparel from non-TPP countries do not enjoy the benefits reserved for TPP countries;
  • A carefully crafted “short supply” list, which would allow fabrics, yarns, and fibers that are not commercially available in the United States or other TPP countries to be sourced from non-TPP countries and used in the production of apparel in the TPP region without losing duty preference;
  • Strict enforcement provisions and customs cooperation commitments that will provide for verification of claims of origin or preferential treatment, and denial of preferential treatment or entry for suspect goods if claims cannot be verified; and
  • A textile specific safeguard mechanism that will allow the United States and other TPP countries to re-impose tariffs on certain goods if a surge in imports causes or threatens to cause serious damage to domestic producers.

SERVICES

Services industries account for four out of five U.S. jobs and also represent a significant and growing share of jobs in other TPP countries.  Securing liberalized and fair access to foreign services markets will help U.S. service suppliers, both small and large, seeking to do business in TPP markets, thereby, supporting jobs at home.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Liberalizing access for services companies so they receive better or equal treatment to service suppliers from TPP countries’ other FTA partners and face a more level playing field in TPP markets;
  • Provisions that would enable service suppliers to supply services without establishing an office in every TPP country;
  • New or enhanced obligations in specific sectors important to promoting trade (e.g., enhanced disciplines for express delivery services will promote regional supply chains and aid  small businesses, which often are highly dependent on express delivery services for integration into supply chains and distribution networks); and
  • Commitments to liberalize foreign financial services and insurance markets while protecting a government’s broad flexibility to regulate, including in the financial sector, and to take the actions necessary to ensure the stability and integrity of a financial system.

INVESTMENT

With trade following investment, we are working to ensure that U.S. investors abroad are provided the same kind of opportunities in other markets that we provide in the United States to foreign investors doing business within our borders.  That is why we are seeking to include in TPP many of the investment obligations that have historically proven to support jobs and economic growth, as well as new provisions to take on emerging investment issues.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Liberalized access for investment in TPP markets, non-discrimination and the reduction or elimination of other barriers to the establishment and operation of investments in TPP countries, including prohibitions against unlawful expropriation and specified performance requirements;
  • Provisions that will address measures that require TPP investors to favor another country’s domestic technology in order to benefit SOEs, national champions, or other competitors in that country; and
  • Procedures for arbitration that will provide basic rule of law protections for U.S. investors operating in foreign markets similar to those the U.S. already provides to foreign investors operating in the U.S.  These procedures would provide strong protections to ensure that all TPP governments can appropriately regulate in the public interest, including on health, safety, and environmental protection.  This includes an array of safeguards designed to raise the standards around investor-state dispute settlement, such as by discouraging and dismissing frivolous suits, allowing governments to direct the outcome of arbitral tribunals in certain areas, making proceedings more open and transparent, and providing for the participation of civil society organizations and other non-parties.

LABOR

Ensuring respect for worker rights is a core value.  That is why in TPP the United States is seeking to build on the strong labor provisions in the most recent U.S. trade agreements by seeking enforceable rules that protect the rights of freedom of association and collective bargaining; discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor, including forced child labor; and establish mechanisms to monitor and address labor concerns.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Requirements to adhere to fundamental labor rights as recognized by the International Labor Organization, as well as acceptable conditions of work, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
  • Rules that will ensure that TPP countries do not waive or derogate from labor laws in a manner that affects trade or investment, including in free trade zones, and that they take initiatives to discourage trade in goods produced by forced labor;
  • Formation of a consultative mechanism to develop specific steps to address labor concerns when they arise; and
  • Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP country is not meeting its labor commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.

ENVIRONMENT

Environmental stewardship is a core value and advancing environmental protection and conservation efforts across the Asia-Pacific region is a key priority for the United States in TPP.  In addition to core environment obligations, we are seeking trailblazing, first-ever conservation proposals to address some of the region’s most urgent environmental challenges.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Strong and enforceable environment obligations, subject to the same dispute settlement mechanism as other obligations in TPP;
  • Commitments to effectively enforce domestic environmental laws, including laws that implement multilateral environmental agreements, and commitments not to waive or derogate from the protections afforded in environmental laws for the purpose of encouraging trade or investment;
  • New provisions that will address wildlife trafficking, illegal logging, and illegal fishing practices; and
  • Establishment of a means for the public to raise concerns directly with TPP governments if they believe a TPP member is not meeting its environment commitments, and requirements that governments consider and respond to those concerns.

E-COMMERCE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

In the past five years, the number of Internet users worldwide has ballooned from 2 to 3 billion and will continue to grow.  The increase in Internet use creates significant economic potential, particularly for small businesses. The Obama Administration is working through TPP to unlock the promise of e-commerce, keep the Internet free and open, promote competitive access for telecommunications suppliers, and set digital trade rules-of-the-road.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products (e.g., software, music, video, e-books);
  • Non-discriminatory treatment of digital products transmitted electronically and guarantees that these products will not face government-sanctioned discrimination based on the nationality or territory in which the product is produced;
  • Requirements that support a single, global Internet, including ensuring cross-border data flows, consistent with governments’ legitimate interest in regulating for purposes of privacy protection;
  • Rules against localization requirements that force businesses to place computer infrastructure in each market in which they seek to operate, rather than allowing them to offer services from network centers that make business sense;
  • Commitments to provide reasonable network access for telecommunications suppliers through interconnection and access to physical facilities; and
  • Provisions promoting choice of technology and competitive alternatives to address the high cost of international mobile roaming.

COMPETITION POLICY AND STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES

U.S. goals on competition policy and SOEs are grounded in long-standing principles of fair competition, consumer protection, and transparency.  The United States is seeking rules to prohibit anticompetitive business conduct, as well as fraudulent and deceptive commercial activities that harm consumers.  We are also pursuing pioneering rules to ensure that private sector businesses and workers are able to compete on fair terms with SOEs, especially when such SOEs receive significant government backing to engage in commercial activity.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Basic rules for procedural fairness on competition law enforcement;
  • Commitments ensuring SOEs act in accordance with commercial considerations and compete fairly, without undue advantages from the governments that own them, while allowing governments to provide support to SOEs that provide public services domestically; and
  • Rules that will provide transparency with respect to the nature of government control over and support for SOEs.

SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

Small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) are the backbone of the U.S. economy and are key contributors to economic growth in other TPP economies as well.  The United States’ 28 million SMEs account for nearly two-thirds of net new private sector jobs in recent decades.  SMEs that export tend to grow even faster, create more jobs, and pay higher wages than similar businesses that do not trade internationally.  We are seeking through this agreement to provide SMEs the tools they need to compete across TPP markets.  TPP will benefit SMEs by eliminating tariff and non-tariff barriers, streamlining customs procedures, strengthening intellectual property protection, promoting e-commerce, and developing more efficient and transparent regulatory regimes.  In addition, TPP will include a first-ever chapter focusing on issues that create particular challenges for SMEs.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to provide access to information on utilizing FTAs – a problem that SMEs have identified as a disproportionate challenge for them; and
  • Establishment of a regular review of how TPP is working for SMEs.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

As the world’s most innovative economy, strong and effective protection and enforcement of IP rights is critical to U.S. economic growth and American jobs.  Nearly 40 million American jobs are directly or indirectly attributable to “IP-intensive” industries.  These jobs pay higher wages to their workers, and these industries drive approximately 60 percent of U.S. merchandise exports and a large share of services exports.  In TPP, we are working to advance strong, state-of-the-art, and balanced rules that will protect and promote U.S. exports of IP-intensive products and services throughout the Asia-Pacific region for the benefit of producers and consumers of those goods and services in all TPP countries.  The provisions that the United States is seeking – guided by the careful balance achieved in existing U.S. law – will promote an open, innovative, and technologically-advanced Asia-Pacific region, accelerating invention and creation of new products and industries across TPP countries, while at the same time ensuring outcomes that enable all TPP countries to draw on the full benefits of scientific, technological, and medical innovation, and take part in development and enjoyment of new media, and the arts.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Strong protections for patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets, including safeguards against cyber theft of trade secrets;
  • Commitments that obligate countries to seek to achieve balance in their copyright systems by means of, among other approaches, limitations or exceptions that allow for the use of copyrighted works for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research;
  • Pharmaceutical IP provisions that promote innovation and the development of new, lifesaving medicines, create opportunities for robust generic drug competition, and ensure affordable access to medicines, taking into account levels of development among the TPP countries and their existing laws and international commitments;
  • New rules that promote transparency and due process with respect to trademarks and  geographical indications;
  • Strong and fair enforcement rules to protect against trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy, including rules allowing increased penalties in cases where counterfeit or pirated goods threaten consumer health or safety; and
  • Internet service provider “safe harbor” provisions, as well as strong and balanced provisions regarding technological protection measures to foster new business models and legitimate commerce in the digital environment.

TECHNICAL BARRIERS TO TRADE AND SANITARY AND PHYTOSANITARY MEASURES

Non-tariff trade barriers, such as duplicative testing and unscientific regulations imposed on food and agricultural goods, are among the biggest challenges facing exporters across the Asia-Pacific region.  An effective regulatory program should protect the public interest – for example in health, safety, and environmental protection – and do so in a manner that is no more trade restrictive than necessary to achieve the policy goal.  The United States is therefore seeking in TPP to strengthen rules intended to eliminate unwarranted technical barriers to trade (TBT) and build upon WTO commitments in this area, and to ensure that sanitary and phytosanitary measures (SPS) are developed and implemented in a transparent, science-based manner.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to enhance transparency, reduce unnecessary testing and certification costs, and  promote greater openness in standards development;
  • Commitments aimed at adopting common approaches to regulatory matters related to trade in products in key sectors such as wine and distilled spirits, medical devices, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, information and communication technology, and food formulas
  • New and enforceable rules to ensure that science-based SPS measures are developed and implemented in a transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory manner, while at the same time preserving the ability of U.S. and other TPP regulatory agencies to do what they deem necessary to protect food safety, and plant and animal health; an
  • Establishment of an on-going mechanism for improved dialogue and cooperation on addressing SPS and TBT issues.

TRANSPARENCY, ANTICORRUPTION AND REGULATORY COHERENCE

Through TPP, we are seeking to make trade across the TPP region more seamless, including by improving the coherence of TPP regulatory systems, enhancing transparency in policy-making processes, and combatting corruption.  These “good government” reforms also play an important role in ensuring fairness for American firms and workers

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments to promote greater transparency, participation, and accountability in the development of regulations and other government decisions, including by promptly publishing laws, regulations, administrative rulings of general application, and other procedures that affect trade and investment, and providing opportunities for stakeholder comment on measures before they are adopted and finalized;
  • For the first time in a U.S. trade agreement, a chapter on regulatory coherence, including commitments on good regulatory practices; and
  • Commitments discouraging corruption and establishing codes of conduct to promote high ethical standards among public officials.

CUSTOMS, TRADE FACILITATION AND RULES OF ORIGIN

Cutting the red-tape of trade, including by reducing costs and increasing customs efficiencies, will make it cheaper, easier, and faster for businesses to get their products to market.  In TPP, we are looking to facilitate trade across the TPP region; support the deep integration of U.S. logistics, manufacturing, and other industries in regional supply chains; and reduce costs for U.S. business by removing onerous and opaque customs barriers.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Commitments that will ensure the quick release of goods through customs, expedited procedures for express shipments, advance rulings, and transparent and predictable customs regulations;
  • Strong customs cooperation commitments in order to ensure that TPP countries work together to prevent smuggling, illegal transshipment, and duty evasion, and to guarantee compliance with trade laws and regulations; and
  • Strong and common rules of origin to ensure that the benefits of TPP go to the United States and other TPP countries, and also that TPP promotes the development of supply chains in the region that include companies based in the United States.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

Increasing access to government procurement markets in TPP countries, which represent an estimated 5-10 percent of a country’s economy, will unlock significant opportunities for U.S. and other TPP businesses and workers.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Creation of fair, transparent, predictable, and non-discriminatory rules to govern government procurement in TPP countries; and
  • Commitments to liberalize TPP countries’ government procurement markets, with comparable levels of coverage by all TPP countries, taking into account the particular sensitivities of specific countries.

DEVELOPMENT AND TRADE CAPACITY-BUILDING

The United States views development as a way to further strengthen the region and lay the groundwork for future economic opportunities by improving access to economic opportunity for women and low income individuals; incentivizing private-public partnerships in development activities; and designing sustainable models for economic growth.  In addition, the United States sees trade capacity-building as critical to assist TPP developing countries in implementing the agreement and ensuring they can benefit from it.  In TPP, we plan to include a chapter on cooperation and capacity building and, for the first time in any U.S. trade agreement, a chapter dedicated specifically to development.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Agreement on cooperative development activities TPP countries could conduct to promote broad-based economic growth and sustainable development, including public-private partnerships, science and technology cooperation, and other joint development activities; and
  • Mechanisms for collaboration and facilitation of capacity-building activities by both TPP government and non-government representatives, as well as the private sector, in order to help TPP workers and businesses, including SMEs and micro- enterprises participate in global trade and take advantage of the agreement.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

When the United States negotiates a trade agreement, we expect our trading partners to abide by the rules and obligations to which they agree.  Under the TPP, countries will first seek to address an issue cooperatively.  If they are unable to do so, the Parties have recourse to an independent tribunal to determine whether a Party has failed to meet its obligations, and ultimately to allow suspension of benefits if a Party fails to come into compliance.  Through the TPP dispute settlement mechanism, we are seeking to give the American public the confidence that the United States has the means to enforce the strong, high-standard obligations we are negotiating in this agreement.

Specifically, in the TPP we are seeking:

  • Establishment of a fair and transparent dispute settlement mechanism that applies across the agreement; and
  • Procedures to allow us to settle disputes on matters arising under TPP in a timely and effective manner.

U.S.-JAPAN BILATERAL NEGOTIATIONS ON MOTOR VEHICLE TRADE AND NON-TARIFF MEASURES

With the participation of Japan, TPP countries account for nearly 40 percent of global GDP and about one-third of all world trade.  Japan is currently the fourth-largest goods trading partners of the United States.  The United States exported $65 billion in goods and an estimated $48 billion in services to Japan in 2013.

Nevertheless, U.S. exporters have faced a broad range of formidable non-tariff measures in Japan’s automotive and other markets.  As a result, prior to Japan joining the TPP negotiations, the United States reached a series of agreements with Japan to address a range of issues in conjunction with Japan’s participation in TPP.  This includes an agreement that U.S. tariffs on motor vehicles will be phased out in accordance with the longest staging period in the TPP negotiations and will be back-loaded to the maximum extent.

The United States and Japan also agreed to address non-tariff measures through parallel negotiations to TPP, which were launched in August 2013.

Specifically, in these negotiations with Japan we are seeking:

  • Enforceable commitments related to the automotive sector that will address a broad range of non-tariff measures – including those related to regulatory transparency, standards, certification, financial incentives, and distribution;
  • Establishment of an accelerated dispute settlement procedure that would apply to the automotive sector that includes a mechanism to “snap back” tariffs as a remedy, as well as a special motor vehicle safeguard; and
  • Meaningful outcomes that address cross-cutting and sectoral non-tariff measures, including in the areas of insurance, transparency, investment, IP rights, standards, government procurement, competition policy, express delivery, and SPS.

https://ustr.gov/tpp/Summary-of-US-objectives

H-1B visa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The H-1B is a non-immigrant visa in the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act, section 101(a)(15)(H). It allows U.S. employers to temporarily employ foreign workers in specialty occupations. If a foreign worker in H-1B status quits or is dismissed from the sponsoring employer, the worker must either apply for and be granted a change of status to another non-immigrant status, find another employer (subject to application for adjustment of status and/or change of visa), or leave the U.S.

The regulations define a “specialty occupation” as requiring theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge in a field of human endeavor[1] including but not limited to biotechnology, chemistry, architecture, engineering, mathematics, physical sciences, social sciences, medicine and health, education, law, accounting, business specialties, theology, and the arts, and requiring the attainment of a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent as a minimum[2] (with the exception of fashion models, who must be “of distinguished merit and ability”).[3] Likewise, the foreign worker must possess at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent and state licensure, if required to practice in that field. H-1B work-authorization is strictly limited to employment by the sponsoring employer.

Structure of the program

Duration of stay

The duration of stay is three years, extendable to six years. An exception to maximum length of stay applies in certain circumstances

  • If a visa holder has submitted an I-140 immigrant petition or a labor certification prior to their fifth year anniversary of having the H-1B visa, they are entitled to renew their H-1B visa in one-year or three-year increments until a decision has been rendered on their application for permanent residence.
  • If the visa holder has an approved I-140 immigrant petition, but is unable to initiate the final step of the green card process due to their priority date not being current, they may be entitled to a three-year extension of their H-1B visa. This exception originated with the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000.[4]
  • The maximum duration of the H-1B visa is ten years for exceptional United States Department of Defense project related work.

H-1B holders who want to continue to work in the U.S. after six years, but who have not obtained permanent residency status, must remain outside of the U.S. for one year before reapplying for another H-1B visa. Despite a limit on length of stay, no requirement exists that the individual remain for any period in the job the visa was originally issued for. This is known as H-1B portability or transfer, provided the new employer sponsors another H-1B visa, which may or may not be subjected to the quota. Under current law, H-1B visa has no stipulated grace period in the event the employer-employee relationship ceases to exist.

Congressional yearly numerical cap and exemptions

The current law limits to 65,000 the number of foreign nationals who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status each fiscal year (FY). Laws exempt up to 20,000 foreign nationals holding a master’s or higher degree from U.S. universities from the cap on H-1B visas. In addition, excluded from the ceiling are all H-1B non-immigrants who work at (but not necessarily for) universities, non-profit research facilities associated with universities, and government research facilities.[5]Universities can employ an unlimited number of foreign workers as cap-exempt. This also means that contractors working at but not directly employed by the institutions may be exempt from the cap as well. Free Trade Agreements carve out 1,400 H-1B1 visas for Chilean nationals and 5,400 H-1B1 visas for Singapore nationals. However, if these reserved visas are not used, then they are made available in the next fiscal year to applicants from other countries. Due to these unlimited exemptions and roll-overs, the number of H-1B visas issued each year is significantly more than the 65,000 cap, with 117,828 having been issued in FY2010, 129,552 in FY2011, and 135,991 in FY2012.[6][7]

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services starts accepting applications on the first business day of April for visas that count against the fiscal year starting in October. For instance, H-1B visa applications that count against the FY 2013 cap could be submitted starting from Monday, 2012 April 2. USCIS accepts H-1B visa applications no more than 6 months in advance of the requested start date.[8] Beneficiaries not subject to the annual cap are those who currently holdcap-subject H-1B status or have held cap-subject H-1B status at some point in the past six years.

Tax status of H-1B workers

The taxation of income for H-1B employees depends on whether they are categorized as either non-resident aliens or resident aliens for tax purposes. A non-resident alien for tax purposes is only taxed on income from the United States, while a resident alien for tax purposes is taxed on all income, including income from outside the US.

The classification is determined based on the “substantial presence test“: If the substantial presence test indicates that the H-1B visa holder is a resident, then income taxation is like any other U.S. person and may be filed using Form 1040 and the necessary schedules; otherwise, the visa-holder must file as a non-resident alien using tax form 1040NR or 1040NR-EZ; he or she may claim benefit from tax treaties if they exist between the United States and the visa holder’s country of citizenship.

Persons in their first year in the U.S. may choose to be considered a resident for taxation purposes for the entire year, and must pay taxes on their worldwide income for that year. This “First Year Choice” is described in IRS Publication 519 and can only be made once in a person’s lifetime. A spouse, regardless of visa status, must include a valid Individual Taxpayer Identification Number (ITIN) or Social Security number (SSN) on a joint tax return with the H-1B holder.

Tax filing rules for H-1B holders may be complex, depending on the individual situation. Besides consulting a professional tax preparer knowledgeable about the rules for foreigners, the IRS Publication 519, U.S. Tax Guide for Aliens, may be consulted. Apart from state and federal taxes, H-1B visa holders pay Medicareand Social Security taxes, and are eligible for Social Security benefits.

H-1B and legal immigration

Even though the H-1B visa is a non-immigrant visa, it is one of the few visa categories recognized as dual intent, meaning an H-1B holder can have legal immigration intent (apply for and obtain the green card) while still a holder of the visa. In the past the employment-based green card process used to take only a few years, less than the duration of the H-1B visa itself. However, in recent times the legal employment-based immigration process has backlogged and retrogressed to the extent that it now takes many years for guest-work visa holders from certain countries to obtain green cards. Since the duration of the H-1B visa hasn’t changed, this has meant that many more H-1B visa holders must renew their visas in one or three-year increments for continued legal status while their green card application is in process.

Dependents of H-1B visa holders

H-1B visa holders can bring immediate family members (spouse and children under 21) to the U.S. under the H4 Visa category as dependents. An H4 Visa holder may remain in the U.S. as long as the H-1B visa holder retains legal status. An H4 visa holder is not eligible to work or get a Social Security number (SSN).[9]However, a DHS ruling made on Feb 24, 2015 provides certain H4 visa holders with eligibility to work, starting May 26, 2015.[10] An H4 Visa holder may attend school, get a driver’s license, and open a bank account in the U.S. To claim a dependent on a tax return or file a joint tax return, the dependent must obtain an Individual Tax Identification Number (ITIN), which is only used for tax filing purposes.

Administrative processing

When an H-1B worker goes outside of U.S. for vacation, he or she has to get the visa stamped on his passport unless he has already done so for re-entry in the United States. The interview is taken in U.S. Embassy by a visa officer. In some cases, H-1B workers can be required to undergo “administrative processing“, involving extra, lengthy background checks. Under current rules, these checks are supposed to take ten days or less, but in some cases, have lasted years.[11]

Application process

The process of getting a H-1B visa has three stages:

  • The employer files with the United States Department of Labor a Labor Condition Application (LCA) for the employee, making relevant attestations, including attestations about wages (showing that the wage is at least equal to the prevailing wage and wages paid to others in the company in similar positions) and working conditions.
  • With an approved LCA, the employer files a Form I-129 (Petition for a Nonimmigrant Worker) requesting H-1B classification for the worker. This must be accompanied by necessary supporting documents and fees.
  • Once the Form I-129 is approved, the worker may begin working with the H-1B classification on or after the indicated start date of the job, if already physically present in the United States in valid status at the time. If the employee is outside the United States, he/she may use the approved Form I-129 and supporting documents to apply for the H-1B visa. With a H-1B visa, the worker may present himself or herself at a United States port of entry seeking admission to the United States, and get an Form I-94 to enter the United States. Employees who started a job on H-1B status without a H-1B visa because they were already in the United States still need to get a H-1B visa if they ever leave and wish to reenter the United States while on H-1B status.

OPT cap-gap extension for STEM students

On April 2, 2008, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Michael Chertoff announced a 17-month extension to the OPT for students in qualifying STEM fields. Also known as the cap-gap, the rule change allows foreign STEM students opportunities unavailable to foreign students of other disciplines. The 17 month work-authorization extension allows the foreign STEM student to work up to 29 months under the student visa, allowing the STEM student multiple years to obtain an H-1B visa.[12][13] To be eligible for the 12-month permit, any degree in any field of studies is valid. For the 17-month OPT extension, a student must have received a Science, Technology, Engineering, or Mathematics degree in one of the following approved majors listed on the USCIS website.[14]

In 2014, a Federal Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss the Washington Alliance of Technology Workers (Washtech) and three other plaintiff’s case against the OPT extension. Judge Huvelle noted that the plaintiffs had standing due to increased competition in their field, that the OPT participation had ballooned from 28,500 in 2008, to 123,000 and that while the students are working under OPT on student visas, employers are not required to pay Social Security and Medicare contributions, nor prevailing wage.[15]

Evolution of the program

Changes to legal and administrative rules

Congress Effect on fees Effect on cap Effect on LCA attestations and
DOL investigative authority
Immigration Act of 1990, November 29, 1990, George H. W. Bush
101st Only a base filing fee Set an annual cap of 65,000 on new 3-year H-1Bs, including transfer applications and extensions of stay. Set up the basic rules for the Labor Condition Application
American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA), October 21, 1998, Bill Clinton
105th Added a $500 fee that would be used to retrain U.S. workers and close the skill gap, in the hope of reducing subsequent need for H-1B visas. Temporary increase in caps to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000[16] Introduced the concept of “H-1B-dependent employer” and required additional attestations about non-displacement of U.S. workers from employers who were H-1B-dependent or had committed a willful misrepresentation in an application in the recent past. Also gave investigative authority to the United States Department of Labor.
American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act, (AC21), October 17, 2000, Bill Clinton
106th Increased $500 fee for retraining US workers to $1000. Increase in caps to 195,000 for Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and 2003.
Creation of an uncapped category for non-profit research institutions.
Exemption from the cap for people who had already been cap-subject. This included people on cap-subject H-1Bs who were switching jobs, as well as people applying for a 3-year extension of their current 3-year H-1B.
H-1B Visa Reform Act of 2004, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, December 6, 2004, George W. Bush
108th Increased fee for retraining US workers to $1500 for companies with 26 or more employees, reduced to $750 for small companies.
Added anti-fraud fee of $500
Bachelor’s degree cap returns to 65,000 with added 20,000 visas for applicants with U.S. postgraduate degrees. Additional exemptions for Non-profit research and governmental entities. Expanded the Department of Labor’s investigative authority, but also provided two standard lines of defense to employers (the Good Faith Compliance Defense and the Recognized Industry Standards Defense).
Employ American Workers Act, February 17, 2009, Barack Obama
Part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (sunset on February 17, 2011)
111th No change. No change. All recipients of Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) or Federal Reserve Act Section 13 were required to file the additional attestations required of H-1B-dependent employers, for any employee who had not yet started on a H-1B visa.

Changes in the cap, number of applications received, and numbers of applications approved vs. visas issued

During the early 1990s, the cap was rarely reached. By the mid-1990s, however, the allocation tended fill each year on a first come, first served basis, resulting in frequent denials or delays of H-1Bs because the annual cap had been reached. In 1998, the cap increased to 115,000.

For FY2007, with applications accepted from 2006 April 1, the entire quota of visas for the year was exhausted within a span of 2 months on May 26,[17] well before the beginning of the financial year concerned. The additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas were exhausted on July 26.

For FY2008, the entire quota was exhausted before the end of the first day that applications were accepted, April 2.[18] Under USCIS rules, the 123,480 petitions received on April 2 and April 3 that were subject to the cap were pooled, and then 65,000 of these were selected at random for further processing.[19] The additional 20,000 Advanced Degree H-1B visas for FY2008 was exhausted on April 30.

For FY2009, USCIS announced on 2008 April 8, that the entire quota for visas for the year had been reached, for both 20,000 Advanced and the 65,000 quota. USCIS would complete initial data entry for all filing received during 2008 April 1 to April 7, before running the lottery, while 86,300 new visas were approved.[20]

For FY2010, USCIS announced on 2009 December 21, that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap.[21]

For FY2011, USCIS announced on 2011 January 27, that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap on January 26.

For FY2015, USCIS announced on 2014 April 10 that received about 172,500 H-1B petitions during the filing period which began April 1, including petitions filed for the advanced degree exemption.[22]

For FY2016, USCIS announced on 2015 April 7 that enough petitions were received to reach that year’s cap.[23] On 2015 April 13, USCIS announced completion of the H1B cap lottery selection processes. The USCIS reported receipt of almost 233,000 H1B petitions, well in excess of the limits of 65,000 for the regular cap and 20,000 advanced-degree exemptions (or, “master’s cap”).

Numbers of applications approved

The applications received are evaluated by USCIS, and some subset are approved each year. It is possible for an individual to file multiple applications, for multiple job opportunities with a single employer/sponsor or with multiple employer/sponsors. It is possible for an individual applicant to have multiple applications approved and to be able to choose which one to take.

In its annual report on H-1B visas, released in 2006 November, USCIS stated that it approved 130,497 H-1B visa applications in FY2004 (while 138,965 new visas were issued through consular offices) and 116,927 in FY2005 (while 124,099 new visas were issued via consular offices).[24][25][26][27][28][28][29][30]

In FY2008, a total of 276,252 visa applications (109,335 initial, 166,917 renewals and extensions) were approved, and 130,183 new initial visas were issued through consular offices.

In FY2009, 214,271 visas were approved, with 86,300 being for initial employment, and 127,971 being for continued employment)[31] and 110,988 initial H-1B visas were issued from consular offices.[32]

In FY2010, 192,990 new visas were approved, with 76,627 being for initial employment and 116,363 being for continuing employment. 117,828 new visas were issued through consular offices[33]

In FY2011, 269,653 new visas were approved, with 106,445 being for initial employment and 163,208 being for continued employment. 129,552 new visas were issued through consular offices.[33]

In FY2012, 262,569 new visas were approved with 136,890 being for initial employment and 125,679 being for continued employment.[26][27][28][29][30][33][33][33][34][35]

American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000[edit]

The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 (AC21) and the U.S. Department of Labor’s PERM system for labor certification erased most of the earlier claimed arguments for H-1Bs as indentured servants during the green card process. With PERM, labor certification processing time is now approximately 9 months (as of Mar 2010).[36]

Because of AC21, the H-1B employee is free to change jobs if they have an I-485 application pending for six months and an approved I-140, and if the position they move to is substantially comparable to their current position. In some cases, if those labor certifications are withdrawn and replaced with PERM applications, processing times improve, but the person also loses their favorable priority date. In those cases, employers’ incentive to attempt to lock in H-1B employees to a job by offering a green card is reduced, because the employer bears the high legal costs and fees associated with labor certification and I-140 processing, but the H-1B employee is still free to change jobs.

However, many people are ineligible to file I-485 at the current time due to the widespread retrogression in priority dates. Thus, they may well still be stuck with their sponsoring employer for many years. There are also many old labor certification cases pending under pre-PERM rules.

Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008

The Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008, which, among other issues, federalizes immigration in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, stipulates that during a transition period, numerical limitations do not apply to otherwise qualified workers in the H visa category in the CNMI and Guam.[37]

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Further information: Employ American Workers Act

On Feb. 17, 2009, President Obama signed into law the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“stimulus bill”), Public Law 111-5.[38] Section 1661 of the ARRA incorporates the Employ American Workers Act (EAWA) by Senators Sanders (I-Vt.) and Grassley (R-Iowa) to limit certain banks and other financial institutions from hiring H-1B workers unless they had offered positions to equally or better-qualified U.S. workers, and to prevent banks from hiring H-1B workers in occupations they had laid off U.S. workers from. These restrictions include:

  1. The employer must, prior to filing the H-1B petition, take good-faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for the position for which the H-1B worker is sought, offering a wage at least as high as what the law requires for the H-1B worker. The employer must also attest that, in connection with this recruitment, it has offered the job to any U.S. worker who applies who is equally or better qualified for the position.
  2. The employer must not have laid off, and will not lay off, any U.S. worker in a job essentially equivalent to the H-1B position in the area of intended employment of the H-1B worker within the period beginning 90 days prior to the filing of the H-1B petition and ending 90 days after its filing.[39]

Changes in USCIS policy

After completing a policy review, the USCIS clarified that individuals who spent more than one year outside of U.S. and did not exhaust their entire six-year term can choose to be re-admitted for the “remainder” of initial six-year period without being subject to the H-1B cap.[40]

After completing a policy review, the USCIS clarified that, “Any time spent in H-4 status will not count against the six-year maximum period of admission applicable to H-1B aliens.”[40]

USCIS recently issued a memorandum dated 8 Jan 2010. The memorandum effectively states that there must be a clear “employee employer relationship” between the petitioner (employer) and the beneficiary (prospective visa holder). It simply outlines what the employer must do to be considered in compliance as well as putting forth the documentation requirements to back up the employer’s assertion that a valid relationship exists.

The memorandum gives three clear examples of what is considered a valid “employee employer relationship”:

  • a fashion model
  • a computer software engineer working off-site/on-site
  • a company or a contractor which is working on a co-production product in collaboration with DOD

In the case of the software engineer, the petitioner (employer) must agree to do (some of) the following among others:

  • Supervise the beneficiary on and off-site
  • Maintain such supervision through calls, reports, or visits
  • Have a “right” to control the work on a day-to-day basis if such control is required
  • Provide tools for the job
  • Hire, pay, and have the ability to fire the beneficiary
  • Evaluate work products and perform progress/performance reviews
  • Claim them for tax purposes
  • Provide (some type of) employee benefits
  • Use “proprietary information” to perform work
  • Produce an end product related to the business
  • Have an “ability to” control the manner and means in which the worker accomplishes tasks

It further states that “common law is flexible” in how to weigh these factors. Though this memorandum cites legal cases and provides examples, such a memorandum in itself is not law and future memoranda could change this.

Protections for U.S. workers

Labor Condition Application

Further information: Labor Condition Application

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) is responsible for ensuring that foreign workers do not displace or adversely affect wages or working conditions of U.S. workers. For every H-1B petition filed with the USCIS, there must be included a Labor Condition Application (LCA) (not to be confused with the labor certification), certified by the U.S. Department of Labor. The LCA is designed to ensure that the wage offered to the non-immigrant worker meets or exceeds the “prevailing wage” in the area of employment. (“Immigration law has a number of highly technical terms that may not mean the same thing to the average reader.”[41] last updated 2011 March 31, visited 2012 November 5) The LCA also contains an attestation section designed to prevent the program from being used to import foreign workers to break a strike or replace U.S. citizen workers.

While an employer is not required to advertise the position before hiring an H-1B non-immigrant pursuant to the H-1B visa approval, the employer must notify the employee representative about the Labor Condition Application (LCA)—or if there is no such representation, the employer must publish the LCA at the workplace and the employer’s office.[42][43] Under the regulations, LCAs are a matter of public record. Corporations hiring H-1B workers are required to make these records available to any member of the public who requests to look at them. Copies of the relevant records are also available from various web sites, including the Department of Labor.

History of the Labor Condition Application form

The LCA must be filed electronically using Form ETA 9035E.[44] Over the years, the complexity of the form increased from one page in 1997[45] to three pages in 2008,[46] to five pages as of August 2012.[47]

Employer attestations

By signing the LCA, the employer attests that:[48]

  • The employer pays H-1B non-immigrants the same wage level paid to all other individuals with similar experience and qualifications for that specific employment, or the prevailing wage for the occupation in the area of employment, whichever is higher.
  • The employment of H-1B non-immigrants does not adversely affect working conditions of workers similarly employed.
  • On the date the application is signed and submitted, there is not a strike, lockout, or work stoppage in the course of a labor dispute in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed at the place of employment. If such a strike or lockout occurs after this application is submitted, the employer must notify ETA within three days, and the application is not used to support petition filings with INS for H-1B non-immigrants to work in the same occupation at the place of employment until ETA determines the strike or lockout is over.
  • A copy of this application has been, or will be, provided to each H-1B non-immigrant employed pursuant to this application, and, as of the application date, notice of this application has been provided to workers employed in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed:
    • Notice of this filing has been provided to bargaining representative of workers in the occupation in which H-1B non-immigrants will be employed; or
    • There is no such bargaining representative; therefore, a notice of this filing has been posted and was, or will remain, posted for 10 days in at least two conspicuous locations where H-1B non-immigrants will be employed.

The law requires H-1B workers to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage for the same occupation and geographic location, or the same as the employer pays to similarly situated employees. Other factors, such as age and skill were not permitted to be taken into account for the prevailing wage. Congress changed the program in 2004 to require the Department of Labor to provide four skill-based prevailing wage levels for employers to use. This is the only prevailing wage mechanism the law permits that incorporates factors other than occupation and location.

The approval process for these applications are based on employer attestations and documentary evidence submitted. The employer is advised of their liability if they are replacing a U.S. worker.

Limits on employment

According to the USCIS, “H-1B nonimmigrants may only work for the petitioning U.S. employer and only in the H-1B activities described in the petition. The petitioning U.S. employer may place the H-1B worker on the worksite of another employer if all applicable rules (e.g., Department of Labor rules) are followed. Generally, a nonimmigrant employee may work for more than one employer at the same time. However, each employer must follow the process for initially applying for a nonimmigrant employee.”[49]

H-1B fees earmarked for U.S. worker education and training

In 2007, the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration (ETA), reported on two programs, the High Growth Training Initiative and Workforce Innovation Regional Economic Development (WIRED), which have received or will receive $284 million and $260 million, respectively, from H-1B training fees to educate and train U.S. workers.[citation needed] According to the Seattle Times $1 billion from H1-B fees have been distributed by the Labor Department to further train the U.S. workforce since 2001.[50]

Criticisms of the program

The H-1B program has been criticized on many grounds. It was the subject of a hearing, “Immigration Reforms Needed to Protect Skilled American Workers,” by theUnited States Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 17, 2015.[51][52] According to Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa, chairman of the committee:

The program was intended to serve employers who could not find the skilled workers they needed in the United States. Most people believe that employers are supposed to recruit Americans before they petition for an H-1B worker. Yet, under the law, most employers are not required to prove to the Department of Labor that they tried to find an American to fill the job first. And, if there is an equally or even better qualified U.S. worker available, the company does not have to offer him or her the job. Over the years the program has become a government-assisted way for employers to bring in cheaper foreign labor, and now it appears these foreign workers take over – rather than complement – the U.S. workforce.[53]

Use for outsourcing

In large part, rather than being used to hire talented workers not available in the American labor market, the program is being used for outsourcing.[54] SenatorsDick Durbin and Charles Grassley of Iowa began introducing “The H-1B and L-1 Visa Fraud & Prevention Act” in 2007. According to Durbin, speaking in 2009, “The H-1B visa program should complement the U.S. workforce, not replace it;” “The…program is plagued with fraud and abuse and is now a vehicle for outsourcing that deprives qualified American workers of their jobs.” The proposed legislation has been opposed by Compete America, a tech industry lobbying group,[55] Outsourcing firms, many based in India, are major users of H-1B visas. The out-sourcing firm contracts with an employer, such as Disney, to perform technical services. Disney then closes down its in-house department and lays off its employees. The outsourcing firm then performs the work.[56]

In June 2015 congressional leaders announced that the Department of Labor had opened an investigation of outsourcing of technical tasks by Southern California Edison to Tata Consultancy Services and Infosys then laying off 500 technology workers.[57]

No labor shortages

Paul Donnelly, in a 2002 article in Computerworld, cited Milton Friedman as stating that the H-1B program acts as a subsidy for corporations.[58] Others holding this view include Dr. Norman Matloff, who testified to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Immigration on the H-1B subject.[59] Matloff’s paper for theUniversity of Michigan Journal of Law Reform claims that there has been no shortage of qualified American citizens to fill American computer-related jobs, and that the data offered as evidence of American corporations needing H-1B visas to address labor shortages was erroneous.[60] The United States General Accounting Office found in a report in 2000 that controls on the H-1B program lacked effectiveness.[61] The GAO report’s recommendations were subsequently implemented.

High-tech companies often cite a tech-worker shortage when asking Congress to raise the annual cap on H-1B visas, and have succeeded in getting various exemptions passed. The American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), described the situation as a crisis, and the situation was reported on by the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek and Washington Post. Employers applied pressure on Congress.[62] Microsoft chairman Bill Gates testified in 2007 on behalf of the expanded visa program on Capitol Hill, “warning of dangers to the U.S. economy if employers can’t import skilled workers to fill job gaps”.[62] Congress considered a bill to address the claims of shortfall[63] but in the end did not revise the program.[64]

According to a study conducted by John Miano and the Center for Immigration Studies, there is no empirical data to support a claim of employee worker shortage.[65] Citing studies from Duke, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Georgetown University and others, critics have also argued that in some years, the number of foreign programmers and engineers imported outnumbered the number of jobs created by the industry.[66] Organizations have also posted hundreds of first hand accounts of H-1B Visa Harm reports directly from individuals negatively impacted by the program, many of whom are willing to speak with the media.[67]

Studies carried out from the 1990s through 2011 by researchers from Columbia U, Computing Research Association (CRA), Duke U, Georgetown U, Harvard U, National Research Council of the NAS, RAND Corporation, Rochester Institute of Technology, Rutgers U, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, Stanford U, SUNY Buffalo, UC Davis, UPenn Wharton School, Urban Institute, and U.S. Dept. of Education Office of Education Research & Improvement have reported that the U.S. has been producing sufficient numbers of able and willing STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) workers, while several studies from Hal Salzman, B. Lindsay Lowell, Daniel Kuehn, Michael Teitelbaum and others have concluded that the U.S. has been employing only 30% to 50% of its newly degreed able and willing STEM workers to work in STEM fields. A 2012 IEEE announcement of a conference on STEM education funding and job markets stated “only about half of those with under-graduate STEM degrees actually work in the STEM-related fields after college, and after 10 years, only some 8% still do”.[68]

Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at Howard University and a longtime critic of the H-1B visa program, recently called the IT talent shortage “imaginary,”[69] a front for companies that want to hire relatively inexpensive foreign guest workers.

Wage depression

Wage depression is a chronic complaint critics have about the H-1B program: some studies have found that H-1B workers are paid significantly less than U.S. workers.[70][71] It is claimed[72][73][74][75][76][76] that the H-1B program is primarily used as a source of cheap labor. A paper by George J. Borjas for the National Bureau of Economic Research found that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of doctorates lowers the wage of competing workers by about 3 to 4 percent.”[77]

The Labor Condition Application (LCA) included in the H-1B petition is supposed to ensure that H-1B workers are paid the prevailing wage in the labor market, or the employer’s actual average wage (whichever is higher), but evidence exists that some employers do not abide by these provisions and avoid paying the actual prevailing wage despite stiff penalties for abusers.[78]

Theoretically, the LCA process appears to offer protection to both U.S. and H-1B workers. However, according to the U.S. General Accounting Office, enforcement limitations and procedural problems render these protections ineffective.[79] Ultimately, the employer, not the Department of Labor, determines what sources determine the prevailing wage for an offered position, and it may choose among a variety of competing surveys, including its own wage surveys, provided that such surveys follow certain defined rules and regulations.

The law specifically restricts the Department of Labor’s approval process of LCAs to checking for “completeness and obvious inaccuracies”.[80] In FY 2005, only about 800 LCAs were rejected out of over 300,000 submitted. Hire Americans First has posted several hundred first hand accounts of individuals negatively impacted by the program, many of whom are willing to speak with the media.[67]

DOL has split the prevailing wage into four levels, with Level One representing about the 17th percentile of wage average Americans earn. About 80 percent of LCAs are filed at this 17th percentile level[citation needed]. This four-level prevailing wage can be obtained from the DOL website,[81] and is generally far lower than average wages[citation needed].

The “prevailing wage” stipulation is allegedly vague and thus easy to manipulate[citation needed], resulting in employers underpaying visa workers. According to Ron Hira, assistant professor of public policy at the Rochester Institute of Technology, the median wage in 2005 for new H-1B information technology (IT) was just $50,000, which is even lower than starting wages for IT graduates with a B.S. degree. The U.S. government OES office’s data indicates that 90 percent of H-1B IT wages were below the median U.S. wage for the same occupation.[82]

In 2002, the U.S. government began an investigation into Sun Microsystems’ hiring practices after an ex-employee, Guy Santiglia, filed complaints with the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Department of Labor alleging that the Santa Clara firm discriminates against American citizens in favor of foreign workers on H-1B visas. Santiglia accused the company of bias against U.S. citizens when it laid off 3,900 workers in late 2001 and at the same time applied for thousands of visas. In 2002, about 5 percent of Sun’s 39,000 employees had temporary work visas, he said.[83] In 2005, it was decided that Sun violated only minor requirements and that neither of these violations was substantial or willful. Thus, the judge only ordered Sun to change its posting practices.[84]

Risks for employees

Historically, H-1B holders have sometimes been described as indentured servants,[85] and while the comparison is no longer as compelling, it had more validity prior to the passage of American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000. Although immigration generally requires short- and long-term visitors to disavow any ambition to seek the green card (permanent residency), H-1B visa holders are an important exception, in that the H-1B is legally acknowledged as a possible step towards a green card under what is called the doctrine of dual intent.

H-1B visa holders may be sponsored for their green cards by their employers through an Application for Alien Labor Certification, filed with the U.S. Department of Labor.[citation needed] In the past, the sponsorship process has taken several years, and for much of that time the H-1B visa holder was unable to change jobs without losing their place in line for the green card. This created an element of enforced loyalty to an employer by an H-1B visa holder. Critics[who?] alleged that employers benefit from this enforced loyalty because it reduced the risk that the H-1B employee might leave the job and go work for a competitor, and that it put citizen workers at a disadvantage in the job market, since the employer has less assurance that the citizen will stay at the job for an extended period of time, especially if the work conditions are tough, wages are lower or the work is difficult or complex. It has been argued that this makes the H-1B program extremely attractive to employers, and that labor legislation in this regard has been influenced by corporations seeking and benefiting from such advantages.[citation needed]

Some recent news reports suggest that the recession that started in 2008 will exacerbate the H-1B visa situation, both for supporters of the program and for those who oppose it.[86] The process to obtain the green card has become so long that during these recession years it has not been unusual that sponsoring companies fail and disappear, thus forcing the H-1B employee to find another sponsor, and lose their place in line for the green card. An H-1B employee could be just one month from obtaining their green card, but if the employee is laid off, he or she may have to leave the country, or go to the end of the line and start over the process to get the green card, and wait as much as 10 more years, depending on the nationality and visa category.[87]

The American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000 provides some relief for people waiting for a long time for a green card, by allowing H-1B extensions past the normal 6 years, as well as by making it easier to change the sponsoring employer.

The Out-Sourcing/Off-Shoring Visa

Further information: Body shopping

In his floor statement on H-1B Visa Reform, Senator Dick Durbin stated “The H-1B job visa lasts for 3 years and can be renewed for 3 years. What happens to those workers after that? Well, they could stay. It is possible. But these new companies have a much better idea for making money. They send the engineers to America to fill spots–and get money to do it—and then after the 3 to 6 years, they bring them back to work for the companies that are competing with American companies. They call it their outsourcing visa. They are sending their talented engineers to learn how Americans do business and then bring them back and compete with those American companies.”[88] Critics of H-1B use for outsourcing have also noted that more H-1B visas are granted to companies headquartered in India than companies headquartered in the United States.[89]

Of all Computer Systems Analysts and programmers on H-1B visas in the U.S., 74 percent were from Asia. This large scale migration of Asian IT professionals to the United States has been cited as a central cause for the quick emergence of the offshore outsourcing industry.[90]

In FY 2009, due to the worldwide recession, applications for H-1B visas by off-shore out-sourcing firms were significantly lower than in previous years,[91] yet 110,367 H-1B visas were issued, and 117,409 were issued in FY2010.

Social Security and Medicare taxes

H-1B employees have to pay Social Security and Medicare taxes as part of their payroll. Like U.S. citizens, they are eligible to receive Social Security benefits even if they leave the United States, provided they have paid Social Security payroll taxes for at least 10 years. Further, the U.S. has bilateral agreements with several countries to ensure that the time paid into the U.S. Social Security system, even if it is less than 10 years, is taken into account in the foreign country’s comparable system and vice versa.[92]

Departure Requirement on Job Loss

If an employer lays off an H-1B worker, the employer is required to pay for the laid-off worker’s transportation outside the United States.

If an H-1B worker is laid off for any reason, the H-1B program technically does not specify a time allowance or grace period to round up one’s affairs irrespective of how long the H-1B worker might have lived in the United States. To round up one’s affairs, filing an application to change to another non-immigrant status may therefore become a necessity.

If an H-1B worker is laid off and attempts to find a new H-1B employer to file a petition for him, the individual is considered out of status if there is even a one-day gap between the last day of employment and the date that the new H-1B petition is filed. While some attorneys claim that there is a grace period of 30 days, 60 days, or sometimes 10 days, that is not true according to the law. In practice, USCIS has accepted H-1B transfer applications even with a gap in employment up to 60 days, but that is by no means guaranteed.

Some of the confusion regarding the alleged grace period arose because there is a 10-day grace period for an H-1B worker to depart the United States at the end of his authorized period of stay (does not apply for laid-off workers). This grace period only applies if the worker works until the H-1B expiration date listed on his I-797 approval notice, or I-94 card. 8 CFR 214.2(h)(13)(i)(A).

American workers are ordered to train their foreign replacements[edit]

There have been cases where employers used the program to replace their American employees with H-1B employees, and in some of those cases, the American employees were even ordered to train their replacements.[93][54][56]

Age discrimination

Age discrimination in the program results in older workers being replaced by H-1B applicants. In FY 2014, 72% of H-1B holders were between the ages of 25 and 34, according to the USCIS “Characteristics of Specialty Occupation Workers (H-1B): Fiscal Year 2014”[94] report for that year, the most recent it has published on its public website. In Table 5 of the same report, only 3,592 of the 315,857 H-1B visas were approved for workers over the age of 50.[94]

Fraud

The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services “H-1B Benefit Fraud & Compliance Assessment” of September 2008 concluded 21% of H-1B visas granted originate from fraudulent applications or applications with technical violations.[95] Fraud was defined as a willful misrepresentation, falsification, or omission of a material fact. Technical violations, errors, omissions, and failures to comply that are not within the fraud definition were included in the 21% rate. Subsequently, USCIS has made procedural changes to reduce the number of fraud and technical violations on H-1B applications.

In 2009, federal authorities busted a nationwide H-1B Visa Scam.[96]

Fraud has included acquisition of a fake university degree for the prospective H-B1 worker, coaching the worker on lying to consul officials, hiring a worker for which there is no U.S. job, charging the worker money to be hired, benching the worker with no pay, and taking a cut of the worker’s U.S. salary. The workers, although they have little choice in the matter, are also engaged in fraud, and may be charged, fined, and deported.[97]

Similar programs

In addition to H-1B visas, there are a variety of other visa categories that allow foreign workers to come into the U.S. to work for some period of time.

L-1 visas are issued to foreign employees of a corporation. Under recent rules, the foreign worker must have worked for the corporation for at least one year in the preceding three years prior to getting the visa. An L-1B visa is appropriate for non-immigrant workers who are being temporarily transferred to the United States based on their specialized knowledge of the company’s techniques and methodologies. An L-1A visa is for managers or executives who either manage people or an essential function of the company. There is no requirement to pay prevailing wages for the L-1 visa holders. For Canadian residents, a special L visa category is available.

TN-1 visas are part of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and are issued to Canadian and Mexican citizens.[98] TN visas are only available to workers who fall into one of a pre-set list of occupations determined by the NAFTA treaty. There are specific eligibility requirements for the TN Visa.

E-3 visas are issued to citizens of Australia under the Australia free-trade treaty.

H-1B1 visas are a sub-set of H-1B issued to residents of Chile and Singapore under the United States-Chile Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-77 § 402(a)(2)(B), 117 Stat. 909, 940; S1416, HR2738; passed in House 2003-07-24 and the United States-Singapore Free Trade Agreement of 2003; PL108-78 § 402(2), 117 Stat. 948, 970-971; S1417, HR2739; passed in House 2003-07-24, passed in senate 2003-07-31, signed by executive (GWBush) 2003-05-06. According to USCIS, unused H-1B1 visas are added into the next year’s H-1B base quota of 58,200.

One recent trend in work visas is that various countries attempt to get special preference for their nationals as part of treaty negotiations. Another trend is for changes in immigration law to be embedded in large Authorization or Omnibus bills to avoid the controversy that might accompany a separate vote.

H-2B visa: The H-2B non-immigrant program permits employers to hire foreign workers to come to the U.S. and perform temporary nonagricultural work, which may be one-time, seasonal, peak load or intermittent. There is a 66,000 per year limit on the number of foreign workers who may receive H-2B status.

H-1B demographics

H-1B Applications Approved

H-1B Applications Approved by USCIS[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100]
Year Initial employment approvals Continuing employment approvals Total
1999 134,411 na na
2000 136,787 120,853 257,640
2001 201,079 130,127 331,206
2002 103,584 93,953 197,537
2003 105,314 112,026 217,340
2004 130,497 156,921 287,418
2005 116,927 150,204 267,131
2006 109,614 161,367 270,981
2007 120,031 161,413 281,444
2008 109,335 166,917 276,252
2009 86,300 127,971 214,271
2010 76,627 116,363 192,990
2011 106,445 163,208 269,653
2012 136,890 125,679 262,569
2013 128,291 158,482 286,773
2014 124,326 191,531 315,857
H-1B Applications Approved by USCIS for those with less than the equivalent of a U.S. bachelor’s degree[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][33][35][99][100]
Year No HS Diploma Only HS Diploma Less Than 1 year of College 1+ years of College Equivalent of Associate’s Total Less Than Equivalent of U.S. Bachelor’s
2000 554 288 158 1,290 696 2,986
2001 247 895 284 1,376 1,181 3,983
2002 169 806 189 849 642 2,655
2003 148 822 122 623 534 2,249
2004 123 690 137 421 432 1,803
2005 107 440 77 358 363 1,345
2006 96 392 54 195 177 914
2007 72 374 42 210 215 913
2008 80 174 19 175 195 643
2009 108 190 33 236 262 829
2010 140 201 24 213 161 739
2011 373 500 44 255 170 1,342
2012 108 220 35 259 174 796
2013 68 148 15 162 121 514
2014 32 133 18 133 88 404

H-1B visas issued per year[edit]

new/initial H-1B visas issued by State Department through consular offices<[101]
Year H-1B H-1B1 Total
1990 794 na 794
1991 51,882 na 51,882
1992 44,290 na 44,290
1993 35,818 na 35,818
1994 42,843 na 42,843
1995 51,832 na 51,832
1996 58,327 na 58,327
1997 80,547 na 80,547
1998 91,360 na 91,360
1999 116,513 na 116,513
2000 133,290 na 133,290
2001 161,643 na 161,643
2002 118,352 na 118,352
2003 107,196 na 107,196
2004 138,965 72 139,037
2005 124,099 275 124,374
2006 135,421 440 135,861
2007 154,053 639 154,692
2008 129,464 719 130,183
2009 110,367 621 110,988
2010 117,409 419 117,828
2011 129,134 418 129,552
2012 135,530 461 135,991
2013 153,223 571 153,794

Employers ranked by H-1B visas approved

Companies receiving H-1Bs[102][103][104]
2013 Rank Company Primary Emp. Base 2006 [105] 2007 [106] 2008 [107] 2009 [108] 2010 [109] 2011 [110] 2012 [111] 2013 [112]
1 Infosys
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 4,908 4,559 4,559 440 3,792 3,962 5,600 6,298
2 Tata Consultancy Services
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
India 3,046 797 1,539 1,740 7,469 6,258
3 Cognizant
Teaneck, New Jersey
U.S. 2,226 962 467 233 3,388 4,222 9,281 5,186
4 Accenture Inc
Dublin, Ireland
U.S. 637 331 731 287 506 1,347 4,037 3,346
5 Wipro
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 4,002 2,567 2,678 1,964 1,521 2,736 4,304 2,644
6 HCL Technologies Ltd
Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India
India 910 102 1,033 2,070 1,766
7 IBM
Armonk, New York
U.S. 1,324 199 381 865 882 853 1,846 1,624
8 Mahindra Satyam
Hyderabad, Telangana, India
India 2,880 1,396 1,917 219 224 1,963 1,589
9 Larsen & Toubro Infotech
Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
India 947 292 403 602 333 1,204 1,832 1,580
10 Deloitte
New York City, New York
U.S. 1,555 525 413 563 196 1,668 1,491
11 IGATE (merged w Patni)
Bridgewater, NJ & Bengaluru, India
India 1,391 477 296 609 164 1,260 1,157
12 Microsoft
Redmond, Washington
U.S. 3,117 959 1,037 1,318 1,618 947 1,497 1,048
13 Syntel
Troy, Michigan
India 416 130 129 1,161 1,041
14 Qualcomm
San Diego, California
U.S. 533 158 255 320 909
15 Amazon
Seattle, Washington
U.S. 262 81 182 881
16 Intel Corporation
Santa Clara, California
U.S. 828 369 351 723 772
17 Google
Mountain View, California
U.S. 328 248 207 211 172 383 753
18 Mphasis
Bangalore, Karnataka, India
India 751 248 251 229 197 556
19 Capgemini
Paris, France
E.U. 309 99 500
20 Oracle Corporation
Redwood Shores, California
U.S. 1,022 113 168 272 475
21 UST Global
Aliso Viejo, California
U.S. 339 416 344 475
22 PricewaterhouseCoopers
London, United Kingdom
E.U. 591 192 449
23 Cisco Systems
San Jose, California
U.S. 828 324 422 308 379
24 Ernst & Young LLP
London, United Kingdom
UK 774 302 321 481 373
Top 10 universities and schools receiving H-1Bs[102][103][105]
School H-1Bs Received 2006
New York City Public Schools 642
University of Michigan 437
University of Illinois at Chicago 434
University of Pennsylvania 432
Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine 432
University of Maryland 404
Columbia University 355
Yale University 316
Harvard University 308
Stanford University 279
Washington University in St. Louis 278
University of Pittsburgh 275

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B_visa

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-484

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Breaking: Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Seeks Emergency Court Stay Order To Restart Immoral, Illegal and Unconstitutional Program To Give 4-5 Illegal Aliens Work Permits — Time To Impeach The Tyrant — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crisis, Demographics, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Federal Government Budget, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Investments, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, National Security Agency (NSA_, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 421: February 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 420: February 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 386: December 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 385: December 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 384: December 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 383: December 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 382: December 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 381: December 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 380: December 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 379: November 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 378: November 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 377: November 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 376: November 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 375: November 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 374: November 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 373: November 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 372: November 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 371: November 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 370: November 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 369: November 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 368: November 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 367: November 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 366: November 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 365: November 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 364: November 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 363: November 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 362: November 3, 2014

Story 1: Breaking:  Obama’s Department of Justice (DOJ) Seeks Emergency Court Stay Order To Restart Immoral, Illegal and Unconstitutional Program To Give 4-5 Illegal Aliens Work Permits — Time To Impeach The Tyrant — Videos

U.S. Justice Department seeks to block Texas immigration ruling – LoneWolf Sager

Fed Judge Blocks Pres Obama Immigration Plan – Andrew Napolitano – Sen Ted Cruz – The Kelly File

Immigration Showdown – Texas Judge Stalls Obama Executive Action – Special Report All Star Panel

Fed Judge Blocks Pres’ Deferred Deportations For Illegal Immigrants – Sheriff Joe Arpaio – Cavuto

Justice Department to seek stay in Texas immigration ruling

Obama to seek emergency order restarting immigration programs

By Mike Lillis

 

Officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) plan to seek what is known as an emergency stay that would essentially undo a Texas-based federal judge’s injunction from earlier this week. If the stay is granted, the government could restart a pair of executive programs that will shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said DOJ will file for the stay by “Monday at the latest.”

The emergency stay had been sought by immigrant rights advocates, who want to get the programs up and running as soon as possible while the appeals process plays out.

“We — as immigrants and as Americans — have waited for nearly a quarter century for these much-needed improvements to our broken immigration system,” Marielena Hincapié, head of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), said Friday in a statement. “We should not allow a flawed legal decision to delay these changes any longer.”
ADVERTISEMENT

Making good on earlier vows, DOJ will also file a separate appeal seeking to restart the executive programs.
“We will seek that appeal because we believe when you evaluate the legal merits of the arguments, that there is a solid legal foundation for the president to take the steps he announced last year to help reform our immigration system,” Earnest said.

At issue are two new initiatives launched unilaterally by Obama on Nov. 20.

The first expands eligibility for the president’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, which halts deportations and allows work permits for certain undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. The second, known as DAPA, would extend similar benefits to the parents of U.S. citizens and permanent legal residents.

Combined, the programs could affect as many as 5 million immigrants living in the country illegally.

Many states, however, were quick to object. And Texas — joined by 25 other states — filed a lawsuit contending the programs marked an abuse of executive authority that would cripple their budgets with exorbitant new costs.

In a decision announced near midnight on Monday, U.S. District Judge Andrew S. Hanen agreed, arguing that the administration failed to comply with a federal law governing the adoption of new federal rules.

Hanen has not yet ruled on the merits of the states’ complaints, but said they have a significant enough case that both the DAPA and expanded DACA programs should be put on hold until the legal challenges are resolved.

The effects of the decision were immediate, as administration officials quickly announced that they would not begin accepting applications for either program until the court decisions are final.

Before the ruling, the Homeland Security Department was poised to begin accepting applications for the expanded-DACA program this week, and the for the DAPA program in May. Both have been suspended indefinitely.

Hanen’s injunction does not affect the original DACA program, which remains up and running.

 

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/233343-obama-to-seek-emergency-court-order-in-immigration-fight

 

BREAKING: Obama to Defy Federal Court – Seeks Emergency Order to Re-Start Amnesty Executive Order

By Reagan Wilson

As we reported earlier this week, a federal judge in Texas issued an injunction that would prevent President Obama’s “Executive Amnesty” program, which would essentially grant immigration amnesty to as many as five million illegal aliens currently living in the United States.

Now, we are getting reports that the President is seeking an emergency order (on Friday afternoon of course) that would allow the programs to continue effective immediately.

According to a report by The Hill:

The Obama administration will seek an emergency court order to move forward with President Obama’s executive action on immigration.

Officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) plan to seek what is known as an emergency stay that would essentially undo a Texas-based federal judge’s injunction from earlier this week. If the stay is granted, the government could restart a pair of executive programs that will shield millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.

White House press secretary Josh Earnest said DOJ will file for the stay by “Monday at the latest.”

The emergency stay had been sought by immigrant rights advocates, who want to get the programs up and running as soon as possible while the appeals process plays out.

“We — as immigrants and as Americans — have waited for nearly a quarter century for these much-needed improvements to our broken immigration system,” Marielena Hincapié, head of the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), said Friday in a statement. “We should not allow a flawed legal decision to delay these changes any longer.”

http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-obama-to-defy-federal-court-seeks-emergency-order-to-re-start-amnesty-executive-order/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Senator Cruz Hails Victory of 26 States in Federal District Court with Judge Andrew S. Hanen’s Stopping Obama From Issuing of Work Permit Cards (Employment Authorization Document) for 4-5 Million Illegal Aliens in U.S. — Videos

Posted on February 22, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, College, Communications, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Math, media, Money, National Security Agency (NSA_, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Strategy, Talk Radio, Tax Policy, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 419: February 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 418: February 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 417: February 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 416: February 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 415: February 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 414: February 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 413: February 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 412: February 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 411: February 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 410: February 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 409: February 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 408: February 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 407: January 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 406: January 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 405: January 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 404: January 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 403: January 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 402: January 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 401: January 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 400: January 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 399: January 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 398: January 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 397: January 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 396: January 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 395: January 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 394: January 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 393: January 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 392: December 19, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 391: December 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 390: December 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 389: December 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 388: December 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 387: December 12, 2014