Rupert Murdock — Videos

Posted on August 7, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Communications, Corruption, Crisis, Cult, Documentary, Economics, Employment, Entertainment, Faith, Family, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Investments, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Movies, Newspapers, Radio, Television, Television | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Who Is Rupert Murdoch?

WSJ Live Presents: Rupert Murdoch Interviewed

Murdoch of Fox News Admits Manipulating the News for Agenda

Rupert Murdoch – Full Interview

SCANDAL INSIDE THE MURDOCH EMPIRE

Rupert Murdoch : Documentary on the Controversial Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch

Charlie Rose – An hour with Rupert Murdoch

Business and the media with Rupert Murdoch

1968 BBC Interview with Rupert Murdoch

• Laura Ingraham Batters Bill O’Reilly Over Immigration Reform • 11/12/14 •

Will Immigration: Over Ingraham Pushing Laura Elites George GOP Reform Immigration Battles

Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform

Rupert Murdoch Calls For Amnesty For ‘Law Abiding’ Illegal Aliens

Rupert Murdoch Tells Mitt Romney To Support A Pathway to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants

Fox News Boss Murdoch Calls For Legalizing 40 Million Illegals! – Alex Jones Tv 1/2

Fox News Boss Murdoch Calls For Legalizing 40 Million Illegals! – Alex Jones Tv 2/2

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

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

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

 

    • #77 Rupert Murdoch & family

  • Real Time Net Worth As of 8/7/15
  • $12.7 Billion
  • Chairman and CEO, News Corp
Age
84
Source Of Wealth
media, Self Made
Self-Made Score
7
Residence
New York, NY
Citizenship
United States
Marital Status
Divorced
Children
6
Education
Bachelor of Arts / Science, Oxford University; Master of Arts, Oxford University
Rupert Murdoch & family on Forbes Lists
Media tycoon Rupert Murdoch has one less thing to worry about. News Corp announced in February 2015 that the U.S. Department of Justice had finished its investigation related to the phone-hacking charges at Murdoch’ newspapers in London and would not prosecute News Corp or 21st Century Fox. On the management front, in March 2014 he got his sons Lachlan and James appointed to top positions at News Corporation and 21st Century Fox, ensuring that his legacy will live on. He also tried, and failed, to acquire Time Warner in what would have been an $80 billion mega-deal. Meanwhile Murdoch, who gave ex-wife Wendi Deng their Fifth Avenue apartment along with a residence in Beijing, bought himself a $57 million bachelor pad in Manhattan in 2014. He then sold his Beverly Hills estate for $30 million, reportedly to his son, James. Australian born, Murdoch inherited two Adelaide newspapers at age 22 after his father’s sudden death. The Murdoch empire includes 120 newspapers in at least five countries (including The Wall Street Journal), a massive cable network comprised of the Fox channels in the U.S. and across Europe, Latin America, Africa, and Asia, one of the largest movie studios with 21st Century Fox, book publishing powerhouse HarperCollins, and a broadcasting and satellite TV arm.

Rupert Murdoch Biography

Publisher (1931–)
Media magnate Rupert Murdoch is the founder and head of News Corporation, a global media conglomerate. He created FOX Broadcasting Company in 1986.

Synopsis

Rupert Murdoch was born on March 11, 1931, in Melbourne, Australia. His father was a famous war correspondent and newspaper publisher. Murdoch inherited his father’s papers, the Sunday Mail and the News, and continued to purchase other media outlets over the years. In the 1970s, he started buying American newspapers. Murdoch branched out into entertainment with the purchase of 20th Century Fox Film Corp. in 1985. He later launched his own cable news channel, FOX News.

Early Life and Career

Keith Rupert Murdoch was born on March 11, 1931, on a small farm about 30 miles south of Melbourne, Australia. Since birth, Murdoch has gone by his middle name, Rupert, the name of his maternal grandfather. His father, Keith Murdoch, was a well-known Australian journalist who owned a number of local and regional newspapers: the Herald in Melbourne, the Courier-Mail in Brisbane, and the News and Sunday Mail.

The family farm was named Cruden Farm, after the Scottish village from which both of Murdoch’s parents had emigrated. The house at Cruden Farm was a stone building with colonial pillars, adorned with original paintings, a grand piano and a library of books, situated amongst green expanses of farmland and bordered by Ghost Gum trees. Murdoch’s favorite childhood pastime was horseback riding. His mother later described her son’s childhood: “I think it was a very normal childhood, not in any way elaborate or an overindulged one. I suppose he was lucky to be brought up in attractive—you could say aesthetic—surroundings.”

The son of a well-respected journalist, Murdoch was groomed to enter the world of publishing from a very young age. He remembers, “I was brought up in a publishing home, a newspaper man’s home, and was excited by that, I suppose. I saw that life at close range, and after the age of ten or twelve never really considered any other.” Murdoch graduated from Geelong Grammar, a prestigious Australian boarding school, in 1949 before crossing the ocean to attend Worcester College at Oxford University in England. According to one of his early biographers, Murdoch was a “a normal, red-blooded college student who had many friends, chased girls, went on the usual drinking binges, engaged in slapdash horseplay, tried at sports and never had enough money, no doubt due to his gambling.” Murdoch’s fun-loving youthful ways came to an abrupt end when his father suddenly passed away in 1952, leaving his son the owner of his Adelaide newspapers, theNews and the Sunday Mail. After preparing himself with a brief apprenticeship under Lord Beaverbrook at the Daily Express in London, in 1953, a 22-year-old Murdoch returned to Australia to take up the reins of his father’s papers.

Media Mogul

Immediately upon assuming control of the Sunday Mail and the News, Murdoch immersed himself in all aspects of the papers’ daily operations. He wrote headlines, redesigned page layouts and labored in the typesetting and printing rooms. He quickly converted the News into a chronicle of crime, sex and scandal, and while these changes were controversial, the paper’s circulation soared. Only three years later, in 1956, Murdoch expanded his operations by purchasing the Perth-based Sunday Times, and revamped it in the sensationalist style of the News. Then, in 1960, Murdoch broke into the lucrative Sydney market by purchasing the struggling afternoon daily, theMirror, and slowly transforming it into Sydney’s best-selling afternoon paper. Encouraged by his success and harboring ambitions of political influence, in 1965 Murdoch founded Australia’s first national daily paper, the Australian, which helped to rebuild Murdoch’s image as a respectable news publisher.

In the fall of 1968, 37 years old and owner of an Australian news empire valued at $50 million, Murdoch moved to London and purchased the enormously popular Sunday tabloid, The News of the World. One year later, he purchased a struggling daily tabloid, the Sun, once again transformed the paper into a wild success with his formula of reporting heavily on sex, sports and crime. The Sun also attracted readers by including pictures of topless women in its infamous “Page 3” feature.

Murdoch next expanded his news empire to the United States, with the 1973 acquisition of a Texas-based tabloid, the San Antonio News. As he had done in Australia and England, Murdoch quickly set out to expand across the country, founding a national tabloid, the Star, in 1974 and purchasing theNew York Post in 1976. In 1979, Murdoch founded News Corporation, commonly referred to as News Corp., as a holding company for his various media properties.

Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, Murdoch acquired news outlets around the globe at a dizzying pace. In the United States, he bought up the Chicago Sun-Times, the Village Voice and New York magazine. In England, he acquired the eminently respectable Times and Sunday Times of London.

It was also during these years that Murdoch began expanding his media empire into television and entertainment. In 1985, he purchased 20th Century FOX Film Corporation as well as several independent television stations and consolidated these companies into FOX, Inc.—which has since become a major American television network. In 1990, he founded STAR TV, a Hong Kong-based television broadcasting company that broadcasts to over 320 million viewers across Asia. Throughout the late 1980s, he purchased several prestigious American and British academic and literary publishing companies and consolidated them into HarperCollins in 1990. Murdoch has also invested in sports; he is a part owner of the Los Angeles Kings NHL franchise, the Los Angeles Lakers NBA franchise and the Staples Center, as well as FOX Sports Radio and FOXSports.com.

Later Career

With the dawn of the new century, Murdoch continued to expand News Corp’s holdings to control more and more of the media people view on a daily basis. In 2005, he purchased Intermix Media, the owner of the popular social networking site MySpace.com. Two years later, in 2007, the longtime newspaper mogul made headlines himself with the purchase of Dow Jones, the owner of the Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch has drawn wide criticism for monopolizing control over international media outlets as well as for his conservative political views, which are often reflected in the reporting of Murdoch-controlled outlets such as FOX News Channel. In the 2010 American midterm elections, News Corp donated $1 million each to the Republican Governors Association and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a group supporting Republican candidates. Critics argued that the owner of major news sources covering the election should not contribute directly to the political campaigns involved.

His empire, however, was dealt a significant blow in 2011. His London tabloid, The News of the World, was caught up in a phone hacking scandal. Several editors and journalists were brought up on charges for illegally accessing the voicemails of some of Britain’s leading figures. Rupert himself was called to testify that same year, and he shut down The News of the World. News Corp later paid damages to some of individuals who were hacked.

Despite this scandal, News Corp retains a significant share of virtually all forms of media across the globe. Murdoch owns many of the books and newspapers people read, the television shows and films they watch, the radio stations they listen to, the websites they visit, and the blogs and social networks they create. In 2013, he announced a significant restructuring of his empire. Murdoch decided to divide his business into two companies—21st Century Fox Inc. and News Corp. This move separated his entertainment holdings from his publishing interests. According to the Los Angeles Times, Murdoch explained that “Both companies will be uniquely positioned to execute on their respective strategic objectives and to lead their industries forward.”

Although he could never have imagined the power he would one day yield, this kind of influence was exactly what Murdoch sought as a young publisher building his empire. “I sensed the excitement and the power,” he recalls. “Not raw power, but the ability to influence at least the agenda of what was going on.” And after six decades working in the media, Murdoch has said that he could not imagine his life any other way. “If you’re in the media, particularly newspapers, you are in the thick of all the interesting things that are going on in a community, and I can’t imagine any other life that one would want to dedicate oneself to,” he said.

In June 2015, news broke that Murdoch would be handing over the leadership of 21st Century Fox to his son James. James would become the company’s chief executive while Murdoch would stay on in the organization as the executive co-chairman. Murdoch would share this position with his oldest son Lachlan. The company’s board must approve this plan before it can be implemented.

Personal Life

Rupert Murdoch married Patricia Booker in 1956. They had a daughter, Prudence, before divorcing in 1965. He married Anna Torv in 1967, and they had four children before eventually divorcing in 1999. Only 17 days after his second divorce, Murdoch married his third wife, Wendi Deng. They have two children.

Murdoch filed for divorce from Deng in June 2013, citing that the “relationship between husband and wife had broken down irretrievably” in court papers. The news of the split came as a surprise to some, but there had some rumors of trouble in the marriage in recent years. The couple has a prenuptial agreement, but many have speculated that there may still be a battle for his billions.

Fact Check

We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you see something that doesn’t look right, contact us!

Rupert Murdoch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rupert Murdoch
Rupert Murdoch - Flickr - Eva Rinaldi Celebrity and Live Music Photographer.jpg
Murdoch at Les Misérables premiere in Sydney, on 21 December 2012

BornKeith Rupert Murdoch
11 March 1931 (age 84)
Melbourne, AustraliaNationalityAmericanCitizenshipUnited States (naturalized 1985)[a]Alma materWorcester College, OxfordOccupationChairman and CEO of News Corporation (1979–2013)
Executive chairman of News Corp (2013–present)
Chairman and CEO of 21st Century Fox (2013–2015)
Executive co-chairman of 21st Century Fox (2015–present)Net worthDecrease US$13.4 billion (June 2015)[1]Political partyConservative
Republican
Liberal partyBoard member ofNews Corp
21st Century FoxReligionChristian[2][3]Spouse(s)Patricia Booker
(1956–1967, 1 child)
Anna Murdoch Mann
(1967–1999, 3 children)
Wendi Deng
(1999–2013, 2 children)[4]ChildrenPrudence (b. 1958)[5]
Elisabeth (b. 1968)[5]
Lachlan (b. 1971)[5]
James (b. 1972)[5]
Grace (b. 2001)[6]
Chloe (b. 2003)[5]Parent(s)Keith Murdoch (1885–1952)
Elisabeth Joy (1909–2012)RelativesJanet Calvert-Jones (sister)
Anne Kantor (sister)
Helen Handbury (sister)
Matthew Freud (son-in-law)
Sarah Murdoch (daughter-in-law)AwardsCompanion of the Order of Australia (1984)[7]Notes

  1. Jump up^ Australian citizenship lost in 1985 (under S17 of Australian Citizenship Act 1948) with acquisition of US nationality.

Keith Rupert Murdoch /ˈmɜrdɒk/,[8] AC, KCSG (born 11 March 1931) is an Australian American business magnate. Murdoch became managing director of Australia’sNews Limited, inherited from his father Sir Keith Arthur Murdoch in 1952.[6][9] He is the founder, chairman and CEO of global media holding company News Corporation, the world’s second-largest media conglomerate, and its successors News Corp and 21st Century Fox after the conglomerate split on 28 June 2013.[10][11][12][13]

In the 1950s and ’60s, he acquired various newspapers in Australia and New Zealand, before expanding into the United Kingdom in 1969, taking over the News of the World followed closely by The Sun. He moved to New York City in 1974 to expand into the US market, but retained interests in Australia and Britain. In 1981, he boughtThe Times, his first British broadsheet, and became a naturalised US citizen in 1985 to satisfy the legal requirement for US television ownership.[9]

In 1986, keen to adopt newer electronic publishing technologies, he consolidated his UK printing operations in Wapping, causing bitter industrial disputes. His News Corporation acquired Twentieth Century Fox (1985), HarperCollins (1989)[14] and The Wall Street Journal (2007). He formed the British broadcaster BSkyB in 1990, and during the 1990s expanded into Asian networks and South American television. By 2000, Murdoch’s News Corporation owned over 800 companies in more than 50 countries with a net worth of over $5 billion.

In July 2011, Murdoch faced allegations that his companies, including the News of the World, owned by News Corporation, had been regularly hacking the phones of celebrities, royalty and public citizens. He faces police and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British government and FBI investigations in the US.[15][16] On 21 July 2012, Murdoch resigned as a director of News International.[17][18] On July 1, 2015, Murdoch left his post as CEO of 21st Century Fox.[19]

Early life

Murdoch was born Keith Rupert Murdoch on 11 March 1931 in Melbourne, Australia to Sir Keith Murdoch (1885–1952) and Elisabeth Joy Greene (1909–2012), daughter of Rupert Greene. Rupert is of English, Irish, and Scottish ancestry. His parents were also born in Melbourne. Keith Murdoch was a war correspondent and later a regional newspaper magnate owning two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town.[9] Later in life, Keith Rupert chose to use Rupert, the first name of his maternal grandfather.

Keith Murdoch the elder asked for a rendezvous with his future wife after seeing her debutante photograph in one of his own newspapers and they married in 1928, when she was aged 19 and he 23 years her senior.[20] In addition to Rupert, the couple had three daughters: Janet Calvert-Jones, Anne Kantor and Helen Handbury (1929–2004). Murdoch attended Geelong Grammar School,[21] where he had his first experience of editing a publication, being co-editor of the school’s official journal The Corian and editor of the student journal If Revived.[22][23] He also took his school’s cricket team to the National Junior Finals. He worked part-time at the Melbourne Heraldand was groomed by his father from an early age to take over the family business.[6][9] Murdoch read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Worcester College, Oxford in England, where he supported the Labour Party[6] and managed Oxford Student Publications Limited, the publishing house of Cherwell.[24] After her husband’s death from cancer in 1952, Elisabeth Murdoch went on to invest herself in charity work, as life governor of the Royal Women’s Hospital in Melbourne and establishing the Murdoch Children’s Research Institute. At 102 (in 2011), she had 74 descendants.[20] Murdoch completed an MA before working as a sub-editor with the Daily Express for two years.[9]

Activities in Australia and New Zealand

Journalist Sir Keith Murdoch (1885–1952), Rupert Murdoch’s father

Following his father’s death, when he was 21, Murdoch returned from Oxford to take charge of the family business News Limited, which had been established in 1923. Rupert Murdoch turned its newspaper, Adelaide News, its main asset, into a major success.[6] He began to direct his attention to acquisition and expansion, buying the troubled Sunday Times in Perth, Western Australia (1956) and over the next few years acquiring suburban and provincial newspapers in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria and the Northern Territory, including the Sydney afternoon tabloid, The Daily Mirror (1960). The Economist describes Murdoch as “inventing the modern tabloid”,[25] as he developed a pattern for his newspapers, increasing sports and scandal coverage and adopting eye-catching headlines.[9]

Murdoch’s first foray outside Australia involved the purchase of a controlling interest in the New Zealand daily The Dominion. In January 1964, while touring New Zealand with friends in a rented Morris Minor after sailing across the Tasman, Murdoch read of a takeover bid for the Wellington paper by the British-based Canadian newspaper magnate, Lord Thomson of Fleet. On the spur of the moment, he launched a counter-bid. A four-way battle for control ensued in which the 32-year-old Murdoch was ultimately successful.[26] Later in 1964, Murdoch launched The Australian, Australia’s first national daily newspaper, which was based first in Canberra and later in Sydney.[27] In 1972, Murdoch acquired the Sydney morning tabloid The Daily Telegraph from Australian media mogul Sir Frank Packer, who later regretted selling it to him.[28] In 1984, Murdoch was appointed Companion of the Order of Australia (AC) for services to publishing.[29]

In 1999, Murdoch significantly expanded his music holdings in Australia by acquiring the controlling share in a leading Australian independent label, Michael Gudinski‘s Mushroom Records; he merged that with Festival Records, and the result was Festival Mushroom Records (FMR). Both Festival and FMR were managed by Murdoch’s son James Murdoch for several years.[30]

Political activities in Australia

Murdoch found a political ally in John McEwen, leader of the Australian Country Party (now known as the National Party of Australia), who was governing in coalition with the larger Menzies-Holt Liberal Party. From the very first issue of The Australian Murdoch began taking McEwen’s side in every issue that divided the long-serving coalition partners. (The Australian, 15 July 1964, first edition, front page: “Strain in Cabinet, Liberal-CP row flares.”) It was an issue that threatened to split the coalition government and open the way for the stronger Australian Labor Party to dominate Australian politics. It was the beginning of a long campaign that served McEwen well.[31]

After McEwen and Menzies retired, Murdoch threw his growing power behind the Australian Labor Party under the leadership of Gough Whitlam and duly saw it elected[32] on a social platform that included universal free health care, free education for all Australians to tertiary level, recognition of the People’s Republic of China, and public ownership of Australia’s oil, gas and mineral resources. Rupert Murdoch’s backing of Whitlam turned out to be brief. Murdoch had already started his short-lived National Star[31] newspaper in America, and was seeking to strengthen his political contacts there.[33]

Asked about the Australian federal election, 2007 at News Corporation’s annual general meeting in New York on 19 October 2007, its chairman Rupert Murdoch said, “I am not commenting on anything to do withAustralian politics. I’m sorry. I always get into trouble when I do that.” Pressed as to whether he believed Prime Minister John Howard should continue as prime minister, he said: “I have nothing further to say. I’m sorry. Read our editorials in the papers. It’ll be the journalists who decide that – the editors.”[34] In 2009, in response to accusations by Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd that News Limited was running vendettas against him and his government, Murdoch opined that Rudd was “oversensitive”.[35] Murdoch described Howard’s successor, Labor Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as “…more ambitious to lead the world [in tackling climate change] than to lead Australia…” and criticised Rudd’s expansionary fiscal policies in the wake of the financial crisis of 2008 as unnecessary.[36] Although News Limited’s interests are extensive, also including the Daily Telegraph, the Courier-Mail and the Adelaide Advertiser, it was suggested by the commentator Mungo MacCallum in The Monthly that “the anti-Rudd push, if coordinated at all, was almost certainly locally driven” as opposed to being directed by Murdoch, who also took a different position from local editors on such matters as climate change and stimulus packages to combat the financial crisis.[37]

Activities in the United Kingdom

Business activities in the United Kingdom

Rupert Murdoch – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, in 2007

In 1968 Murdoch entered the British newspaper market with his acquisition of the populist News of the World, followed in 1969 with the purchase of the struggling daily broadsheet The Sun from IPC.[38] Murdoch turned The Sun into a tabloid format and reduced costs by using the same printing press for both newspapers. On acquiring it, he appointed Albert ‘Larry’ Lamb as editor and – Lamb recalled later – told him: “I want a tearaway paper with lots of tits in it”. In 1997 The Sun attracted 10 million daily readers.[9] In 1981, Murdoch acquired the struggling Times and Sunday Times from Canadian newspaper publisher Lord Thomson of Fleet.[38] Ownership of The Times came to him through his relationship with Lord Thomson, who had grown tired of losing money on it as a result of much industrial action that stopped publication.[39] In the light of success and expansion at The Sun the owners believed that Murdoch could turn the papers around. Harold Evans, Editor of the Sunday Times from 1967, was made head of the daily Times, though he stayed only a year amid editorial conflict with Murdoch.[40][41]

During the 1980s and early 1990s, Murdoch’s publications were generally supportive of Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.[42] At the end of the Thatcher/Major era, Murdoch switched his support to the Labour Party and its leader, Tony Blair. The closeness of his relationship with Blair and their secret meetings to discuss national policies was to become a political issue in Britain.[43] This later changed, with The Sun, in its English editions, publicly renouncing the ruling Labour government and lending its support to David Cameron‘sConservative Party, which soon afterwards formed a coalition government. In Scotland, where the Tories had yet to recover from their complete annihilation in 1997, the paper began to endorse the Scottish National Party (though not yet its flagship policy of independence), which soon after came to form the first ever outright majority in the proportionally elected Scottish Parliament. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s official spokesman said in November 2009 that Brown and Murdoch “were in regular communication” and that “there is nothing unusual in the prime minister talking to Rupert Murdoch”.[44]

In 1986, Murdoch introduced electronic production processes to his newspapers in Australia, Britain and the United States. The greater degree of automation led to significant reductions in the number of employees involved in the printing process. In England, the move roused the anger of the print unions, resulting in a long and often violent dispute that played out in Wapping, one of London’s docklands areas, where Murdoch had installed the very latest electronic newspaper purpose-built publishing facility in an old warehouse.[45] The bitter dispute at Wapping started with the dismissal of 6,000 employees who had gone on strike and resulted in street battles and demonstrations. Many on the political left in Britain alleged the collusion of Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative government with Murdoch in the Wapping affair, as a way of damaging the British trade union movement.[46][47][48] In 1987, the dismissed workers accepted a settlement of £60 million.[9]

Murdoch’s British-based satellite network, Sky Television, incurred massive losses in its early years of operation. As with many of his other business interests, Sky was heavily subsidised by the profits generated by his other holdings, but convinced rival satellite operator British Satellite Broadcasting to accept a merger on his terms in 1990.[9] They were quick to see the advantages of direct to home (DTH) satellite broadcasting that did not require costly cable networks and the merged company, BSkyB, has dominated the British pay-TV market ever since.[49] By 1996, BSkyB had more than 3.6 million subscribers, triple the number of cable customers in the UK.[9] British financier Lord Jacob Rothschild, a close Murdoch friend since the 1960s, served as deputy chairman of Murdoch’s BSkyB corporation from 2003–2007, and Murdoch jointly invested with Rothschild in a 5.5 percent stake in Genie Oil and Gas, which conducted shale gas and oil exploration in Israel.[50]

In response to print media’s decline and the increasing influence of online journalism during the 2000s, Murdoch proclaimed his support of the micropayments model for obtaining revenue from on-line news,[51]although this has been criticised by some.[52]

News Corporation has subsidiaries in the Bahamas, the Cayman Islands, the Channel Islands and the Virgin Islands. From 1986, News Corporation’s annual tax bill averaged around seven percent of its profits.[53]

Political activities in United Kingdom

In Britain, in the 1980s, Murdoch formed a close alliance with Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher, and The Sun credited itself with helping her successor John Major to win an unexpected election victory in the 1992 general election, which had been expected to end in a hung parliament or a narrow win for Neil Kinnock‘s Labour.[54] In the general elections of 1997, 2001 and 2005, Murdoch’s papers were either neutral or supported Labour under Tony Blair.[citation needed]

The Labour Party, from when Tony Blair became leader in 1994, had moved from the Left to a more central position on many economic issues prior to 1997. Murdoch identifies himself as a libertarian, saying “What does libertarian mean? As much individual responsibility as possible, as little government as possible, as few rules as possible. But I’m not saying it should be taken to the absolute limit.”[55]

In a 2005 speech delivered in New York, Murdoch said that Blair described the BBC coverage of the Hurricane Katrina disaster as being full of hatred of America.[56]

In 1998, Rupert Murdoch made an attempt to buy the football club Manchester United F.C.,[57] with an offer of £625 million, but this failed. It was the largest amount ever offered for a sports club. It was blocked by the United Kingdom’s Competition Commission, which stated that the acquisition would have “hurt competition in the broadcast industry and the quality of British football”.

On 28 June 2006 the BBC reported that Murdoch and News Corporation were considering backing new Conservative leader David Cameron at the next General Election – still up to four years away.[58] In a later interview in July 2006, when he was asked what he thought of the Conservative leader, Murdoch replied “Not much”.[59] In a 2009 blog, it was suggested that in the aftermath of the News of the World phone hacking scandal which is still ongoing in 2012 and might yet have Transatlantic implications[60] Murdoch and News Corporation might have decided to back Cameron.[61] Despite this, there had already been a convergence of interests between the two men over the muting of Britain’s communications regulator Ofcom.[62]

In 2006, Britain’s Independent newspaper reported that Murdoch would offer Tony Blair a senior role in his global media company News Corporation when the prime minister stood down from office.[63]

He is accused by former Solidarity MSP Tommy Sheridan of having a personal vendetta against him and of conspiring with MI5 to produce a video of him confessing to having affairs – allegations over which Sheridan had previously sued News International and won.[64] On being arrested for perjury following the case, Sheridan claimed that the charges were “orchestrated and influenced by the powerful reach of the Murdoch empire”.[65]

In August 2008, British Conservative leader and future Prime Minister David Cameron accepted free flights to hold private talks and attend private parties with Murdoch on his yacht, the Rosehearty.[66] Cameron has declared in the Commons register of interests he accepted a private plane provided by Murdoch’s son-in-law, public relations guru Matthew Freud; Cameron has not revealed his talks with Murdoch. The gift of travel in Freud’s Gulfstream IV private jet was valued at around £30,000. Other guests attending the “social events” included the then EU trade commissioner Lord Mandelson, the Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska and co-chairman of NBC Universal Ben Silverman. The Conservatives have not disclosed what was discussed.[67]

In July 2011, it emerged that Cameron met key executives of Murdoch’s News Corporation 26 times during the 14 months that Cameron had served as Prime Minister.[68] It was also reported that Murdoch had given Cameron a personal guarantee that there would be no risk attached to hiring Andy Coulson, the former editor of News of the World, as the Conservative Party’s communication director in 2007.[69] This was in spite of Coulson having resigned as editor over phone hacking by a reporter. Cameron chose to take Murdoch’s advice, despite warnings from Nick Clegg, Lord Ashdown and The Guardian.[70] Coulson resigned his post in 2011 and was later arrested and questioned on allegations of further criminal activity at The News of the World, specifically the News International phone hacking scandal. As a result of the subsequent trial, Coulson was sentenced to 18 months in jail.[71]

News International phone hacking scandal

In July 2011 Rupert Murdoch, along with his son James, provided testimony before a British parliamentary committee regarding phone hacking. In the U.K., his media empire remains under fire as investigators continue to probe reports of other phone hacking.[72]

On 14 July, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee of the House of Commons served a summons on Murdoch, his son James, and his former CEO Rebekah Brooks to testify before a committee on 19 July.[73] After an initial refusal, the Murdochs confirmed they would attend after the committee issued them a summons to Parliament.[74] The day before the committee, the website of the News Corporation publication The Sunwas hacked, and a false story was posted on the front page claiming that Murdoch had died.[75] Murdoch described the day of the committee “the most humble day of my life”. He argued that since he ran a global business of 53,000 employees and that the News of the World was “just 1%” of this, he was not ultimately responsible for what went on at the tabloid. He added that he had not considered resigning,[76] and that he and the other top executives had been completely unaware of the hacking.[77][78]

On 15 July, Murdoch attended a private meeting in London with the family of Milly Dowler, where he personally apologized for the hacking of their murdered daughter’s voicemail by a company he owns.[79][80] On 16 and 17 July, News International published two full-page apologies in many of Britain’s national newspapers. The first apology took the form of a letter, signed by Rupert Murdoch, in which he said sorry for the “serious wrongdoing” that occurred. The second was titled “Putting right what’s gone wrong”, and gave more detail about the steps News International was taking to address the public’s concerns.[80] In the wake of the allegations Murdoch accepted the resignations of Rebekah Brooks, head of Murdoch’s British operations, and Les Hinton, head of Dow Jones who was chairman of Murdoch’s British newspaper division when some of the abuses happened. They both deny any knowledge of any wrongdoing under their command.[81]

On 27 February 2012, the following day after Murdoch’s controversial release of the Sun on Sunday, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Sue Akers informed the Leveson Inquiry that police are investigating a “network of corrupt officials” as part of their inquiries into phone hacking and police corruption. She said that evidence suggested a “culture of illegal payments” at the Sun newspaper and that these payments allegedly made by the Sun were authorised at a senior level.[82]

In testimony on 25 April 2012, Murdoch did not deny the quote attributed to him by his former editor of The Sunday Times, Harold Evans: “I give instructions to my editors all round the world, why shouldn’t I in London?”[83][84] On 1 May 2012, the Culture, Media and Sport Committee issued a report stating that Murdoch was “not a fit person to exercise the stewardship of a major international company”.[85][86]

On 3 July 2013 Exaro and Channel 4 news broke the story of a secretly recorded tape. The tape was recorded by Sun journalists and in it Murdoch can be heard telling them that the whole investigation was one big fuss over nothing, and that he, or his successors, would take care of any journalists who went to prison.[87] He said: “Why are the police behaving in this way? It’s the biggest inquiry ever, over next to nothing.”[88]

Activities in the United States

Murdoch made his first acquisition in the United States in 1973, when he purchased the San Antonio Express-News. Soon afterwards, he founded Star, a supermarket tabloid, and in 1976, he purchased the New York Post.[9] On 4 September 1985, Murdoch became a naturalized citizen to satisfy the legal requirement that only US citizens were permitted to own US television stations. This resulted in Murdoch losing his Australian citizenship.[89][90]

Marvin Davis sold Marc Rich‘s interest in 20th Century Fox to Murdoch for $250 million in March 1984. Davis later backed out of a deal with Murdoch to purchase John Kluge‘s Metromedia television stations.[91]Murdoch went alone and bought the stations, and later bought out Davis’ remaining stake in Fox for $325 million.[91] The six television stations owned by Metromedia would form the nucleus of the Fox Broadcasting Company, founded on 9 October 1986, which would go on to have great success with programmes such as The Simpsons and The X-Files.[9]

In 1987 in Australia, he bought The Herald and Weekly Times Ltd, the company that his father had once managed. By 1990 News Corporation had built up debts of $7 billion (much from Sky TV in the UK).[9] forcing Murdoch to sell many of the American magazine interests he had acquired in the mid-1980s. In 1993, it took exclusive coverage of the National Football League (NFL) from CBS and increased programming to seven days a week.[92] In 1995, Murdoch’s Fox Network became the object of scrutiny from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), when it was alleged that News Ltd.’s Australian base made Murdoch’s ownership of Fox illegal. However, the FCC ruled in Murdoch’s favour, stating that his ownership of Fox was in the best interests of the public. That same year, Murdoch announced a deal with MCI Communicationsto develop a major news website and magazine, The Weekly Standard. Also that year, News Corporation launched the Foxtel pay television network in Australia in partnership with Telstra. In 1996, Murdoch decided to enter the cable news market with the Fox News Channel, a 24-hour cable news station. Ratings studies released in 2009 showed that the network was responsible for nine of the top ten programs in the “Cable News” category at that time.[93] Rupert Murdoch and Ted Turner (founder and former owner of CNN) are long-standing rivals.[94] In late 2003, Murdoch acquired a 34 percent stake in Hughes Electronics, the operator of the largest American satellite TV system, DirecTV, from General Motors for $6 billion (USD).[29] His Fox movie studio would go on to have global hits with Titanic and Avatar.[95]

In 2004, Murdoch announced that he was moving News Corporation headquarters from Adelaide, Australia to the United States. Choosing a US domicile was designed to ensure that American fund managers could purchase shares in the company, since many were deciding not to buy shares in non-US companies.[citation needed]

News Corporation logo

On 20 July 2005, News Corporation bought Intermix Media Inc., which held Myspace, Imagine Games Network and other social networking-themed websites, for $580 million USD, making Murdoch a major player in online media concerns.[96] In June 2011, it sold off Myspace for US$35 million.[97] On 11 September 2005, News Corporation announced that it would buy IGN Entertainment for $650 million (USD).[98]

In May 2007, Murdoch made a $5 billion offer to purchase Dow Jones. At the time, the Bancroft family, who had owned the Dow Jones for 105 years and controlled 64% of the shares at the time, declined the offer. Later, the Bancroft family confirmed a willingness to consider a sale. Besides Murdoch, the Associated Press reported that supermarket magnate Ron Burkle and Internet entrepreneur Brad Greenspan were among the other interested parties.[99] In 2007, Murdoch acquired Dow Jones,[100][101] which gave him such publications as The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s Magazine, the Far Eastern Economic Review (based in Hong Kong) and SmartMoney.[102]

In June 2014, Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox made a bid for Time Warner at $85 per share in stock and cash ($80 billion total) which Time Warner’s board of directors turned down in July. Warner’s CNN unit would have been sold to ease antitrust issues of the purchase.[103] On 5 August 2014 the company announced it had withdrawn its offer for Time Warner, and said it would spend $6 billion buying back its own shares over the following 12 months.[104]

Political activities in the United States

McNight (2010) identifies four characteristics of his media operations: free market ideology; unified positions on matters of public policy; global editorial meetings; and opposition to a liberal bias in other public media.[105]

On 8 May 2006, the Financial Times reported that Murdoch would be hosting a fund-raiser for Senator Hillary Clinton‘s (D-New York) Senate re-election campaign.[106] In a 2008 interview with Walt Mossberg, Murdoch was asked whether he had “anything to do with the New York Posts endorsement of Barack Obama in the democratic primaries.” Without hesitating, Murdoch replied, “Yeah. He is a rock star. It’s fantastic. I love what he is saying about education. I don’t think he will win Florida… but he will win in Ohio and the election. I am anxious to meet him. I want to see if he will walk the walk.”[107][108] Murdoch is a strong supporter of Israel and its domestic policies.[109]

In 2010, News Corporation gave $1 million to the Republican Governors Association and $1 million to the conservative U.S. Chamber of Commerce.[110][111][112] Murdoch also served on the board of directors of thelibertarian Cato Institute.[113] He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.[114] Murdoch is also a supporter of the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act.[115]

Murdoch is a supporter of more open immigration policies in western nations generally.[116] In the United States, Murdoch and chief executives from several major corporations, including Hewlett-Packard, Boeing andDisney joined New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to form the Partnership for a New American Economy to advocate “for immigration reform – including a path to legal status for all illegal aliens now in the United States.”[117] The coalition, reflecting Murdoch and Bloomberg’s own views, also advocates significant increases in legal immigration to the United States as a means of boosting America’s sluggish economy and lowering unemployment. The Partnership’s immigration policy prescriptions are notably similar to those of the Cato Institute and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—both of which Murdoch has supported in the past.[118]

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has similarly advocated for increased legal immigration, in contrast to the staunch anti-immigration stance of Murdoch’s British newspaper, The Sun.[119] On 5 September 2010, Murdoch testified before the House Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law Membership on the “Role of Immigration in Strengthening America’s Economy.” In his testimony, Murdoch called for ending mass deportations and endorsed a “comprehensive immigration reform” plan that would include a pathway to citizenship for all illegal immigrants.[117]

In the 2012 U.S. Presidential election, Murdoch was critical of the competence of Mitt Romney‘s team but was nonetheless strongly supportive of a Republican victory, tweeting: “Of course I want him [Romney] to win, save us from socialism, etc.”[120]

In May 2013, Murdoch purchased the Moraga Estate, an estate, vineyard and winery in Bel Air, Los Angeles, California.[121][122]

Activities in Europe

Murdoch owns controlling interest in Sky Italia, a satellite television provider in Italy.[123] Murdoch’s business interests in Italy have been a source of contention since they began.[123] In 2010 Murdoch won a media dispute with then Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. A judge ruled the then Prime Minister’s media arm Mediaset prevented News Corporation’s Italian unit, Sky Italia, from buying advertisements on its television networks.[124]

Activities in Asia

In 1993, Murdoch acquired Star TV, a Hong Kong company founded by Richard Li[125] for $1 billion (Souchou, 2000:28), and subsequently set up offices for it throughout Asia. The deal enables News International to broadcast from Hong Kong to India, China, Japan and over thirty other countries in Asia, becoming one of the biggest satellite TV networks in the east.[9] However, the deal did not work out as Murdoch had planned, because the Chinese government placed restrictions on it that prevented it from reaching most of China.

Personal life

Marriage

Murdoch with his third wife, Wendi, in 2011

In 1956 Murdoch married Patricia Booker, a former shop assistant and flight attendant from Melbourne and they had their only child, Prudence, in 1958.[126][127] Rupert and Patricia Murdoch divorced in 1967.[5]

In 1967 Murdoch married Anna Maria Torv (Tõrv),[126] a Scottish-born cadet journalist working for his Sydney newspaper The Daily Telegraph.[5] During his marriage to Torv, a Roman Catholic, Murdoch was made a Knight Commander of the Order of Saint Gregory the Great (KSG), a papal honour awarded by Pope John Paul II.[128] Torv and Murdoch had three children: Elisabeth Murdoch (born in Sydney, Australia on 22 August 1968), Lachlan Murdoch (born in London, UK on 8 September 1971), and James Murdoch, (born in London on 13 December 1972).[126][127] Murdoch’s companies published two novels by his then wife: Family Business (1988) and Coming to Terms (1991), both widely regarded[129] as vanity publications. They divorced in June 1999. Anna Murdoch received a settlement of US$1.2 billion in assets.[130]

On 25 June 1999, 17 days after divorcing his second wife, Murdoch, then aged 68, married Chinese-born Wendi Deng.[131] She was 30, a recent Yale School of Managementgraduate, and a newly appointed vice-president of his STAR TV. Murdoch has two daughters with her; Grace (born 2001) and Chloe (born 2003). Rupert Murdoch has six children in all, and is grandfather to thirteen grandchildren.[132] On 13 June 2013, a News Corporation spokesperson confirmed that Murdoch filed for divorce from Deng in New York City, U.S.[133] According to the spokesman, the marriage had been irretrievably broken for more than six months.[134] Murdoch also ended his long-standing relationship with Tony Blair after suspecting him of having an affair with Deng while they were still married.[135]

Children

Murdoch has six children.[136] His eldest child, Prudence MacLeod, was appointed on 28 January 2011 to the board of Times Newspapers Ltd, part of News International, which publishes The Times and The Sunday Times.[137] Murdoch’s eldest son Lachlan, formerly the deputy chief operating officer at the News Corporation and the publisher of the New York Post, was Murdoch’s heir apparent before resigning from his executive posts at the global media company at the end of July 2005.[136] Lachlan’s departure left James Murdoch chief executive of the satellite television service British Sky Broadcasting since November 2003, as the only Murdoch son still directly involved with the company’s operations, though Lachlan has agreed to remain on the News Corporation’s board.[138]

After graduating from Vassar College[139] and marrying classmate Elkin Kwesi Pianim (the son of Ghanaian financial and political mogul Kwame Pianim) in 1993,[139] Murdoch’s daughter Elisabeth, along with her husband, purchased a pair of NBC-affiliate television stations in California, KSBW and KSBY, with a $35 million loan provided by her father. By quickly re-organising and re-selling them at a $12 million profit in 1995, Elisabeth emerged as an unexpected rival to her brothers for the eventual leadership of the publishing dynasty’s empire. But after divorcing her first husband in 1998 and quarrelling publicly with her assigned mentorSam Chisholm at BSkyB, she struck out on her own as a television and film producer in London. She has since enjoyed independent success, in conjunction with her second husband, Matthew Freud, the great-grandson of Sigmund Freud (the founder of psychoanalysis) whom she met in 1997 and married in 2001.[139]

It is not known how long Murdoch will remain as News Corporation’s CEO. For a while the American cable television entrepreneur John Malone was the second-largest voting shareholder in News Corporation after Murdoch himself, potentially undermining the family’s control. In 2007, the company announced that it would sell certain assets and give cash to Malone’s company in exchange for its stock. In 2007, the company issued Murdoch’s older children voting stock.[citation needed]

Murdoch has two children with Wendi Deng: Grace (b. New York, 19 November 2001)[6] and Chloe (b. New York, 17 July 2003).[5][127] It was revealed in September 2011 that Tony Blair is Grace’s godfather.[140]There is reported to be tension between Murdoch and his oldest children over the terms of a trust holding the family’s 28.5 percent stake in News Corporation, estimated in 2005 to be worth about $6.1 billion. Under the trust, his children by Wendi Deng share in the proceeds of the stock but have no voting privileges or control of the stock. Voting rights in the stock are divided 50/50 between Murdoch on the one side and his children of his first two marriages. Murdoch’s voting privileges are not transferable but will expire upon his death and the stock will then be controlled solely by his children from the prior marriages, although their half-siblings will continue to derive their share of income from it. It is Murdoch’s stated desire to have his children by Deng given a measure of control over the stock proportional to their financial interest in it (which would mean, if Murdoch dies while at least one of the children is a minor, that Deng would exercise that control). It does not appear that he has any strong legal grounds to contest the present arrangement, and both ex-wife Anna and their three children are said to be strongly resistant to any such change.[141]

Portrayal on television, in film, books and music

Murdoch and rival newspaper and publishing magnate Robert Maxwell are thinly fictionalised as “Keith Townsend” and “Richard Armstrong” in The Fourth Estate by British novelist and former MP Jeffrey Archer.[142]

Murdoch has been portrayed

It has been speculated that the character of Elliot Carver, the global media magnate and main villain in the 1997 James Bond movie Tomorrow Never Dies, is based on Murdoch. The writer of the film, Bruce Feirstein, has stated that Carver was actually inspired by British press magnate Robert Maxwell, who was one of Murdoch’s rivals.[145]

In the 1997 film Fierce Creatures, the head of Octopus Inc. Rod McCain (initials R.M.) character is likely modelled after Murdoch.[146]

In 1999, the Ted Turner owned TBS aired an original sitcom, The Chimp Channel. This featured an all-simian cast and the role of an Australian TV veteran named Harry Waller. The character is described as “a self-made gazillionaire with business interests in all sorts of fields. He owns newspapers, hotel chains, sports franchises and genetic technologies, as well as everyone’s favourite cable TV channel, The Chimp Channel.” Waller is thought to be a parody of Murdoch, a long-time rival of Turner’s.[147]

In 2004, the movie Outfoxed included many interviews accusing Fox News of pressuring reporters to report only one side of news stories, in order to influence viewers’ political opinions.[148]

In 2012, the satirical show Hacks, broadcast on UK-based Channel 4, made obvious comparisons with Rupert Murdoch using the fictional character ‘Stanhope Feast’, as well as other central figures in the phone hacking scandal.[149]

Influence, wealth and reputation

According to Forbes 2013 list of richest Americans, Murdoch is the 33rd richest person in the US and the 91st richest person in the world, with a net worth of US$13.4 billion.[1] In 2014, Forbes ranked “Rupert Murdoch & Family” as the 33rd most-powerful person in the world.[150]

In 2003 Murdoch bought a ‘Rosehearty’, 11 bedroom home on a 5-acre waterfront estate in Centre Island, New York.[151]

In August 2013, Terry Flew, Professor of Media and Communications at Queensland University of Technology, wrote an article for the Conversation publication in which he verified a claim by former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd that Murdoch owned 70% of Australian newspapers in 2011. Flew’s article showed that News Corp Australia owned 23% of the nation’s newspapers in 2011, according to the Finkelstein Review of Media and Media Regulation, but, at the time of the article, the corporation’s titles accounted for 59% of the sales of all daily newspapers, with weekly sales of 17.3 million copies.[152]

In connection with Murdoch’s testimony to the Leveson Inquiry “into the ethics of the British press”, editor of Newsweek International, Tunku Varadarajan, referred to him as “the man whose name is synonymous with unethical newspapers”.[153]

News Corp papers were accused of supporting the campaign of the Australian Liberal government and influencing public opinion during the 2013 federal election. Following the announcement of the Liberal Party victory at the polls, Murdoch tweeted “Aust. election public sick of public sector workers and phony welfare scroungers sucking life out of economy. Other nations to follow in time”.[154]

See also

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

 

Fox News boss Roger Ailes renews contract to remain CEO and chairman

Powerhouse executive signs multi-year contract a month after Rupert Murdoch passed reins of company to sons, which had put Ailes’s future at Fox in doubt

Roger Ailes – the powerhouse executive behind Fox News – has signed a new multi-year contract with 21st Century Fox that will see him continuing in his role as chairman and CEO of the channels. The move comes after it appeared Ailes was losing his grip on Fox.

Earlier this month media mogul Rupert Murdoch announced he would pass the reins of his TV, film and news empire to his sons James and Lachlan. Fox announced that Ailes, who has clashed with both sons, would now be reporting to Murdoch’s heirs.

Days earlier Fox Business had reported that Ailes would continue to report directly to Rupert Murdoch.

The company did not specify how long Ailes’s new contract would run but Murdoch and his sons gave the Fox boss a ringing endorsement. “Roger and I have always had, and will continue to have, a special relationship. Lachlan, James and I are delighted that Roger will be leading key businesses for us and our shareholders for years to come, and he has our unwavering support,” Rupert Murdoch said in a statement.

“Roger is an incredibly talented executive and we’re pleased he has accepted our offer to continue his extraordinary record of success at 21st Century Fox,” Lachlan and James Murdoch said in a joint statement. “We look forward to witnessing his energy and entrepreneurial drive in leading the next wave of growth for Fox News, Fox Business Network and Fox Television Stations, as well as many years of continued success together.”

The news is a major victory for Ailes whose relations with both sons has been strained at best. According to Ailes biographer Gabriel Sherman the Fox boss and James Murdoch have clashed over their views on the environment. Ailes is a hardcore rightwing climate change denier, James Murdoch has supported green causes and his wife once worked for the Clinton Foundation.

Lachlan Murdoch returned to Australia after a series of clashes with Ailes. According to Sherman’s biography, The Loudest Voice in the Room, Ailes bragged about moving into Lachlan’s vacant office. “Do you know whose chair I’m sitting in? I’m sitting in Lachlan Murdoch’s chair,” Ailes boasted to a colleague. “Do you know who’s sitting on the other side of that wall? Rupert Murdoch.”

Ailes’s contract was set to expire in 2016, the new deal will keep him at Fox through the presidential election and beyond. Under Ailes’s leadership Fox has been the highest-rated news channel in the US for 13 consecutive years.

The contract deal comes amid a series of top level changes in Murdoch’s empire. The billionaire businessman also announced on Thursday that Natalie Ravitz, Murdoch’s chief of staff and vice president of strategy, would be stepping down from her role and seeking “a leadership operating position.”

It is not yet clear whether Ravitz will stay with the company. Ravitz, previously a communications director with the New York City department of education, has looked after Murdoch’s personal affairs as well as business interests.

“I cannot say enough about the exceptional job Natalie has done for me, giving valued support across many functions. She is immensely talented and able, and has greatly benefited me and our companies. I am confident wherever Natalie chooses to go she will be an incredible asset and wish her all the best,” Murdoch wrote in a memo to staff.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/jun/25/roger-ailes-renews-fox-news-contract

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.

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

Obama’s Cadillac Tax Crashes and Burns Killing Obamacare and Injuring MIT Professor Gruber — Rest In Peace — Obamacare Is Shovel Ready — Videos

Posted on November 15, 2014. Filed under: American History, Biology, Blogroll, Books, Business, Chemistry, College, Communications, Constitution, Crisis, Demographics, Diasters, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Freedom, government, government spending, Health Care, history, IRS, Law, liberty, Life, Macroeconomics, media, Medical, Medicine, Microeconomics, Monetary Policy, Non-Fiction, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Regulations, Science, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxes, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

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

Pronk Pops Show 361: October 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 360: October 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 359: October 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 358: October 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 357: October 27, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 356: October 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 355: October 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 354: October 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 353: October 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 352: October 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 351: October 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 350: October 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 349: October 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 348: October 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 347: October 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 346: October 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014

Story 1: Obama’s Cadillac Tax Crashes and Burns Killing Obamacare and Injuring MIT Professor Gruber — Rest In Peace — Obamacare Is Shovel Ready — VideosObama-lyingking )bamaObamaCare-CadillacTaxPPACA-Sec-9001-cadillac-tax-2120701-10-obamacare21-new-taxes-under-Obamacareexcise-tax-140820Cadillac-Tax-penetrationtax_apple_piecorrected_pie_graph_verticalObamacare taxes 1obamacare-warning-lights-on-the-job-training-political-cartoon130402-obamacare-cartoon-cadillac_taxpink_cazdillacCadillacJonathan-Gruber

jonathan_gruberGruberobamacare_shovel_

ObamaCare a Trojan Horse for Single-Payer

Obama lies about “cadillac” plan taxation

36 Times Obama Said You Could Keep Your Health Care Plan | SuperCuts #18

ACA Architect Confession: Created Lies For Obama

Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans

What is the “cadillac tax?”

Obamacare’s Cadillac Tax Pushing People To Plans With High Deductible- Union You Got What You Wanted

Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans

The Five: Large Employers Cite ObamaCare “Cadillac” Tax In Reducing Benefits

SMOKING GUN! Gruber Admits Obama Was in Room During Planning of Cadillac Lie

GRUBER: “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”

GRUBER; Deceive Americans Critical to Pass Obamacare-Calls us ‘Stupid Americans’; Part 1 of 3

Gruber Remarks Puts Obama Administration on Scramble; Part 2 of 3

Jonathan Gruber: States Which Do Not Set Up an Exchange Do Not Get Tax Subsidies

BookTV: Jonathan Gruber, “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works”

Jonathan Gruber admits Obamacare is inherently unaffordable

Obamacare – Concerns “Cadillac Tax” Forcing Employers To Cut Back Health Plans

Krauthammer rips Jonathan Gruber: “We’re hearing the true voice of liberal arrogance”

Megyn Slams ObamaCare Architect Who Declined to Appear on ‘Kelly File’

Democrats Loved Jonathan Gruber Before They Forgot Who He Was

Sen. Harry Reid, 2009: Gruber Is One Of The ‘Most Respected Economists’ Out There

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) in a December 2009 floor speech on Capitol Hill lauded Jonathan Gruber as one of the most “respected economists in the world” as Reid cited facts defending the Senate’s Obamacare bill.

Nancy Pelosi In 2009: Americans Should Read Jonathan Gruber’s ObamaCare Analysis

Nancy Pelosi In 2009: Americans Should Read Jonathan Gruber’s ObamaCare Analysis (November 5, 2009)

AHEC 2013 Conference

As part of the 24th Annual Health Economics Conference hosted by PennLDI, Mark Pauly and Jonathan Gruber were featured in the Plenary Panel discussing the role of economics in shaping (and possibly reshaping) the ACA. See below for the conference agenda with links to working papers. See the full AHEC agenda: http://ldi.upenn.edu/ahec2013/agenda

Jonathan Gruber at Noblis – January 18, 2012

The Noblis Technology Tuesday speaker series covers a broad spectrum of political, technical and innovative ideas. Noblis is a nonprofit science, technology, and strategy organization that brings the best of scientific thought, management, and engineering expertise with a reputation for independence and objectivity. The opinions expressed in this video are those of the speaker and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of Noblis.

Jonathan Gruber spoke to a Noblis audience on January 18, 2012 Few experts know more about America’s dire need of health care reform than Gruber. And of that short list, he is the only one prepared to enter the pages of a comic book to make the case. To be clear: Gruber is not an expert; he is “the” expert. An award-winning MIT economist and the director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, he was a key architect of the ambitious health care reform effort in Massachusetts and is a member of the Health Connector Board now implementing it; in 2006 he was named by “Modern Healthcare” as the nineteenth most powerful person in health care in the United States. In 2008 he was a consultant to the Clinton, Edwards, and Obama presidential campaigns. The national legislation passed by Congress in 2009 derives directly from Gruber’s insights learned during the Massachusetts health care debate.

Honors Colloquium 2012 – Jonathan Gruber

Dr. Jonathan Gruber is a Professor of Economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he has taught since 1992. He is also the Director of the Health Care Program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a Research Associate. He is an Associate Editor of both the Journal of Public Economics and the Journal of Health Economics. In 2009 he was elected to the Executive Committee of the American Economic Association. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the National Academy of Social Insurance.

Dr. Gruber received his B.S. in Economics from MIT, and his Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University. Dr. Gruber’s research focuses on the areas of public finance and health economics. He has published more than 140 research articles, has edited six research volumes, and is the author of Public Finance and Public Policy, a leading undergraduate text, and Health Care Reform, a graphic novel. In 2006 he received the American Society of Health Economists Inaugural Medal for the best health economist in the nation aged 40 and under. During the 1997-1998 academic year, Dr. Gruber was on leave as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Policy at the Treasury Department. From 2003-2006 he was a key architect of Massachusetts’ ambitious health reform effort, and in 2006 became an inaugural member of the Health Connector Board, the main implementing body for that effort. In that year, he was named the 19th most powerful person in health care in the United States by Modern Healthcare Magazine.

BookTV: Jonathan Gruber, “Health Care Reform: What It Is, Why It’s Necessary, How It Works

Jonathan Gruber, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and director of the health care program at the National Bureau of Economic Research, presents his thoughts on health care. Mr. Gruber a leading architect of Massachusetts’ health care reform also consulted with Congress and President Obama on the creation of the Affordable Care Act, signed into law by the President in 2010.

Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber suddenly recast as bit player after uproar

Nancy Pelosi, fellow Democrats scramble to distance themselves from MIT professor, economist

For years, Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Jonathan Gruber was deemed an architect of Obamacare and his economic modeling was cited regularly by the health care law’s defenders on Capitol Hill and in legal briefs defending the Affordable Care Act in federal courts.

But after tapes surfaced of the economist saying “stupid” voters needed to be bamboozled and the books cooked to get the legislation passed in 2010, Democrats are scrambling to reduce Mr. Gruber to a bit player — and raising questions about whether he needs to be expunged from their defense strategy as they face yet another Supreme Court review.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, who as speaker in 2009 posted an Obamacare “myth buster” citing Mr. Gruber, vehemently distanced herself from him Thursday.


SEE ALSO: EDITORIAL: Jonathan Gruber’s payday


“I don’t who he is. He didn’t help write our bill,” she said, but added that Mr. Gruber’s comments were a year old and he had recanted them.

In the comments that have just come to light, Mr. Gruber said the health care bill was written in a “tortured” way to ensure the Congressional Budget Office didn’t score the individual mandate as a tax, even though the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately upheld the mandate as constitutional under Congress’ taxing power.

“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” Mr. Gruber said at the time. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical to get the thing to pass.”

Mr. Gruber said this week that he regretted the remarks. But House Speaker John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican, said Thursday that American voters are “anything but stupid” and oppose the health care system’s overhaul for valid reasons.

Mitch McConnell, the Kentucky Republican selected as the next Senate majority leader, said Mr. Gruber made a classic “Washington gaffe — when a politician mistakenly tells you what he really thinks.”

However, Mr. Gruber’s explanation in 2012 of how Obamacare’s subsidies should be paid put the Justice Department in a tough spot.

In legal briefs submitted last year to a federal district court in Virginia, Obama administration attorneys cited Mr. Gruber in a case defending their ability to pay subsidies to enrollees regardless of whether they are part of state-run or federally run health care exchanges.

“According to the calculations of one health care economist, without the minimum coverage provision and subsidized insurance coverage, premiums for single individuals would be double the amount anticipated under the ACA,” the Justice Department wrote in a legal brief last November, citing Mr. Gruber’s work in a footnote.

The Supreme Court decided this month to take up the case, King v. Burwell, after the challengers lost to the administration in the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Neither the Justice Department nor the White House responded to questions about Mr. Gruber — who declined to comment for this story — and his role in their legal strategy.

But Sam Kazman, general counsel for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is funding the administration’s opponents in the King case, said Mr. Gruber’s 2012 remarks about subsidies bolster their own arguments.

Mr. Gruber at the time said subsidies would flow only to states that set up their own exchanges.

“What’s important to remember politically about this is if you’re a state and you don’t set up an exchange, that means your citizens don’t get their tax credits — but your citizens still pay the taxes that support this bill,” the economist told an audience.

That would mean consumers in most states wouldn’t be eligible for subsidies, which would puncture a big hole in Obamacare. The Obama administration has argued that even though the law says subsidies go to state exchanges, they also should include states that have opted for the federal exchange.

Mr. Kazman said the Gruber comments create a major problem for Mr. Obama.

“He’s not toxic to us,” Mr. Kazman said in an interview Thursday. “We may give him an award for public service.”

In a parallel case before the D.C. Circuit, the administration tried to downplay Mr. Gruber in its latest court filings. On Nov. 3, the Justice Department said in a footnote that “post-enactment statements by a non-legislator are entitled to no weight.”

“In any event, Professor Gruber has since clarified that the remarks on which plaintiffs rely were mistaken,” the attorneys told the D.C. Circuit, which has suspended its proceedings until the Supreme Court weighs in.

In the King case, Obama administration attorneys who cited Mr. Gruber in briefs at the lower court dropped him from their arguments to the Supreme Court, said Michael A. Carvin, an attorney for the health care law’s opponents.

He wasn’t about to let the justices forget.

“Tellingly,” Mr. Carvin said in a reply brief, “the government also ignores that Jonathan Gruber — the ACA architect whose work it cited in every brief below but is nowhere mentioned now — articulated the incentive purpose of [subsidies] as early as 2012.”

Mr. Gruber has made hundreds of thousands of dollars off Obamacare, serving as a consultant to the Department of Health and Human Services and to states that used health care grant money to pay him for his services.

Timothy Jost, a law professor at Washington and Lee University who closely tracks the health care law, said the controversy has been overblown.

“This whole thing just puzzles me,” he said. “He wasn’t a legislator. He didn’t write the bill. He didn’t vote on the bill.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/13/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-architect-recast-as-bit-/

Transcending Obamacare: An Introduction To Patient-Centered, Consumer-Driven Health Reform

Today, the Manhattan Institute is publishing my 20,000-word, 68-page health reform proposal entitled “Transcending Obamacare: A Patient-Centered Plan for Near-Universal Coverage and Permanent Fiscal Solvency.” It represents a novel approach to health reform: neither accepting Obamacare as is, nor requiring the law’s repeal to move forward. And yet its ambition is to permanently solve our health care entitlement problem, while also expanding coverage for the uninsured.

As most Apothecary readers know, I’ve long been critical of Obamacare, the so-called Affordable Care Act. The law expands Medicaid, the worst health insurance program in the developed world. It significantly drives up the underlying cost of health insurance for those who shop for coverage on their own. And regardless of what John Roberts has to say about it, Obamacare’s individual mandate—forcing most Americans to buy government-certified health coverage—is an injury to the Constitution.

But I’ve also long supported the principle of universal coverage. Universal coverage, done right, is a core part of a conservative worldview that values equality of opportunity for the sick and the poor. If 10 of the 11 freest economies in the world can establish universal coverage, it’s not impossible for the United States to do so in a way that is consonant with economic freedom.

Switzerland and Singapore: Market-based health reform models

The most market-oriented health care systems in the developed world—those ofSwitzerland and Singapore—have much to teach us about how to achieve universal coverage in a way that spends far less than what the U.S. does. In 2012, U.S. government entities spent $4,160 per capita on health care. That’s more than twice as much as Switzerland, and nearly five times as much as Singapore.

OECD 2012 public expenditures

And that brings us right back to Obamacare. The vast majority of the law is misguided and misconceived. But a handful of its provisions can provide the basis of constructive health care reform: in particular, its use of Swiss-style means-tested tax credits to subsidize private health insurance premiums. Most importantly, those tax credits are applied to insurance plans that people shop for on their own, substantially expanding the market for individually purchased health coverage.

The Swiss system is far from perfect, as I have discussed on many occasions. But the basic idea in Switzerland is to offer premium subsidies to the people who really need them. In Switzerland, one-fifth of the population gets subsidized health coverage. In the U.S., around four-fifths do. That’s the difference between a safety net and an entitlement leviathan.

Conservative health reform after Obamacare

One of the fundamental flaws in the conservative approach to health care policy is that few—if any—Republican leaders have articulated a vision of what a market-oriented health care system would look like. Hence, Republican proposals on health reform have often been tactical and political—in opposition to whatever Democrats were pitching—instead of strategic and serious.

Those days must come to an end. The problems with our health care system are too great. Health care is too expensive for the government, and too expensive for average Americans.

In 2012, as the Romney campaign came to a close, Rich Lowry, the editor ofNational Review, asked me to write an article with my thoughts about the best path forward for conservative health care reform. I outlined a four-step plan to take the entire gamish of government health care programs and reform them into something consumer-driven and fiscally sustainable: (1) deregulate Obamacare’s insurance exchanges, including repeal of the individual mandate, while preserving guaranteed issue for individuals with pre-existing conditions; (2) migrate future retirees onto the reformed exchanges; (3) repeal Obamacare’s employer mandate; (4) migrate Medicaid acute-care and dual-eligible enrollees onto the exchanges.

“After these four relatively simple steps,” I wrote, “we would be left with a health-care system that would look a lot like Switzerland’s. Rises in premium subsidies could be held to a sustainable growth rate to ensure their long-term fiscal stability. And Americans might finally have the opportunity to purchase insurance for themselves, gain control of their own health-care dollars, and enjoy a wide range of low-cost, high-quality coverage options.”

A few months later, former Congressional Budget Office director Douglas Holtz-Eakin and I wrote a similar piece for Reuters, which elicited a broad range of responses from both the left and the right.

It became clear that I had to do more than write op-eds, that I had to develop this idea in detail, with credible fiscal and economic modeling.

Modeling market-based health reform

So, over the last 18 months, I’ve done just that. Stephen Parente, a health economist at the University of Minnesota, and his team modeled the fiscal and coverage impact of the bulk of my proposed set of reforms. (I then modeled the remainder, using analyses from the Congressional Budget Office, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, and the like.)

The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, where I am a Senior Fellow, raised money to fund Parente’s work on this project. Steve and his team and I went back and forth for months, refining and tweaking the proposal until it met five non-negotiable goals. The end result had to:

  1. Reduce the deficit without raising taxes
  2. Expand coverage meaningfully above ACA levels
  3. Repeal the individual mandate
  4. Reduce the cost of private health insurance
  5. Improve health outcomes for the poor

Based on our modeling, the plan, over a thirty-year period, reduces federal spending by $10.5 trillion and federal revenue by $2.5 trillion, for a net deficit reduction of $8 trillion. We project that it will expand coverage by more than 12 million individuals over its first decade, despite the fact that it repeals the individual mandate. It reduces the cost of private-sector insurance policies by 17 percent for single policies and 4 percent for family policies.

But the most dramatic improvement, we estimate, is in the Medicaid population. A group that today receives substandard care and substandard access to care will see a dramatic increase in provider access and health outcomes, based on Parente-developed indices that measure these things.

Breaking free of the repeal-or-reform debate

Importantly, while this plan is compatible with “repealing and replacing” Obamacare, it does not require the repeal of Obamacare. To achieve the former, you would repeal Obamacare and replace it with a universal system of state-based health insurance exchanges. To achieve the latter, you’d reform the pre-existing ACA exchanges, and gradually migrate future retirees and Medicaid enrollees onto the reformed exchanges.

In this way, perhaps the plan can attract interest from both the right and the center.

We’ll soon find out.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/08/13/transcending-obamacare-an-introduction-to-patient-centered-consumer-driven-health-reform/

Jonathan Gruber Embraced Misleading the Public About Obamacare Even While It Was Still Being Debated
Peter Suderman

In the week since video surfaced of Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber saying that “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American voter” were critical to passing the health law, two more videos of Gruber making statements with similar themes or tones have received attention.

Both clips reveal a gleefully dismissive attitude toward public concerns about the law, and offer a telling reminder of the attitude that played a crucial role in shaping and selling the law to the public.

In the first video, recorded in March of 2010, just a few days before the law would pass the House, Gruber argues that the public does not really care about the uninsured. What it cares about is cost control. Therefore, he says, the law had to be sold on the basis of its cost control.

Yet as Gruber admits in the video, the bill was not primarily focused on cost control—the bill “is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control.” Indeed, the problem with cost control, he says, is that “we don’t know how” to do it.

The primary quote. Via CNN:

“Barack Obama’s not a stupid man, okay?” Gruber said in his remarks at the College of the Holy Cross on March 11, 2010. “He knew when he was running for president that quite frankly the American public doesn’t actually care that much about the uninsured….What the American public cares about is costs. And that’s why even though the bill that they made is 90% health insurance coverage and 10% about cost control, all you ever hear people talk about is cost control. How it’s going to lower the cost of health care, that’s all they talk about. Why? Because that’s what people want to hear about because a majority of American care about health care costs.”

Elsewhere in the same speech, Gruber says:

“The only way we’re going to stop our country from being a latter day Roman Empire and falling under its own weight is getting control of the growth rate of health care costs. The problem is we don’t know how.”

Remember, this is what Gruber was saying as the law was still being debated. It didn’tpass in the House, the critical step before hitting President Obama’s desk, until more than a week later. And what Gruber was saying, even before the bill was law, was that supporters had intentionally emphasized parts of the bill that were relatively minor, and that were not certain to even produce their intended effects.

This is not lying, exactly; the bill did in fact include some attempts at cost control, although as Gruber said, it was unclear at the time if or how well they would work. And Gruber may well have been right that the public was more concerned with cost control than expanding coverage. But, especially in combination with the other video released this week, it indicates that Gruber believed that the law’s advocates were not being completely straight with the public, that supporters of Obamacare were telling the public what they believed the public wanted to hear instead of giving them the full story, and that they were doing so on the understanding that telling the full story would make the bill impossible to pass.

What it shows, in other words, is Gruber openly embracing a strategy of messaging manipulation and misleading emphasis even while the bill was still being debated. If the public understood the bill clearly, he believed, they would reject it. It was more important to pass the bill.

Another video, posted today by The Daily Signal, shows Gruber taking a similarly dismissive attitude toward public concerns about the bill.  At a meeting with the Vermont House Health Care Committee, Gruber is presented with a question about whether systems like those described in a report by Gruber and Harvard health economist William Hsiao, might result in “ballooning costs, increased taxes and bureaucratic outrages” as well “shabby facilities, disgruntled providers” and destructive price controls.

Gruber’s response begin with: “Was this written by my adolescent children by any chance?” The Signal quotes two-term Vermont state senator and Reagan-adviser John McClaughry as saying that the question had been submitted “by a former senior policy adviser in the White House who knew something about health care systems.”

Gruber’s response is intended as a joke, and it reveals little about the health care law (the reforms in question are specific to Vermont). But it says plenty about Gruber, and the flippant, arrogant way he treats concerns and criticism.

This is the person whom the White House relied on to help craft the bill; he was paid handsomely to model its effects (a fact he did not disclose, even when asked), and he was in the room when important decisions were made about how it would work. He claims to have helped write specific portions of the law himself. Gruber was not the sole architect of the law, but he was one of its biggest single influences on both its design and on how the media, which quoted him repeatedly, reported and understood the law.

The White House and its allies are desperately trying to distance themselves from Gruber right now by downplaying his role in the law’s creation. But the record of his involvement is clear enough: At The Washington Post, Ezra Klein has variously described Gruber as “one of the key architects behind the structure of the Affordable Care Act” and “the most aggressive academic economist supporting the reform effort.” The New York Times in 2012 described his role as helping to design the overall structure as well as being “dispatched” by the White House to Congress to write the legislative text. Gruber’s work was cited repeatedly by the White House, Democratic leadership, and the media.

So when he describes the thinking about how the law was crafted and sold to the public, it’s worth taking note. This is the posture of one of the law’s authors and chief backers. It’s part of the spirit in which the law was created and passed. Gruber’s ideas were embedded in the law’s structure and language, and so was his attitude.

http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/14/jonathan-gruber-embraced-misleading-the 

 

White House says Gruber’s wrong, attacks GOP

By LUCY MCCALMONT

The White House is denouncing comments from key Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber that a lack of transparency and the stupidity of voters helped in the passage of the health care law and is instead pointing a finger at Republicans.
“The fact of the matter is, the process associated with the writing and passing and implementing of the Affordable Care Act has been extraordinarily transparent,” White House press secretary Josh Earnest said during a news briefing in Myanmar, according to a transcript provided by the White House.
Story Continued Below

“I disagree vigorously with that assessment,” Earnest responded when asked about Gruber’s claim that Obamacare wouldn’t have passed if the administration was more transparent and voters more intelligent.
He added, “It is Republicans who have been less than forthright and transparent about what their proposed changes to the Affordable Care Act would do in terms of the choices are available to middle class families.”
Earnest said the president “is proud of the transparent process that was undertaken to pass that bill into law.”
The response from the White House comes as a third video of Gruber criticizing the intelligence of American voters has surfaced.
“We just tax the insurance companies, they pass on higher prices that offsets the tax break we get, it ends up being the same thing. It’s a very clever, you know, basic exploitation of the lack of economic understanding of the American voter,” Gruber said in remarks from 2012 that aired Wednesday evening on “On the Record with Greta Van Susteren.”
Gruber has been causing headaches for the White House as conservatives have had a field day that began with comments the MIT professor made in 2013.
“Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter, or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” Gruber said at the time, according to one of the videos that has recently come to light.
In another video clip of a separate event, while talking about tax credits in the Affordable Care Act, he said, “American voters are too stupid to understand the difference.”
Gruber apologized for the comments during an appearance earlier this week on MSNBC’s “Ronan Farrow Daily”:
(Also on POLITICO: Ted Cruz out on a limb on Obamacare repeal)
“I was speaking off the cuff, and I was basically speaking inappropriately, and I regret having made those comments.”
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi dismissed Gruber’s role in Obamacare on Thursday, telling the press, “I don’t know who he is. He didn’t help write our bill.”
Many outlets were quick to point out that Pelosi cited Gruber in a “Health Insurance Reform Mythbuster” on her official website in 2009.
House Speaker John Boehner released a statement Thursday, slamming Gruber for his comments.
“If there was ever any doubt that ObamaCare was rammed through Congress with a heavy dose of arrogance, duplicity, and contempt for the will of the American people, recent comments by one of the law’s chief architects, Jonathan Gruber, put that to rest,” the top Republican said.
The statement continues, “The American people are anything but ‘stupid.’ They’re the ones bearing the consequences of the president’s health care law and, unsurprisingly, they continue to oppose it.”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/11/jonathan-gruber-obamacare-voters-white-house-response-112856.html

 

Cadillac insurance plan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Health care reform in the United States
Legislation
Preceding
Superseded
Proposed
Latest enacted
Reforms
Systems
Third-party payment models

Informally, a Cadillac plan is any unusually expensive health insurance plan, usually arising in discussions of medical-cost control measures in the United States.[1][2][3][4] The term derives from the Cadillac automobile, which has represented American luxury since its introduction in 1902,[1] and as a health care metaphor dates to the 1970s.[1] The term gained popularity in the early 1990s during the debate over the Clinton health care plan of 1993,[1] and was also widespread during debate over possible excise taxes on “Cadillac” plans during the health care reforms proposed during the Obama administration.[1] (Bills proposed by Clinton and Obama did not use the term “Cadillac”.)

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (as amended by the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010) imposes an annual 40% excise tax on plans with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family (not including vision and dental benefits) starting in 2018.[4]

Criticisms of these plans generally center on the small or nonexistent co-pays, deductibles, or caps that encourage the overuse of medical care, driving the cost up for the uninsured or those on other plans, which some say necessitates aCadillac tax.[citation needed]

A study published in Health Affairs in December 2009 found that high-cost health plans do not provide unusually rich benefits to enrollees. The researchers found that only 3.7% of the variation in the cost of family coverage in employer-sponsored health plans is attributable to differences in the actuarial value of benefits. Only 6.1% of the variation is attributable to the combination of benefit design and plan type (e.g., PPO, HMO, etc.). The employer’s industry and regional variations in health care costs explain part of the variation, but most is unexplained. The researchers conclude “…that analysts should not equate high-cost plans with Cadillac plans, but that in fact other factors—industry and cost of medical inputs—are as important in predicting whether a plan is a high-cost plan. Without appropriate adjustments, a simple cap may exacerbate rather than ameliorate current inequities.”[5]

See also

References

External links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadillac_insurance_plan

 

How ObamaCare Taxes Affect You: New Taxes, Hikes, Breaks, Credits, and Other Changes

Here’s a full list of ObamaCare Taxes. The 21 new ObamaCare tax hikes and breaks impact us all, but which ObamaCare taxes will you actually pay? Find out how the tax related provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ObamaCare) will affect you, your family, your business, and your tax returns for 2013 and beyond.

Obamacare Taxes

The Bottom Line on the ObamaCare Tax Plan

The new tax related provisions in theAffordable Care Act(ObamaCare) include tax hikes, limits to deductions, tax credits, tax breaks, and other changes. While a few of the changes directly affect the average American, tax increases primarily affect high earners (those making over $200,000 as an individual or $250,000 as a family), large businesses (those making over $250,000), and the health care industry, while tax credits primarily affect low-to-middle income Americans and small businesses.

Here are some quick facts to help you understand how ObamaCare affects taxes:

• For the majority of the 85% of Americans with health insurance the percentage of income paid in taxes won’t change much, if at all. However, some of the changes may directly or indirectly affect specific groups.

• The majority of the 15% of Americans without health insurance will primarily be affected by the Individual Mandate (the requirement to buy health insurance), the Employer Mandate (the requirement for large employers to insure full-time employees), and Tax Credits (tax credits reduce premium costs for individuals, families, and small businesses).

• Many Americans will be affected by changes to new limits on medical tax deduction thresholds MSAs, FSAs, and HSAs.

• Small businesses will not be required to provide health insurance, but will gettax credits to reduce premium costs if they choose to offer group plans.

• Even if you won’t see higher taxes under the Affordable Care Act, it doesn’t mean there aren’t costs associated with the law. You’ll still need to buy health insurance, unless you qualify for Medicaid or an exemption, and that will cost you money.

• As a rule of thumb those who make less pay less and those who make more pay more, both in regard to health insurance costs and taxes under theAffordable Care Act.

• The Congressional Budget Office has shown that the revenue generated from the new taxes, along with cuts to spending, will help to pay for the Affordable Care Act’s many provisions, fund tax credits and lower the deficit by 2023.Learn More.

Why Does ObamaCare Create New Taxes?

ObamaCare includes many new benefits, rights, and protections including the requirement for health insurers to cover people with pre-existing conditions. It also expands access to affordable health insurance to almost 50 million low-to-middle income men, women, and children across the country by offering reduced premiums via tax credits and expanding Medicaid and CHIP. Expanding the quality, affordability and availability of health insurance (along with other aspects of the law) come at a high cost. Assuming all tax provisions remain in place, the revenue generated from these new taxes help to cover the costs of the program and reduces the deficit. Learn more about the new benefits, rights, protections offered by the Affordable Care Act.

A Quick Overview of Key Taxes in the Affordable Care Act

Before we get to the full list of taxes here is a quick overview of the key tax related provisions that may affect those without insurance, those who plan to go without insurance, and those who are struggling to afford insurance now.

Individual Mandate (new tax): Americans who can afford to must obtain minimum essential health coverage for 2014, get an exemption or pay a per month fee.

Employer Mandate (new tax): Come 2015 large employers must insure full time employees or pay a per employee fee. Over half of Americans get their insurance through work and the largest group of uninsured is currently the working poor.

Advanced Premium Tax Credits (tax break): Low-to-middle income Americans are eligible for tax credits which reduce the upfront cost of premiums on health insurance purchased through their State’s “Health Insurance Marketplace”.

Small Business Tax Credits (tax break): Small businesses may be eligible for tax credits of up to 50% of their cost of employee premiums through theSmall Business Health Options Program.

Taking all the tax provisions in the ACA into account ObamaCare technically provides the greatest middle class tax cut to healthcare in history.

Full List of All Taxes in ObamaCare / All Taxes in the Affordable Care Act

The following list of new ObamaCare taxes collectively raise over $800 billion by 2022. Here is a complete list of new fees and taxes contained withinObamaCare:

ObamaCare Taxes That Most Likely Won’t Directly Affect the Average American

• 2.3% Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers 2014

• 10% Tax on Indoor Tanning Services 2014

• Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike

• Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals which fail to comply with the requirements of ObamaCare

• Tax on Brand Name Drugs

• Tax on Health Insurers

• $500,000 Annual Executive Compensation Limit for Health Insurance Executives

• Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage in coordination with Medicare Part D

• Employer Mandate on business with over 50 full-time equivalent employees to provide health insurance to full-time employees. $2000 per employee $3000 if employee uses tax credits to buy insurance on the exchange (marketplace). (pushed back to 2015)

• Medicare Tax on Investment Income 3.8% over $200k/$250k

• Medicare Part A Tax increase of .9% over $200k/$250k

• Employer Reporting of Insurance on W-2 (not a tax)

• Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (repealed)

• Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (not a tax)

ObamaCare Taxes That (may) Directly Affect the Average American

• 40% Excise Tax “Cadillac” on high-end Premium Health Insurance Plans 2018

• An annual $63 fee levied by ObamaCare on all plans (decreased each year until 2017 when pre-existing conditions are eliminated) to help pay for insurance companies covering the costs of high-risk pools.

• Medicine Cabinet Tax
Over the counter medicines no longer qualified as medical expenses for flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), and Archer Medical Saving accounts (MSAs).

• Additional Tax on HSA/MSA Distributions
Health savings account or an Archer medical savings account, penalties for spending money on non-qualified medical expenses. 10% to 20% in the case of a HSA and from 15% to 20% in the case of a MSA.

• Flexible Spending Account Cap 2013
Contributions to FSAs are reduced to $2,500 from $5,000.

• Medical Deduction Threshold tax increase 2013
Threshold to deduct medical expenses as an itemized deduction increases to 10% from 7.5%.

• Individual Mandate (the tax for not purchasing insurance if you can afford it) 2014
Starting in 2014, anyone not buying “qualifying” health insurance must pay an income tax surtax at a rate of 1% or $95 in 2014 to 2.5% in 2016 on profitable income above the tax threshold. The total penalty amount cannot exceed the national average of the annual premiums of a “bronze level” health insurance plan on ObamaCare exchanges.

• Premium Tax Credits for Small Businesses 2014 (not a tax)

• Advanced Premium Tax Credits for Individuals and Families 2014 (not a tax)

• Medical Loss Ratio (MRL): Premium rebates (not a tax)

The link below provides a full list of ObamaCare Taxes by the IRS.

For a full list of taxes provisions from the IRS

Or see the latest publication by the joint tax committee on the Affordable Care Act.

Who Does ObamaCare Tax?

Let’s take a look at how ObamaCare’s taxes affect certain income groups.

ObamaCare Taxes for High Earners and Large Businesses

Most of the new taxes are on high-earners (individuals making over $200,000 and families making over $250,000), large businesses (over 50 full-time equivalent employees making over $250,000), and industries that profit from healthcare. Essentially those who will see gains under ObamaCare are required to put money back in the program via taxes.

FACT: Tax increases generally affect single filers with an adjusted gross income (AGI) above $200,000 and married couples filing jointly above $250,000. Some of the tax increases don’t kick in until single AGI hits $400,000 and married filing jointly AGI hits $450,000.

ObamaCare Taxes for the Average American With Health insurance

For most of the 85% of Americans with health insurance, making less than $250,000, most of the new taxes won’t mean much of anything although certain taxes below will affect specific individuals and families.

ObamaCare Taxes for the Average American Without Health insurance

The 15% of Americans without health insurance will be required to obtain health insurance (Individual Mandate) or will face a “tax penalty”.

The good news is that many uninsured will be exempt from the Individual mandate due to income, offered cost assistance through the marketplaceincluding Tax Credits (also available to small businesses), qualify for Medicaid, or will get insurance through work (the Employer Mandaterequires large employers to insure full-time employees by 2015). Adults who are under 26 will be able to stay on their parents plan as well, this will help to limit the number of young people who will pay the fee. Both the employer and individual mandates are part of our “shared responsibility” to expand the quality and affordability of health insurance in the United States as a trade for our new benefits, rights and protections.

ObamaCare Taxes for Small Businesses

Small businesses with less than 25 full-time equivalent employees will have access to tax credits to reduce premium costs of group plans.

ObamaCare Taxes for Specific Groups With Health Insurance

Here are a few changes that my affect specific groups of Americans with health insurance:

• Other tax provisions such as changes medical deduction thresholds, HSAs, MSAs, and FSAs may impact some Americans by limiting tax deductions.

• The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR or 80/20 rule) will mean that some Americans may get rebates if health insurance companies spend on non-healthcare related expenses.

• Tax provisions like the 10% tanning bed tax, taxes on drug companies, taxes on medical devices and taxes on health insurance companies selling insurance on and off the exchange may affect the amount of money we pay for some health care related goods and services, but will not have a significant impact on our daily lives.

• The employer mandate has caused some companies to cut down full-time workers to part-time to avoid providing benefits, however major employers like Disney and Walmart have actually increased their full-time workforce in response to the looming 2015 deadline.

• Overall the benefits tend to outweigh the costs for the average American as even those who pay a little more, get a lot more in return due to the increased quality of their health insurance.

Will I pay More Taxes and High Premiums Because of ObamaCare?

As mentioned above premium rates and the taxes you will have to pay are primarily based on income. Aside from income premium prices are based on which plan you choose, family size, age, smoking status and geography. Subsidies reduce the overall rate of your premiums (however smoking is calculated after subsidies). Come 2018 there will be a 40% excise tax on high end health insurance plans.

Aside from the tax provisions that require Americans to obtain insurance and subsidize it’s costs, ObamaCare also includes a few tax related provisions that work as consumer protections including requirements for better reporting and the Medical Loss Ratio.

ObamaCare Tax Rebates

Some consumers in both individual and group markets will see tax rebates due to ObamaCare’s Medical Loss Ratio (MLR). Health insurance companies will have to provide rebates to consumers if they spend less than 80 to 85% of premium dollars on medical care.

Medical Loss Ratio (MLR)

The Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) means that Insurance companies are now required to spend at least 80% of premium dollars (85% in large group markets) on medical care and quality improvement activities. Insurance companies that are not meeting this standard will be required to provide rebates to their consumers. The MLR isn’t a tax, but it does have implications in regards to filing taxes and rebates can be given in the form of reduced premiums. See our page on ObamaCare Health Insurance Regulations for more details.

ObamaCare Income Tax Penalty For Not Having Insurance “Individual Mandate”

Starting in 2014, most people will have to have insurance or pay a “penalty deducted from your taxable income”. For individuals, penalty starts at $95 a year, or up to 1% of income, whichever is greater, and rise to $695, or 2.5% of income, by 2016.

For families the tax will be $2,085 or 2.5% percent of household income, whichever is greater. The requirement can be waived for several reasons, including financial hardship or religious beliefs. If the tax would exceed 8% of your income you are exempt, also some religious groups are exempt. That tax cannot exceed the cost of a “bronze plan” bought on the exchange.

Many individuals who are exempt from the mandate to buy insurance will still be eligible for free or low-cost insurance through the health insurance marketplace.

While some states, including Alabama, Wyoming and Montana, have passed laws to block the requirement to carry health insurance, those provisions do not override federal law. Get more information on the ObamaCare Individual Mandate.

The Individual Mandate is officially called the “individual shared responsibility provision”.

What Are ObamaCare Tax Credits?: Advanced Premium Tax Credits

Premium tax credits are a form of cost assistance that reduce premium costs for coverage purchased on your State’s “health insurance marketplace” for individuals, families, and small businesses.

Advanced Premium Tax Credits for Individuals and Families

Individuals and families will have access to Advanced premium tax credits on the marketplace. Tax Credits are deducted from your premium cost by your health insurance provider and are adjusted on your Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI). You can choose how much advance credit payments to apply to your premiums each month, up to a maximum amount. If the amount of advance credit payments you get for the year is less than the tax credit you’re due, you’ll get the difference as a refundable credit when you file your federal income tax return. If your advance payments for the year are more than the amount of your credit, you must repay the excess advance payments with your tax return.

Aside from premium tax credits individuals and families can also get lower cost sharing on out-of-pocket expenses like coinsurance, copays, deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums through the marketplace.

Eligibility for Tax Credits

In general, you may be eligible for the credit if you meet all of the following:

  • buy health insurance through the Marketplace;
  • are ineligible for coverage through an employer or government plan;
  • are within certain income limits;
  • file a joint return, if married; and
  • cannot be claimed as a dependent by another person.

If you are eligible for the credit, you can choose to:

  • Get It Now: have some or all of the estimated credit paid in advance directly to your insurance company to lower what you pay out-of-pocket for your monthly premiums during 2014; or
  • Get It Later: wait to get all of the credit when you file your 2014 tax return in 2015.

How Will Advanced Premium Tax Credits Affect My Health Insurance Costs?

Under the Affordable Care Act health insurance that costs less than 8% of your MAGI is considered affordable. Although the law doesn’t guarantee lower costs, premium tax credits help to ensure that more Americans will have access to affordable insurance.

s a rule of thumb most Americans will pay between 1.5% and 9.5% on their Modified Adjusted Gross Income (MAGI) when using tax credits to buy a basic Silver Plan on the marketplace.

If the lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income are exempt from the individual mandate.

The amount you pay is on a sliding scale based on your income. Use the chart below to get an idea of what you and your family may pay for insurance purchased through the Health Insurance Marketplace. Make sure to check outObamaCare Subsidies for more detailed information on Premium Tax Credits.

The 2013 Federal Poverty Level Guidelines below are used to Determine if your percentage of the poverty level for both taxes and cost-assistance.

 Household Size

 100%

 133%

150%

200%

 300%

400%

 1

$11,170

$14,856

$16,755

$22,340

$33,510

$44,680

 2

15,130

 20,123

22,695

  30,260

45,390

60,520

 3

19,090

 25,390

28,635

  38,180

57,270

76,360

 4

23,050

 30,657

34,575

  46,100

69,150

92,200

 5

27,010

 35,923

40,515

  54,020

81,030

108,040

 6

30,970

 41,190

46,455

  61,940

92,910

123,880

 7

34,930

 46,457

52,395

  69,860

104,790

139,720

 8

38,890

 51,724

58,335

  77,780

116,670

155,560

 For each additional person, add

$3,960

 $5,267

$5,940

  $7,920

$11,880

$15,840

This following table is an example of how premium tax credits work. Please note that the numbers below are purely for example and don’t reflect your personal rates.

Health Insurance Premiums and Cost Sharing under PPACA for Average Family of 4
For “Silver Plan”
Income % of federal poverty level Premium Cap as a Share of Income Income $ (family of 4) Max Annual Out-of-Pocket Premium Premium Savings Additional Cost-Sharing Subsidy
133% 3% of income $31,900 $992 $10,345 $5,040
150% 4% of income $33,075 $1,323 $9,918 $5,040
200% 6.3% of income $44,100 $2,778 $8,366 $4,000
250% 8.05% of income $55,125 $4,438 $6,597 $1,930
300% 9.5% of income $66,150 $6,284 $4,628 $1,480
350% 9.5% of income $77,175 $7,332 $3,512 $1,480
400% 9.5% of income $88,200 $8,379 $2,395 $1,480
In 2016, the FPL is projected to equal about $11,800 for a single person and about $24,000 for family of four. Use the Kaiser ObamaCare Cost Calculator for more information. DHHS and CBO estimate the average annual premium cost in 2014 to be $11,328 for family of 4 without the reform. Source: Wikipedia

ObamaCare Employer / Employee Taxes

ObamaCare’s taxes mean large employers will have to provide health insurance to their employees and will see a raised Medicare part A tax, small businesses may be eligible for tax breaks.

Medicare part A Tax Hike for Employers and Employees

The Medicare part A tax is paid by both employees and employers who earn over a certain amount. ObamaCare’s Medicare tax hike is a .9% increase (from 2.9% to 3.8%) on the current total Medicare part A tax. This tax is split between the employer and employee meaning that they will both see a .45% raise.  Small businesses making under $250,000 are exempt from the tax. Employees making less than $200,000 as an individual or ($250,000) as a family are also exempt. Employers must withhold and report an additional 0.9 percent total on employee wages or compensation that exceed $200,000.

Tax Penalty for Not Providing Full-time Workers with Health Insurance the “Employer Mandate”

Employers with over 50 full-time equivalent employees must either insure their full-time employees or pay a penalty or “employer shared responsibility fee”. The penalty is $2000 per employee. If however, at least one full-time employee receives a premium tax credit because coverage is either unaffordable or does not cover 60 percent of total costs, the employer must pay the lesser of $3,000 for each of those employees receiving a credit or $750 for each of their full-time employees total.

Employers with under 25 full time employees, whose average income doesn’t exceed $50,000, can apply for tax credits of up to 50% for insuring their employees.

Tax Credits for Small Businesses

Small businesses with under 25 full-time equivalent employees with average annual wages of less than $50,000 can apply for tax breaks of up to 50% of their share of employee premium costs via ObamaCare’s Small Business Health Options Program (accessible through your State’s Health Insurance Marketplace). The credit can be as much as 50% of employer premiums (35% for not-for-profits in 2014). The credit is only available if the employer is paying at least 50% of the total premiums.

Small Business Health Options Program

Employers with 50 or fewer employees, you can purchase affordable insurance through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP) even if they don’t qualify for tax credits.

Reporting

Along with the new law there are new requirements for reporting.

    • Effective for calendar year 2015, you must file an annual return reporting whether and what health insurance you offered your employees. This rule is optional for 2014. Learn more.

 

    • Effective for calendar year 2015, if you provide self-insured health coverage to your employees, you must file an annual return reporting certain information for each employee you cover. This rule is optional for 2014. Learn more.

 

    • Beginning Jan. 1, 2013, you must withhold and report an additional 0.9 percent on employee wages or compensation that exceed $200,000. Learn more.

 

Other ObamaCare Taxes on Big Business

Aside from having to adhere to the “employer mandate” ObamaCare also imposes taxes and fees that are unique to big business. ObamaCare taxes some medical device manufactures, drug companies and health insurance companies. Beginning in 2013, medical device manufacturers and importers must pay a 2.3% tax on the sale of a taxable medical device. This raises $29 billion over a 10 years. However, many states are asking to delay the medical device excise tax to protect jobs in states that produce the devices. An annual fee for health insurers is expected to raise more than $100 billion over 10 years, while a fee for brand name drugs will bring in another $34 billion.

  • Employers that have employees who earn more than $200,000 will have to look at the potential for additional Medicare withholding due to the Medicare part A tax.
  • Employers that issued 250 or more W-2 forms in 2012 must report the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage for 2013 on the 2013 W-2 forms.

Medical Device Excise Tax

There is a 2.3% medical excise tax on medical device manufacturers and importers on the sale of taxable medical devices. Section 4191 of the Internal Revenue Code imposes an excise tax on the sale of certain medical devices by the manufacturer or importer of the device. The tax applies to sales of taxable medical devices after Dec. 31, 2012. You can learn more from the official IRS page on the Medical Device Tax.

What Increases Do the ObamaCare Taxes Include for The $200k/$250k Earners?

ObamaCare Medicare Part A Payroll Tax

Starting in 2013, individuals with earnings above $200,000 and married couples making more than $250,000 will see an increase in the Medicare part A payroll tax. It’s an increase of 2.35%, up from the current 1.45% ( a .9% Medicare part A payroll tax hike), on adjusted income over the threshold.

ObamaCare Unearned Income Tax

This group will also pay a 3.8% unearned income (capital gains) tax on interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, and gains on the sale of investments over the threshold.

Taxable income under the $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 threshold for families is subject to the same benefits and tax cuts as those who make under the threshold.

ObamaCare Home Sales Tax / ObamaCare Real Estate Tax Increase

ObamaCare increases taxes on unearned income by 3.8% and this can add additional taxes to the sales of some homes, but many limitations apply which means it won’t affect most sellers. The 3.8% capital gains tax typically doesn’t apply to your primary residence. It also doesn’t usually apply to homes you have owned for over 5 years or on profits of less than $250,000 for individuals and $500,000 for couples due to a capital gains tax exclusion rule for sales of a primary home.

In short the ObamaCare home sales tax isn’t something that most of us will pay, it is a tax is aimed at those selling non-primary residences in short term periods for profit and not at the average American buying and selling their primary residence.

ObamaCare Medical Expense Deductions

ObamaCare increases the medical expense deduction threshold. Unreimbursed medical expense deductions will now be available only for those medical expenses in excess of 10% of AGI, which has been raised from 7.5%. There is a temporary exemption for individuals ages 65 and older and their spouses from 2013 through 2016.

ObamaCare “Cadillac” Tax

Starting in 2018, the new health care law imposes a 40% excise tax on the portion of most employer-sponsored health coverage (this excludes dental and vision) that exceed $10,200 a year and $27,500 for families. The tax has been dubbed a “Cadillac” tax because it hits only high-end “gold”, “platinum” and high-end health care plans not purchased on the exchange. The tax raises over $150 billion over the next 10 years.

New ObamaCare Taxes Summary

Going through the new ObamaCare taxes line by line is, in itself, taxing. The bottom line is that a majority of Americans will find themselves paying less for better healthcare, while higher-earners will pay tax rates closer to what they did in the Clinton years. ObamaCare pays for most of itself via the above taxes, reforms to Medicare, and health care as a whole, as well as cutting out billions in wasteful spending.

ObamaCare Taxes Moving Forward into 2014

We hope this helps you to understand the new ObamaCare taxes and how they work. Many of the ObamaCare’s taxes won’t be fully implemented until 2022, but most will be in effect by 2014. ObamaCare helps all Americans get access to quality affordable healthcare, and new benefits, rights and protections. Make sure to look out for ObamaCare tax breaks, credits, subsidies and breaks on up front costs moving forward into 2014. As we learn more we will update our full ObamaCare tax list.

 

ObamaCare Taxes: New Health Care Taxes

http://obamacarefacts.com/obamacare-taxes/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-370

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 DownloadShow 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 News: Second Possible Case of Ebola in Dallas, Texas — How many Biosafety Level 4 Hospital Beds are there in the United States? — 22 Hospital Beds — Too few for An Airborne Ebola Pandemic! — Center for Disease Control (CDC) Sacrifices Hospital and Medical Staff To Open Borders And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens! — Will The Ebola Dallas Strain Jump To Another Human Host? — Breaking News — Videos

Posted on October 8, 2014. Filed under: Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 345: October 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 344: October 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 343: October 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 342: October 2, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 341: October 1, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 340: September 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 339: September 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 338: September 26, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 337: September 25, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 336: September 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 335: September 23 2014

Pronk Pops Show 334: September 22 2014

Pronk Pops Show 333: September 19 2014

Pronk Pops Show 332: September 18 2014

Pronk Pops Show 331: September 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 330: September 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 329: September 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 328: September 12, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 327: September 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 326: September 10, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 325: September 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 324: September 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 323: September 5, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 322: September 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 321: September 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 320: August 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 319: August 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 318: August 27, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 317: August 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 316: August 20, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 315: August 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 314: August 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 313: August 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 312: August 13, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 311: August 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 310: August 8, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 309: August 6, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 308: August 4, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 307: August 1, 2014 

Pronk Pops Show 306: July 31, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 305: July 30, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 304: July 29, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 303: July 28, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 302: July 24, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 301: July 23, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 300: July 22, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 299: July 21, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 298: July 18, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 297: July 17, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 296: July 16, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 295: July 15, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 294: July 14, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 293: July 11, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 292: July 9, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 291: July 7, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 290: July 3, 2014

Pronk Pops Show 289: July 2, 2014

Story 1: Breaking News: Second Possible Case of Ebola in Dallas, Texas — How many Biosafety Level 4 Hospital Beds are there in the United States? — 22 Hospital Beds — Too few for An Airborne Ebola Pandemic! — Center for Disease Control (CDC) Sacrifices Hospital and Medical Staff To Open Borders And Amnesty For Illegal Aliens! — Will The Ebola Dallas Strain Jump To Another Human Host? — Breaking News — Videos

ebola

hot_zone

Second patient in Texas showing signs consistent with Ebola

EBOLA IN AMERICA – WE’RE SCREWED Says Major Garrett in OPEN MIC at Press Conference (Full)

EBOLA IN AMERICA – WE’RE SCREWED! Says Major Garrett in OPEN MIC

Texas EBOLA PATIENT Thomas Eric Duncan DIED (Video) First Ebola Patient Diagnosed In The U.S Dies

CDC: New Ebola situation in Texas being…

Soon: Frisco Texas Officials To Update On Possible Second Ebola Case – Fox News Reporting

Author tracks Ebola outbreaks over decades, calls virus “Jack The Ripper”

Elbows-Deep in Ebola Virus – Richard Preston

In the Hot Zone with Virus X – Richard Preston

USAMRIID The US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease

Jerry & Nancy Jaax discuss biosafety facilities

The Jaax’s worked in biocontainment facilities for years and discuss safety measures used.

State of Tomorrow Interview – CJ Peters: Wake Up Call

UTHSC Regional Biocontainment Laboratory

Ebola & Emerging Viral Diseases: Overview of the Science

Ebola & Emerging Viral Diseases: How the Virus Attacks Us

Ebola and Emerging Viral Diseases: New Drug Therapy

Suspect in the 2001 Anthrax Attacks Gets $5.8 Million!

Steven Hatfill Anthrax Denial

CDC Set To Slow Large Ebola Outbreak by Placing Doctors At Risk

Inhalation Ebola: Governments Ready For World War Ebola

US Army: Ebola like FLU needs Winter Weather to go AIRBORNE

MWV Episode 68 – Threading the NEIDL: TWiV Goes Inside a BSL-4

Aerosolizing ONE DROP of EBOLA = 1/2 MILLION DEAD

NEIDL: Biosafety Level 4

MWV Episode 68 – Threading the NEIDL: TWiV Goes Inside a BSL-4

How scientists enter and exit BSL-4 laboratories

Ebola Spreads, Worst Outbreak In History

Obama’s Border Crisis Could Result In The Deaths Of Millions Of Americans

Dallas County Ebola press conference

‘A Virus Walks Into a Bar…’ and Other Science Jokes – Brian Malow

Science comedian Brian Malow jokes that a virus is “the ultimate David and Goliath” when compared with humans. He then rattles off a series of science-related jokes. “Schrodinger’s cat walks into a bar, and doesn’t.”

Could take 48 hours to confirm if deputy has Ebola

SOUTHCOM Commander: Ebola Outbreak in Central America Could Cause Mass Migration to U.S.

By:
Published:
Updated: October 7, 2014 10:26 PM

Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly, center, commander of U.S. Southern Command, speaks with Adm. Sigifrido Pared Perez, Dominican Republic minister of defense, in Barahona, Dominican Republic on June 9, 2014. SOUTHCOM Photo

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The head of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) warned an Ebola outbreak in Central America or the Caribbean could trigger a mass migration to the U.S. of people fleeing the disease and implied established Central American illegal trafficking networks could introduce the infected into the U.S., during remarks at a Tuesday panel on security issues in the Western Hemisphere at the National Defense University.

“If it comes to the Western Hemisphere, the countries that we’re talking about have almost no ability to deal with it — particularly in Haiti and Central America,” SOUTHCOM Commander, Marine Gen. John F. Kelly, said in response to a question of his near term concerns in the region.
“It will make the 68,000 unaccompanied minors look like a small problem.”

An Ebola outbreak could encourage the poor and increasingly desperate populations in Central American countries — like Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador — to leave in droves.

“I think you’ve seen this so many times in the past, when in doubt, take off,” he said.

Though an ocean away from Ebola hotspots in Africa, a growing numbers of West Africans are using the illicit trafficking routes through Central America to enter the U.S. illegally and could introduce the disease in the U.S.

Kelly stressed through out the panel session at NDU how effective the criminal transportation networks were at moving people and material into the U.S.

“We see a lot of West Africans moving in that network,” he said.

Kelly passed on a story from a border checkpoint in Costa Rica — told to him by an American embassy official — in which five or six men from Liberia were waiting to cross into Nicaragua.

The group had flown into Trinidad and then traveled to Costa Rica hoping to travel up the Central American isthmus and into the U.S.

Given the length of the journey, “they could have been in New York City well within the incubation period for Ebola,” Kelly said.

The realities of a potential outbreak caused Kelly to ask his staff to start thinking about the affects to the SOUTHCOM area of operations (AO) and pay attention to the response of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM).

The U.S. has sent 4,000 troops to West Africa to assist countries in dealing with the Ebola outbreaks in the region.

“The five services of the U.S. military will get it done and be a large solution to this problem,” Kelly said.

In the meantime, SOUTHCOM is regular contact with AFRICOM in the event of the worst-case outcome.

“We’re watching what AFRICOM is doing and their plan will be our plan,” Kelly said.
“The nightmare scenario, I think, is right around the corner.”

http://news.usni.org/2014/10/07/southcom-commander-ebola-outbreak-central-america-haiti-nightmare-scenario

 

Ebola Patient Has Died During a Crucial Week for Dallas

If Thomas Eric Duncan passed the virus onto anyone else, that would likely become evident this week.

(Mike Stone/Getty Images)

October 8, 2014 The first patient to be diagnosed with Ebola in the United States has died, Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital said Wednesday.

The news of Thomas Eric Duncan’s passing comes as those he came into contact with enter a critical period this week in determining whether they have also contracted the deadly virus.

Duncan, 42, was diagnosed with Ebola on Sept. 30, after arriving in the U.S. from Liberia on Sept. 20. He first went to the Dallas hospital with a fever on Sept. 26, but was sent home,despite telling a nurse he came from the Ebola-stricken country. The information did not reach doctors at the hospital, and he was discharged with antibiotics. He returned to the hospital two days later and was placed in isolation.

Texas officials continue to monitor 10 people who had direct contact with him while he was symptomatic, as well as 38 others who may have had contact. None have shown symptoms of the disease up to this point.

The incubation period of Ebola is a maximum of 21 days, with symptoms commonly beginning to present eight to 10 days after exposure. If Duncan passed the virus onto anyone else, that would likely become evident this week.

If any show signs of a fever, or other symptoms, health officials plan to immediately isolate and test those individuals for the virus.

Duncan was in serious condition until this past weekend, when his condition was changed to critical, and he was given the experimental drug brincidofovir, an oral medicine developed by Chimerix. The Food and Drug Administration granted emergency authorization for the treatment; it had previously been tested against Ebola only in test-tube studies.

Duncan is the first patient to die of Ebola in the U.S. At least five patients already diagnosed with Ebola in West Africa had been taken to the U.S. for treatment. Two were treated and released from Emory University Hospital, one was treated and released from Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha, a fourth is currently in treatment at Emory, and a fifth is in treatment in Nebraska.

The current Ebola outbreak has killed more than 2,000 people in Duncan’s native Liberia, according to the latest estimates from the World Health Organization. There have been more than 3,400 total deaths in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea, and more than twice as many reported cases.

“It is with profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment that we must inform you of the death of Thomas Eric Duncan this morning at 7:51 a.m.,” the hospital said in a statement. “Mr. Duncan succumbed to an insidious disease, Ebola. He fought courageously in this battle. Our professionals, the doctors and nurses in the unit, as well as the entire Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas community, are also grieving his passing. We have offered the family our support and condolences at this difficult time.”

Duncan had reportedly come to the U.S. to marry his girlfriend, Louise Troh, from whom he had been separated for nearly two decades. Troh and three others who live in the apartment where Duncan stayed in Dallas remain in isolation.

Officials continue to closely monitor those who came into contact with Duncan, and they remain confident that an outbreak in the U.S. is unlikely.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/health-care/dallas-ebola-patient-has-died-20141008

Triage and Management of Accidental Laboratory Exposures to Biosafety Level-3 and -4 Agents

Abstract

The recent expansion of biocontainment laboratory capacity in the United States has drawn attention to the possibility of occupational exposures to BSL-3 and -4 agents and has prompted a reassessment of medical management procedures and facilities to deal with these contingencies. A workshop hosted by the National Interagency Biodefense Campus was held in October 2007 and was attended by representatives of all existing and planned BSL-4 research facilities in the U.S. and Canada. This report summarizes important points of discussion and recommendations for future coordinated action, including guidelines for the engineering and operational controls appropriate for a hospital care and isolation unit. Recommendations pertained to initial management of exposures (ie, immediate treatment of penetrating injuries, reporting of exposures, initial evaluation, and triage). Isolation and medical care in a referral hospital (including minimum standards for isolation units), staff recruitment and training, and community outreach also were addressed. Workshop participants agreed that any unit designated for the isolation and treatment of laboratory employees accidentally infected with a BSL-3 or -4 pathogen should be designed to maximize the efficacy of patient care while minimizing the risk of transmission of infection. Further, participants concurred that there is no medically based rationale for building care and isolation units to standards approximating a BSL-4 laboratory. Instead, laboratory workers accidentally exposed to pathogens should be cared for in hospital isolation suites staffed by highly trained professionals following strict infection control procedures.

The construction of a number of new federally funded biocontainment laboratories in response to the 2001 terror attacks, in compliance with Homeland Security Presidential Directives 10 and 18,1,2 has raised concerns that a significant expansion in the laboratory workforce will result in an increased number of accidental exposures, some of which might lead to actual infection.3 While it is true that accidental infections of laboratory workers studying pathogenic bacteria and viruses were at one time fairly common, their incidence has been markedly reduced as a result of the standardization of laboratory design, biosafety practices, and employee training, so that only a handful of cases have occurred in the past few decades.4

Much of this new capacity in Biosafety Level-4 (BSL-4) biocontainment laboratories will be centered on the National Interagency Biodefense Campus (NIBC) at Fort Detrick, which includes the existing United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) and a planned expansion, plus the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Integrated Research Facility (NIAID-IRF) and a new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) laboratory, the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC). NIH also has upgraded the laboratory capacity at its Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, by expanding the amount of Biosafety Level-3 (BSL-3) space and adding a new BSL-4 lab, and it is supporting the construction of National Biocontainment Laboratories at Boston University and at the University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, both of which will contain BSL-3 and -4 units. In anticipation of public concerns, the NIBC Executive Steering Committee tasked its Scientific Interactions Subcommittee with organizing a workshop to review procedures for dealing with accidental exposures in laboratories currently conducting research on highly pathogenic (BSL-3 and -4) agents and to recommend optimal strategies for their detection and management in the future expanded biodefense research community.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2749272/

 

Biosafety level

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A biosafety level is a level of the biocontainment precautions required to isolate dangerous biological agents in an enclosed facility. The levels of containment range from the lowest biosafety level 1 (BSL-1) to the highest at level 4 (BSL-4). In the United States, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) have specified these levels.[1] In the European Union, the same biosafety levels are defined in a directive.[2]

History

The first prototype Class III (maximum containment) biosafety cabinet was fashioned in 1943 by Hubert Kaempf Jr., then a U.S. Army soldier, under the direction of Dr. Arnold G. Wedum, Director (1944–69) of Industrial Health and Safety at the United States Army Biological Warfare Laboratories, Camp Detrick, Maryland. Kaempf was tired of his MP duties at Detrick and was able to transfer to the sheet metal department working with the contractor, the H.K. Ferguson Co.[3]

On 18 April 1955, fourteen representatives met at Camp Detrick in Frederick, Maryland. The meeting was to share knowledge and experiences regarding biosafety, chemical, radiological, and industrial safety issues that were common to the operations at the three principal biological warfare (BW) laboratories of the U.S. Army.[4][5]Because of the potential implication of the work conducted at biological warfare laboratories, the conferences were restricted to top level security clearances. Beginning in 1957, these conferences were planned to include non-classified sessions as well as classified sessions to enable broader sharing of biological safety information. It was not until 1964, however, that conferences were held in a government installation not associated with a biological warfare program.[6]

Over the next ten years, the biological safety conferences grew to include representatives from all federal agencies that sponsored or conducted research with pathogenic microorganisms. By 1966 it began to include representatives from universities, private laboratories, hospitals, and industrial complexes. Throughout the 1970s, participation in the conferences continued to expand and by 1983 discussions began regarding the creation of a formal organization.[6] The American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) was officially established in 1984 and a constitution and bylaws were drafted the same year. As of 2008, ABSA includes some 1,600 members in its professional association.[6]

Rationale

CDC technician dons an older-model positive-pressure suit before entering one of the CDC’s earlier maximum containment labs.

Biocontainment can be classified by the relative danger to the surrounding environment as biological safety levels (BSL). As of 2006, there are four safety levels. These are called BSL1 through BSL4, with one anomalous level BSL3-ag for agricultural hazards between BSL3 and BSL4. Facilities with these designations are also sometimes given as P1 through P4 (for Pathogen or Protection level), as in the term P3 laboratory. Higher numbers indicate a greater risk to the external environment. Seebiological hazard.

At the lowest level of biocontainment, the containment zone may only be a chemical fume hood. At the highest level the containment involves isolation of an organism by means of building systems, sealed rooms, sealed containers, positive pressure personnel suits (sometimes referred to as “space suits”) and elaborate procedures for entering the room, and decontamination procedures for leaving the room. In most cases this also includes high levels of security for access to the facility, ensuring that only authorized personnel may be admitted to any area that may have some effect on the quality of the containment zone. This is considered a hot zone.

Levels

Biosafety level 1

This level is suitable for work involving well-characterized agents not known to consistently cause disease in healthy adult humans, and of minimal potential hazard to laboratory personnel and the environment (CDC,1997).[7]

It includes several kinds of bacteria and viruses including canine hepatitis, non-pathogenic Escherichia coli, as well as some cell cultures and non-infectious bacteria. At this level, precautions against the biohazardous materials in question are minimal and most likely involve gloves and some sort of facial protection. The laboratory is not necessarily separated from the general traffic patterns in the building. Work is generally conducted on open bench tops using standard microbiological practices. Usually, contaminated materials are left in open (but separately indicated) waste receptacles. Decontamination procedures for this level are similar in most respects to modern precautions against everyday microorganisms (i.e., washing one’s hands with anti-bacterial soap, washing all exposed surfaces of the lab with disinfectants, etc.). In a lab environment all materials used for cell and/or bacteria cultures are decontaminated via autoclave. Laboratory personnel have specific training in the procedures conducted in the laboratory and are supervised by a scientist with general training in microbiology or a related science.

Biosafety level 2

This level is similar to Biosafety Level 1 and is suitable for work involving agents of moderate potential hazard to personnel and the environment.[7] It includes various bacteria and viruses that cause only mild disease to humans, or are difficult to contract via aerosol in a lab setting, such as C. difficile, most Chlamydiae, hepatitis A, B, and C, orthopoxviruses (other than smallpox), influenza A, Lyme disease, Salmonella, mumps, measles,[8] scrapie, MRSA, and VRSA. BSL-2 differs from BSL-1 in that:

  1. laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic agents and are directed by scientists with advanced training;
  2. access to the laboratory is limited when work is being conducted;
  3. extreme precautions are taken with contaminated sharp items; and
  4. certain procedures in which infectious aerosols or splashes may be created are conducted in biological safety cabinets or other physical containment equipment.

Biosafety level 3

Researcher at US Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta, Georgia, working with influenza virus under biosafety level 3 conditions, with respirator inside a biosafety cabinet (BSC).

This level is applicable to clinical, diagnostic, teaching, research, or production facilities in which work is done with indigenous or exotic agents which may cause serious or potentially lethal disease after inhalation.[7] It includes various bacteria, parasites and viruses that can cause severe to fatal disease in humans but for which treatments exist, such as Yersinia pestis (causative agent of plague), Francisella tularensis, Leishmania donovani, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Chlamydia psittaci, Venezuelan equine encephalitis virus, Eastern equine encephalitis virus, SARS coronavirus, Coxiella burnetii, Rift Valley fever virus,Rickettsia rickettsii, several species of Brucella, rabies virus, chikungunya, yellow fever virus, and West Nile virus.

Laboratory personnel have specific training in handling pathogenic and potentially lethal agents, and are supervised by competent scientists who are experienced in working with these agents. This is considered a neutral or warm zone.

All procedures involving the manipulation of infectious materials are conducted within biological safety cabinets, specially designed hoods, or other physical containment devices, or by personnel wearing appropriate personal protective clothing and equipment. The laboratory has special engineering and design features.

It is recognized, however, that some existing facilities may not have all the facility features recommended for Biosafety Level 3 (i.e., double-door access zone and sealed penetrations). In this circumstance, an acceptable level of safety for the conduct of routine procedures, (e.g., diagnostic procedures involving the propagation of an agent for identification, typing, susceptibility testing, etc.), may be achieved in a biosafety level 2 (P2) facility, providing

  1. the filtered exhaust air from the laboratory room is discharged to the outdoors,
  2. the ventilation to the laboratory is balanced to provide directional airflow into the room,
  3. access to the laboratory is restricted when work is in progress, and
  4. the recommended Standard Microbiological Practices, Special Practices, and Safety Equipment for Biosafety Level 3 are rigorously followed.

The decision to implement this modification of biosafety level 3 recommendations is made only by the laboratory director.

Biosafety level 4

This level is required for work with dangerous and exotic agents that pose a high individual risk of aerosol-transmitted laboratory infections, agents which cause severe to fatal disease in humans for which vaccines or other treatments are notavailable, such as Bolivian and Argentine hemorrhagic fevers, Marburg virus, Ebola virus, Lassa virus, Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever, and various other hemorrhagic diseases. This level is also used for work with agents such as smallpox that are considered dangerous enough to require the additional safety measures, regardless of vaccination availability. When dealing with biological hazards at this level the use of a positive pressure personnel suit, with a segregated air supply is mandatory. The entrance and exit of a level four biolab will contain multiple showers, a vacuum room, an ultraviolet light room, and other safety precautions designed to destroy all traces of the biohazard. Multiple airlocks are employed and are electronically secured to prevent both doors from opening at the same time. All air and water service going to and coming from a biosafety level 4 (or P4) lab will undergo similar decontamination procedures to eliminate the possibility of an accidental release.

Agents with a close or identical antigenic relationship to biosafety level 4 agents are handled at this level until sufficient data are obtained either to confirm continued work at this level, or to work with them at a lower level.

Members of the laboratory staff have specific and thorough training in handling extremely hazardous infectious agents and they understand the primary and secondary containment functions of the standard and special practices, the containment equipment, and the laboratory design characteristics. They are supervised by qualified scientists who are trained and experienced in working with these agents. Access to the laboratory is strictly controlled by the laboratory director.

The facility is either in a separate building or in a controlled area within a building, which is completely isolated from all other areas of the building. A specific facility operations manual is prepared or adopted. Building protocols for preventing contamination often use negatively pressurized facilities, which, even if compromised, would severely inhibit an outbreak of aerosol pathogens.

Within work areas of the facility, all activities are confined to Class III biological safety cabinets, or Class II biological safety cabinets used with one-piece positive pressure personnel suits ventilated by a life support system.

List of BSL-4 facilities

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report published on October 4, 2007, a total of 1,356 CDC/USDA registered BSL-3 facilities were identified throughout the United States (GAO-08-108T [9]). This represents a very conservative estimate of the number of facilities in the US in 2007. Approximately 36% of these laboratories are located in academia. Only 15 BSL-4 facilities were identified in the U.S. in 2007, including nine at federal labs.[9]

The following is a list of existing BSL-4 facilities worldwide.

Name Location Date
established
Description
Virology Laboratory of the Queensland Department of Health Australia, Queensland,Coopers Plains
Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC) Osong, Cheongwoncounty, North Chungcheong province, South Korea 2013
University of Queensland – Sir Albert Sakzewski Virus Research Centre (SASVRC) Royal Women’s Hospital Brisbane P3 (BL3) Australia, Queensland,Herston
Australian Animal Health Laboratory Australia, Victoria,Geelong
National High Security Laboratory Australia, Victoria, North Melbourne National High Security Laboratory Operates under the auspice of the Victoria Infectious Diseases Reference Laboratory.
Republican Research and Practical Center for Epidemiology and Microbiology Belarus, Minsk Department of Molecular Epidemiology & Innovational Biotechnologies
National Microbiology Laboratory Canada, Manitoba,Winnipeg Located at the Canadian Science Centre for Human and Animal Health, it is jointly operated by the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences China, Hubei, Wuhan 2003 Wuhan Institute of Virology already hosts a BSL-3 laboratory. A distinct BSL-4 facility is currently being built based on P4 standards, the original technology for confinement developed by France.[10][11] It will be the first at level 4 in China, under the direction of Shi Zhengli.[12]
Biological Defense Center Czech Republic,Pardubice, Těchonín 1971, rebuilt 2003-2007 Located at the Centrum biologické ochrany (Biological Defense Center)[13]
Laboratoire P4 Jean Mérieux France, Rhône-Alpes,Lyon 1999-03-05 Jean Mérieux laboratory is a co-operation between the Pasteur Institute and INSERM. Note that in France, it is P4 for Pathogen or Protection level 4.[14]
Laboratoire de la DGA France, Vert-le-Petit,Essonne 2013-10-24 The Laboratoire de la DGA [1] is part of the Ministry of Defence.
Centre International de Recherches Médicales de Franceville Gabon This facility is operated by a research organization supported by both Gabonese (mainly) and French governments, and is West Africa’s only P4 lab (BSL-4).[15]
Robert Koch Institute Germany, Berlin The facility was licenced for construction by City of Berlin on November 30, 2008.
Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Germany, Hamburg
Friedrich Loeffler Institute on the Isle of Riems Germany, Isle of Riems (Greifswald) 2010 Deals especially with virology
Philipps University of Marburg Germany, Marburg 2008 The facility is licenced to work with genetically modified organisms
High Security Animal Disease Laboratory (HSADL) India, Bhopal 1998 This facility deals especially to zoonotic organisms and emerging infectious disease threats.
Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology India, Hyderabad 2009 National Bio-Safety Level-4 Containment Facility for Human Infectious Diseases & Clinical Research Facility in Regenerative Medicine [16][17]
All India Institute of Medical Sciences India, New Delhi 1993 Conducts studies on major pathogenic organisms. Has contributed in discovering new strains & vaccines.
Microbial Containment Complex India, Pune 2012 Bio-Safety Level-IV Laboratory established by ICMR with support from Department of Science & Technology
Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Luigi Sacco Italy, Lombardy, Milan A university hospital located in the city’s Polo Universitario; it contains two special vehicles for the safe transportation of infectious patients.
Istituto Nazionale per le Malattie Infettive Italy, Lazio, Rome 1936 (1997) The “National Institute of Infectious Diseases” used to operate within the Lazzaro Spallanzani hospital; the facility is now independent and is home to five BSL-3 labs as well as a single BSL-4 laboratory, which was completed in 1997. [18]
National Institute for Infectious Diseases Japan, Tokyo,Musashimurayama Located at National Institute for Infectious Diseases, Department of Virology I; this lab has the potential of operating as a BSL-4, however it is limited to perform work on only BSL-3 agents due to opposition from local residents and communities.
Institute of Physical and Chemical Research Japan, Ibaraki, Tsukuba This is a non-operating BSL-4 facility.
Netherlands National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) Netherlands, Bilthoven 2009
Cantacuzino Microbiological Research Institute (INCDMI) Romania, Bucharest [19]
“Dr. Carol Davila” Central Military Hospital Romania, Bucharest [20]
State Research Center of Virology and Biotechnology VECTOR Russia, Novosibirsk Oblast, Koltsovo It is one of two facilities in the world that officially hold smallpox. The other Russian BSL-4 facilities have been dismantled.
National Institute for Communicable Diseases South Africa,Johannesburg National Institute for Communicable Diseases of Special Pathogens Unit is one of only two BSL-4 facilities in Africa but the only suit laboratory on the continent.
The Swedish BSL-4 Laboratory[21] Sweden, Solna 2001 Located at the Public Health Agency of Sweden premises, this is the only BSL-4 facility in the Nordic region. The facility also houses a BSL-3 laboratory.[22][23][24]
University Hospital of Geneva Switzerland
Spiez Laboratory Switzerland, Spiez
Kwen-yang Laboratory (昆陽實驗室) Center of Disease Control Taiwan Part of the Department of Health, Taiwan.
Preventive Medical Institute of ROC Ministry of National Defense Taiwan
Health Protection Agency‘s Centre for Infections United Kingdom,Colindale Located in the Viral Zoonosis unit.
National Institute for Medical Research United Kingdom,London [25]
Institute for Animal Health United Kingdom,Pirbright
Institute for Animal Health Compton Laboratory United Kingdom,Compton [26]
Defence Science and Technology Laboratory United Kingdom, Porton Down
Health Protection Agency United Kingdom, Porton Down Special Pathogens Reference Unit.
Health Protection Agency United Kingdom, Porton Down Botulism.
Francis Crick Institute[27] United Kingdom,London Under construction. The UKCMRI will not work on Human Hazard Group 4 agents.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention United States, Georgia,Atlanta Currently operates in two buildings. One of two facilities in the world that officially holdsmallpox.
Georgia State University United States, Georgia,Atlanta Is an older design “glovebox” facility.
National Bio and Agro-Defense Facility(NBAF), Kansas State University United States, Kansas,Manhattan Under construction. Facility to be operated by the Department of Homeland Security, and replace the Plum Island Animal Disease Center (which is not a BSL-4 facility). Planned to be operational by 2015, but likely delayed.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) United States,Maryland, Bethesda Located on the NIH Campus, it currently only operates with BSL-3 agents.
Integrated Research Facility United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick Under construction. This facility will be operated by National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), it is planned to begin operating at 2009 at the earliest.[needs update]
National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick Under construction, it will be operated for the Department of Homeland Security.
US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick 1969 Old building
US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) United States,Maryland, Fort Detrick 2017? New building, currently under construction
National Emerging Infectious Diseases Laboratory (NEIDL), Boston University United States,Massachusetts, Boston Under construction by Boston University, building and staff training complete, waiting for regulatory approval.
NIAID Rocky Mountain Laboratories United States, Montana,Hamilton National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Kent State University, Kent Campus United States, Ohio,Kent Operates as a clean lab at level 3 for training purposes. Scheduled for conversion to a hot level 4 lab in response to a bioterrorism event in the USA.
Galveston National Laboratory, National Biocontainment Facility United States, Texas,Galveston Opened in 2008, facility is operated by the University of Texas Medical Branch.[28]
Shope Laboratory United States, Texas,Galveston Operated by the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB).
Texas Biomedical Research Institute United States, Texas,San Antonio The only privately owned BSL-4 lab in the US.

See also[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosafety_level

 

 

Texas Ebola patient’s remains will be cremated

By Ashley Fantz and Elizabeth Cohen, CNN
updated 3:28 PM EDT, Wed October 8, 2014

(CNN)[Breaking news update, posted at 3:28 p.m. ET]

The body of Thomas Eric Duncan, who died in Texas from Ebola, will be cremated, state health officials said Wednesday.

Pastor George Mason of Wilshire Baptist Church in Dallas said Wednesday that he told Duncan’s partner of his death. “It was a painful and difficult time for her. She reacted as almost anyone would, with great shock and despair. She expressed that in her own personal way, with great emotion,” Mason told reporters.

Duncan’s family members were devastated upon learning of his death, Mason said, and worried that “this will be the course that their life will take next.”

Duncan’s partner responded with many “what ifs” about his care when she learned about his death from Ebola, Mason said.

“She is not seeking to create any kinds of divisions in our community over this. She certainly, like all of us, would want to see justice done. She wants to see that people are treated well and treated fairly, and that includes Mr. Duncan. But this is a human drama. It’s not a political drama. … It is a drama of human grief,” Mason said.

A memorial for Duncan be held Wednesday evening, Mason said. The event was originally planned as a prayer vigil, but will now be a memorial for Duncan, Mason said.

[Previous story, posted at 2:49 p.m. ET]

(CNN) — Thomas Eric Duncan, a man with Ebola who traveled to the United States from Liberia, died Wednesday morning at Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital in Dallas, the hospital said.

He had been in critical condition after being diagnosed with the virus in mid-September. People who had contact with the 42-year-old Liberian national are being monitored for symptoms.

Read more: Who was Duncan?

Louise Troh, Duncan’s longtime partner, said through a public relations firm that she believes “a thorough examination will take place regarding all aspects of his care.”

“I am now dealing with the sorrow and anger that his son was not able to see him before he died,” Troh said. “This will take some time, but in the end, I believe in a merciful God.”

Did Duncan know he had Ebola?

U.S. to check travelers for fevers

Some members of Duncan’s family are being monitored for the virus — their temperatures taken twice daily — to make sure they don’t have symptoms. Ebola can take 21 days to show itself. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said that as of Tuesday, they had not shown any symptoms.

Several who have had contact with him were moved to a secure location Friday.

After word of the death, CNN correspondent Gary Tuchman went to a Dallas apartment where Duncan’s family members were previously and spoke with the adult daughter of Duncan’s partner.

The daughter, Youngor Jallah, is not considered to have come into contact with Duncan. She was crying and declined to speak, though she did say the family had received a call from the hospital and knew that Duncan had died.

Five Dallas schoolchildren who possibly had contact with Duncan remain on the school district’s homebound program during the 21-day wait, and none are showing symptoms, the district said Wednesday.

It has just been a little over a week since Duncan was hospitalized for treatment.

Those days have been an “enormous test of our health system,” said Dr. David Lakey, the commissioner of the Texas Department of State Health Services.

“For one family it has been far more personal,” he said in a statement. “Today they lost a dear member of their family. They have our sincere condolences, and we are keeping them in our thoughts.”

He vowed that health care workers will continue to try to stop the spread of the virus “and protect people from this threat.”

The Ebola virus can live in dead bodies, the CDC says, and it can be transmitted after death if the body is cut, body fluids are splashed, or if the body is handled. Only personnel trained in handling infected human remains, wearing protective gear, should touch or move Ebola-infected remains, the agency says. An autopsy should be avoided, it says, but if one is necessary, the CDC should be consulted.

Airport screenings

New measures at U.S. airports to screen for people possibly carrying the Ebola virus will include taking passengers’ temperatures and handing them questionnaires, according to a federal official and a second person briefed on an announcement the federal government plans to make Wednesday.

The enhanced methods, focused on people coming from West African nations hit by the Ebola crisis, will begin soon at New York’s JFK airport and then expand to four other major international airports: Newark, Chicago, Washington Dulles and Atlanta.

A federal official says the enhanced screening will apply only to passengers arriving from Sierra Leone, Guinea and Liberia.

The new measures at U.S. airports come a day after Dr. Thomas Frieden, the director of the CDC, told reporters that devising travel guidelines was in the works but nothing had yet been finalized enough to announce.

Can you catch Ebola on a plane?

The Ebola virus can spread through contact with bodily fluids — blood, sweat, feces, vomit, semen and saliva — and only by someone who is showing symptoms, according to the CDC.

People with Ebola may not be symptomatic for up to 21 days.

Symptoms generally occur abruptly eight to 10 days after infection, though that period can range from two to 21 days, health officials say.

Air travelers must keep in mind that Ebola is not transmitted through the air, said Dr. Marty Cetron, director of the CDC’s Division of Global Migration and Quarantine.

“There needs to be direct contact frequently with body fluids or blood,” he stressed.

Questions about Duncan’s case

Duncan came to the U.S. to visit family and friends, departing Liberia on September 19, according to the CDC. It was his first trip to America, his half-brother Wilfred Smallwood said. Liberian authorities said he was screened for Ebola before flying.

It’s unclear how he got Ebola, but witnesses have said that he had been helping victims of the virus in Liberia, and The New York Times said he’d had direct contact with an Ebola-stricken pregnant woman. Duncan answered “no” to questions about whether he’d cared for someone with the virus.

His symptoms first appeared “four to five days” after he landed in the U.S., Frieden said.

Duncan went to Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital after 10 p.m. on September 25 and was treated for a fever, vomiting and abdominal pain — all symptoms of Ebola — but he was sent home with antibiotics and a pain reliever and was not screened for Ebola.

He returned two days later and was then tested for Ebola, after which his treatment at the hospital began.

There are a lot of questions about the handling of Duncan’s case.

Dr. Alex Van Tulleken, an expert in tropical diseases at Fordham University in New York who is not involved in the case, said on CNN on Wednesday that the two-day lag time could have been “significant.”

Cases in Europe

Meanwhile, Frederic Vincent, a spokesman for the European Commission, told CNN on Wednesday that there have been eight confirmed cases of Ebola in European countries. There is one case in the United Kingdom that has been treated and the person has recovered; one case in France like that; two cases in Germany in which patients are receiving treatment; and three cases in Spain: two deceased Spanish missionaries and a nurse’s assistant who is being treated.

There is also a case in which a Norwegian staffer with Doctors Without Borders is being treated, he said.

Also in Spain, health officials said four more potential Ebola cases — in addition to the nurse’s assistant — are under observation.

The nurse’s assistant said that she had no idea how she had contracted the virus, but a doctor treating her said that she may have been exposed while she removed her protective suit.

Dr. German Ramirez said the assistant, who is in isolation at Madrid’s Carlos III Hospital, had told him it was possible that a part of the suit — possibly the gloves — touched her face.

On Wednesday, top British officials discussed ways to contain the virus. Prime Minister David Cameron, who led the meeting, received the latest updates about the United Kingdom’s efforts in Sierra Leone, where it has provided support. The UK will also deploy 750 defense personnel to help establish the Ebola treatment centers.

U.S. personnel are also being deployed.

Read more: Pentagon says troops heading to West Africa

Cases in West Africa

The globe’s largest outbreak of Ebola has killed more than 3,400 people in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone. Since March, more than 7,400 people have contracted Ebola in those nations, according to the World Health Organization.

The CDC is tracking the latest cases in the region.

NBC News freelance cameraman Ashoka Mukpo was diagnosed with Ebola in Liberia on Thursday. He left Liberia on a specially equipped plane Sunday and was headed to Nebraska, the network reported.

Mukpo is in stable condition at The Nebraska Medical Center, hospital representative Taylor Wilson said Wednesday.

The CDC’s Frieden said Tuesday that battling the virus will be a “long, hard fight.”

“The virus is spreading so fast,” he said, “that it’s hard to keep up.”

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/health/ebola-us/

Steven Hatfill

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Steven Jay Hatfill
Born October 24, 1953 (age 60)
Saint Louis, Missouri
Education Southwestern College (1975)University of Zimbabwe (1984)University of Stellenbosch (1993)

Steven Jay Hatfill (born October 24, 1953) is an American physician, virologist and bio-weapons expert who underwent what was considered by many[who?] to be a trial by media with great toll on his personal and professional life. After eight months of pressure from the media and amateur detectives, the US Department of Justice identified the former government scientist as a “person of interest” in its investigation of the 2001 anthrax attacks. FBIsearches of his apartment in July and August 2002 were well-attended by journalists, many of whom had been pointing at Hatfill for months. Hatfill later sued the government for ruining his reputation, a case which the government settled for US$ 5.8 million.[1] He also filed lawsuits against several periodicals that had identified him as a figure warranting further investigation. Hatfill’s lawsuit against The New York Times was dismissed on the grounds that he was a “public figure” and malice had not been proven. His lawsuit against Vanity Fair and Reader’s Digest was settled out of court, and the details were not disclosed. FBI and DOJ officials later blamed another government scientist, Bruce Edwards Ivins, although questions about the validity of that assertion have persisted.

Early life and education

Hatfill was born in Saint Louis, Missouri, and graduated from Mattoon Senior High School, Mattoon, Illinois (1971), and Southwestern College in Winfield, Kansas (1975), where he studied biology.

Hatfill was enlisted as a private in the U.S. Army from 1975 to 1977.[2] (In 1999, he would tell a journalist during an interview that he had been a “captain in the U.S. Special Forces“, but in a subsequent investigation the Army stated that he had never served with the Special Forces.[3]) Following his Army discharge, Hatfill qualified and worked as a medical laboratory technician, but soon resolved to become a doctor.

Hatfill then settled in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) entering the Godfrey Huggins Medical School[4] in Salisbury (now Harare) in 1978. (His claimed military associations during this period included assistance as a medic with the Selous Scouts and membership in theRhodesian SAS, but according to one journalist[5] the regimental association of the latter is “adamant Hatfill never belonged to the unit”.) He graduated (after failing in 1983) with a M ChB degree in 1984 and then completed a one year internship (1984–85) at a small rural hospital in South Africa’s North West Province. The South African government recruited him to be medical officer on a 14 month (1986–88) tour of duty in Antarctica with the South African National Antarctic Expedition (SANAE). He then completed (1988) a master’s degree in microbiology at the University of Cape Town. He worked toward a second master’s (1990; medical biochemistry and radiation biology) at the University of Stellenbosch, while working again as a paid med tech in the University’s clinical hematology lab. A 3-yearhematological pathology residency (1991–93) at Stellenbosch followed, during which time Hatfill conducted research on the treatment of leukemia with thalidomide.[5] This research, toward an anticipated PhD degree, was conducted (1992–95) under the supervision of Professor Ralph Kirby at Rhodes University.

Hatfill submitted his PhD thesis for examination to Rhodes in January 1995, but it was failed in November and no degree was ever granted.[5] Hatfill later claimed a Ph.D. degree in “molecular cell biology” from Rhodes, as well as completion of a post-doctoral fellowship (1994–95) at the University of Oxford in England and three master’s degrees (in microbial genetics, medical biochemistry, and experimental pathology). Some of these credentials have been questioned. During a later investigation, officials at Rhodes insisted that he had never been awarded a Ph.D. from their institution.[6] (In 2007, Hatfill’s lawyer Tom Connolly[7] — in his lawsuit against former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft and the FBI — admitted that his client had “Puffed on his resume. Absolutely. Forged a diploma. Yes, that’s true.”[8])

Back in the U.S., another of Hatfill’s post-doctoral appointments commenced at the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), one of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, in 1995. He subsequently worked (1997–99) as a civilian researcher at the United States Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID), the U.S. Department of Defense‘s medical research institute for biological warfare (BW) defense at Fort Detrick, Frederick, MD. There he studied, under aNational Research Council fellowship, new drug treatments for the Ebola virus and became a specialist in virology and BW defense.

Anthrax attacks

In January 1999 Hatfill transferred to a “consulting job” at Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), which has a “sprawling campus” in nearby McLean, Virginia. The corporation did work for a multitude of federal agencies. Many projects were classified.

By this time there had been a number of hoax anthrax mailings in the United States. Hatfill and his collaborator, SAIC vice president Joseph Soukup, commissioned William C. Patrick, retired head of the old US bioweapons program (who had also been a mentor of Hatfill) to write a report on the possibilities of terrorist anthrax mailing attacks. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg (director of the Federation of American Scientists‘ biochem weapons working group in 2002) said that the report was commissioned “under a CIA contract to SAIC”. However, SAIC said Hatfill and Soukup commissioned it internally — there was no outside client.

The resulting report, dated February 1999, was subsequently seen by some as a “blueprint” for the 2001 anthrax attacks. Amongst other things, it suggested the maximum amount of anthrax powder – 2.5 grams – that could be put in an envelope without making a suspicious bulge. The quantity in the envelope sent to Senator Patrick Leahy in October 2001 was .871 grams.[9] After the attacks, the report drew the attention of the media and others, and led to their investigation of Patrick and Hatfill.[10]

Assertions by Rosenberg

In October 2001, as soon as it became known that the Ames strain of anthrax had been used in the attacks, Dr. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and others began suggesting that the attack might be the work of a “rogue CIA agent”, and they provided the name of the “most likely” person to the FBI. On November 21, 2001, Rosenberg made similar statements to the Biological and Toxic Weapons convention in Geneva.[11] In December 2001, she published “A Compilation of Evidence and Comments on the Source of the Mailed Anthrax” via the web site of the Federation of American Scientists (FAS) suggesting the attacks were “perpetrated with the unwitting assistance of a sophisticated government program”.[12]

Rosenberg discussed the case with reporters from the New York Times.[13] On January 4, 2002, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times published a column titled “Profile of a Killer”[14] stating “I think I know who sent out the anthrax last fall.” For months, Rosenberg gave speeches and stated her beliefs to many reporters from around the world. She posted “Analysis of the Anthrax Attacks” to the FAS web site on January 17, 2002. On February 5, 2002 she published an article called “Is the FBI Dragging Its Feet?”[15] At the time, the FBI denied reports that investigators had identified a chief suspect, saying “There is no prime suspect in this case at this time.”[16] The Washington Post reported that “FBI officials over the last week have flatly discounted Dr. Rosenberg’s claims.”[17]

On June 13, 2002, Rosenberg posted “The Anthrax Case: What the FBI Knows” to the FAS site. On June 18, 2002, Rosenberg presented her theories to senate staffers working for Senators Daschle and Leahy.[18] One week later, on June 25, the FBI publicly searched Hatfill’s apartment, turning him into a household name. “The FBI also pointed out that Hatfill had agreed to the search and is not considered a suspect.”[19] Both The American Prospect and Salon.com reported that “Hatfill is not a suspect in the anthrax case, the FBI says.”[20] On August 3, 2002, Rosenberg told the media that the FBI asked her if “a team of government scientists could be trying to frame Steven J. Hatfill.”[21]

Person of interest

In August 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft labeled Hatfill a “person of interest” in a press conference, although no charges were brought against him. Hatfill, a virologist, vehemently denied he had anything to do with the anthrax (bacteria) mailings and sued the FBI, the Justice Department, John Ashcroft, Alberto Gonzales, and others for violating his constitutional rights and for violating the Privacy Act. On June 27, 2008, the Department of Justice announced it would settle Hatfill’s case for $5.8 million.[22]

Hatfill later went to work at Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Baton Rouge, LA. In September 2001 SAIC was commissioned by the Pentagon to create a replica of a mobile WMD “laboratory”, alleged to have been used by Saddam Hussein, who was President of Iraq at the time. The Pentagon claimed the trailer was to be used as a training aid for teams seeking weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.[23]

His lawyer, Victor M. Glasberg,[24] stated: “Steve’s life has been devastated by a drumbeat of innuendo, implication and speculation. We have a frightening public attack on an individual who, guilty or not, should not be exposed to this type of public opprobrium based on speculation.”[25]

In an embarrassing incident, FBI agents trailing Hatfill in a motor vehicle ran over his foot when he attempted to approach them in May 2003. Police responding to the incident did not cite the driver, but issued Hatfill a citation for “walking to create a hazard”.[26] He and his attorneys fought the ticket, but a hearing officer upheld the ticket and ordered Hatfill to pay the requisite $5 fine.[27]

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III changed leadership of the investigation in late 2006, and at that time another suspect, USAMRIID bacteriologist Bruce Ivins, became the main focus of the investigation.[28] Considerable questions have been raised, however, about the credibility of the case against Ivins as well.[29]

60 Minutes interview

Hatfill’s lawyer, Tom Connolly, was featured in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about the anthrax incidents on March 11, 2007.[8] In the interview it was revealed that Hatfill forged a Ph.D. degree certificate. “It is true. It is true that he has puffed on his resume. Absolutely”, Connolly acknowledged. “Forged a diploma. Yes, that’s true.” He went on to state, “Listen, if puffing on your resume made you the anthrax killer, then half this town should be suspect.”

The New York Times stated in their paper that Hatfill had obtained an anti-anthrax medicine (ciprofloxacin) immediately prior to the anthrax mailings. Connolly explained, “Before the attacks he had surgery. So yes, he’s on Cipro. But the fuller truth is in fact he was on Cipro because a doctor gave it to him after sinus surgery”. Hatfill had previously said the antibiotic was for a lingering sinus infection.[30] The omission in the Times’ article, of the reason why he had been taking Cipro, is one reason Hatfill sued the newspaper. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling in early 2007, squelching the libel suit that had been filed by Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof.[31]

Lawsuits

Hatfill v. John Ashcroft, et al.

On the 26th of August 2003, Hatfill filed a lawsuit[32] against the Attorney General of the United States John Ashcroft, the United States Department of Justice, DOJ employees Timothy Beres and Daryl Darnell, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, FBI Supervisory Special Agent Van Harp and an unknown number of FBI agents.[33]

On March 30, 2007, US District Judge Reggie Walton issued an order warning Hatfill that he could lose his civil lawsuit over the leaks if he did not compel journalists to name their sources. He gave Hatfill until April 16 to decide whether to press the journalists to give up their sources.[34]

On April 16, Hatfill gave notice that he would “proceed with discovery to attempt to obtain the identity of the alleged source or sources at the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation who allegedly provided information to news reporters concerning the criminal investigation of Dr. Hatfill.”

On April 27, 2007, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, federal prosecutors[clarification needed] wrote that Steven Hatfill had overstepped court orders allowing him to compel testimony from reporters whom he had already questioned and had instead “served a new round of subpoenas” on organizations “that he failed to question during the discovery period.”[35]

During the first round of depositions, Hatfill subpoenaed six reporters: Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman of Newsweek, Brian Ross of ABC, Allan Lengel of The Washington Post, Jim Stewart of CBS, and Toni Locy of USA Today.

Hatfill now has subpoenaed eight news organizations, including three that he didn’t name before: The New York Times (Nicolas Kristof, David Johnson, William Broad, Kate Zernike, Judith Miller, Scott Shane, and Frank D. Roylance), The Baltimore Sun (Gretchen Parker and Curt Anderson), and the Associated Press. Subpoenas for Washington Post writers Marilyn W. Thompson, David Snyder, Guy Gugliotta, Tom Jackman, Dan Eggen and Carol D. Loenning, and for Mark Miller of Newsweek, are now included.

The Justice Department responded to Hatfill’s subpoenas, saying that they went too far. “The court should reject this attempt to expand discovery,” prosecutors wrote.[36] In a status conference on Friday 11 January 2008, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton ordered the attorneys for the government and for Hatfill to seek mediation over the next two months. According to the Scheduling Order, the parties will be in mediation from January 14 until May 14, 2008. The prospects of a mediated settlement notwithstanding, Walton said he expected that a trial on the lawsuit could begin in December. Afterward, Hatfill’s attorney Mark A. Grannis said: “The court has set a schedule for bringing this case to trial this year, and we’re very pleased at the prospect that Dr. Hatfill will finally have his day in court.”[37]

On March 7, 2008, Toni Locy of USA Today was ordered to personally pay contempt of court fines of up to $5,000 a day which begin the following Tuesday, until she identifies her sources.[38]

On June 27, 2008 Hatfill was exonerated by the government and a settlement was announced in which the Justice Department has agreed to pay $4.6 million (consisting of $2.825 million in cash and an annuity paying $150,000 a year for 20 years)[39] to settle the lawsuit in which Hatfill claimed the Justice Department violated his privacy rights by speaking with reporters about the case.[40][41]

Hatfill v. The New York Times

In July 2004, Hatfill filed a lawsuit against The New York Times Company and Nicholas D. Kristof.

In a sealed motion[42] on December 29, 2006, The New York Times argued that the classification restrictions imposed on the case were tantamount to an assertion of the state secrets privilege. Times attorneys cited the case law on state secrets to support their argument that the case should be dismissed. The “state secrets” doctrine, they said, “precludes a case from proceeding to trial when national security precludes a party from obtaining evidence that is… necessary to support a valid defense. Dismissal is warranted in this case because the Times has been denied access to such evidence, specifically documents and testimony concerning the work done by plaintiff [Hatfill] on classified government projects relating to bioweapons, including anthrax.”[citation needed]

A redacted copy[42] of the December 29, 2006 New York Times Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion for an Order Dismissing the Complaint Under the “State Secrets” Doctrine was obtained by Secrecy News.[43]

Attorneys for Hatfill filed a sealed response on January 12, 2007 in opposition to the motion for dismissal on state secrets grounds. A redacted copy[44] of their opposition has been made available by Secrecy News.[45]

On January 12, 2007, a judge dismissed a lawsuit filed by Hatfill against The New York Times.[46]

On January 30, 2007, Judge Hilton’s order dismissing the Hatfill v. The New York Times was made public, along with a Memorandum Opinion explaining his ruling.Kenneth A. Richieri, Vice President and General Counsel of The New York Times scored what he called a “very satisfying win” at the beginning of 2007 in the Eastern District of Virginia. The newspaper won a summary judgment ruling squelching a libel suit that had been filed by anthrax poisoning “person of interest” Steven Hatfill against it and columnist Nicholas Kristof.[31]

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the trial court, ruling that a jury should decide that issue. In March 2008, the Supreme Court refused to grant certiorari in the case, effectively leaving the appeals court decision in place.

The case was dismissed in a Summary Judgment on January 12, 2007. The appeals were heard on March 21, 2008, and the dismissal was upheld by the appeals court on July 14, 2008. The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and was rejected by the Supreme Court on Dec. 15, 2008.[47] The basis for the dismissal was that Dr. Hatfill was a “public figure”, and he had not proved malice on the part of The New York Times.

Hatfill v. Foster

Donald Foster, an expert in forensic linguistics, advised the FBI during the investigation of the anthrax attacks. He later wrote an article for Vanity Fair about his investigation of Hatfill. In the October 2003 article Foster described how he had tried to match up Hatfill’s travels with the postmarks on the anthrax letters, and analyzed old interviews and an unpublished novel by Hatfill about a bioterror attack on the United States. Foster wrote that “When I lined up Hatfill’s known movements with the postmark locations of reported biothreats, those hoax anthrax attacks appeared to trail him like a vapor cloud”.[48]

Hatfill subsequently sued Donald Foster, Condé Nast Publications, Vassar College, and The Reader’s Digest Association. The suit sought $10 million in damages, claiming defamation.[49] The Reader’s Digest published a condensed version of the article in December 2003.

The lawyers delayed bringing the Hatfill v. Foster lawsuit to court because “the parties are close to finalizing the settlement”.

On February 27, 2007, The New York Sun reported that he settled without a trial.[50]

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

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 DownloadShow 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Obama’s Executive Order On Illegal Immigration Violates Oath Of Office and Immigration Law–An Impeachable And Criminal Offense–Amnesty For Illegal Aliens–Videos

Posted on August 24, 2011. Filed under: Babies, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Crime, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Security, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , |

UPDATED June 15, 2012

Obama Flip Flops On Illegal Immigration and Fails To Enforce Immigration Law–Breaks Oath of Office–Back Door Amnesty–No More Years–Out Obama–Videos

Obama Is Impeachable Over New Illegal Alien Amnesty

Rep. West: Obama Shredding Constitution With New ‘Amnesty’ Policy

Obama Subverts Constitution! Signs Amnesty by “Executive Order”

Allen West President Obama shredding the Constitution

Homeland Security to Focus on Deporting Criminals Under New Immigration Rules

New Deportation Policy, ‘Just a Band-Aid’

Gov. Jan Brewer: Obama’s New Jobs Plan Is for Illegals

‘Backdoor Amnesty’ for Illegal Aliens By Obama To Get Latino Votes In 2012 Election

Obama Issues ‘Dream Act’ by Executive Order & Bypasses Constitution, Again.

Obama halts deportation of illegal aliens

Obama Cancels Deportation Of Illegals – Alex Jones Tv

Illegal Aliens Returning To Mexico In Search Of A Better Life!

NewsBusted 8/23/11

Background Articles and Videos

Obama Issues ‘Dream Act’ by Executive Order & Bypasses Constitution, Again.

Lou Dobbs On DREAM ACT – Sept. 20, 2010

Mark Levin – Obama Has Just Granted Amnesty For Two Hundred Thousand Illegal Immigrants

Obama Administration Pledges to Reduce Deportations

Thursday, August 18, 2011,

“…The Obama Administration announced on Thursday that it will individually review the 300,000 cases of illegal aliens currently holding deportation orders in an effort to appease his pro-amnesty critics and last year’s record number of deportations.

The Administration deported 400,000 illegal aliens last year — less than half had been convicted for other crimes. Pres. Obama is pledging to halt deportations of non-criminal illegal aliens. Illegal aliens that are considered low-priority deportations will no longer be the focus, including young people who were brought to the U.S. as children, military veterans and spouses of military personnel.

“They will be applying common sense guidelines to make these decisions, like a person’s ties and contributions to the community, their family relationships and military service record,” White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs Cecilia Muñoz wrote on the White House blog. “In the end, this means more immigration enforcement pressure where it counts the most, and less where it doesn’t – that’s the smartest way to follow the law while we stay focused on working with the Congress to fix it.”

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/august-18-2011/obama-administration-pledges-reduce-deportations.html

Obama Amnesty Begins: Halts Deportations for 300,000 Illegal Aliens; Offers ‘Work Permits’

by John Hill

“…The Obama Administration today announced a virtual amnesty-by-decree for hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens, whose deportations will be “indefinitely delayed”. In addition, Obama finally announced a jobs program – but for ILLEGAL ALIENS, not citizens – as those 300,000 illegals will also become eligible for “work permits“.

This action represents an administrative end-run around Congress, which twice rejected the ‘DREAM Act’ in 2010. As disgraceful as is this usurpation of Congressional authority, this announcement is even worse than is being reported.

Our analysis reveals that – despite media focus of this action limited to so-called “Dreamer” illegal students, this new policy, coupled with the criteria established by the June 2011 “Morton Memos” which set up a joint “DHS and DOJ working group” could expand this “indefinite delay” of deportation to potentially MILLIONS of illegals – creating a new, massive amnesty entirely by fiat, bypassing Congress. …”

“…Under the new process, a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of Justice (DOJ) “working group” will develop specific criteria to identify “low-priority removal cases” that should be considered for prosecutorial discretion.  These criteria will be based on “positive factors” from the Morton Memo (PDF), which include

  • individuals present in the U.S. since childhood (like ‘DREAM Act’ students)
  • minors
  • the elderly
  • pregnant and nursing women
  • victims of serious crimes
  • veterans and members of the armed services
  • and individuals with serious disabilities or health problems

The breadth of the above list makes it less a matter of which illegal aliens are excluded than which ones are NOT. Minors, elderly, pregnant and nursing (could cover more than half of all childbearing-age illegal alien women!), victims of “serious” crimes (what defines “serious”?), disabilities/health problems(does diabetes count? depression?).

The Morton Guidelines above, coupled with today’s announcement suspending deportations equals a potential amnesty for MILLIONS of illegal aliens – all without ANY Congressional action or authorization. …”

http://standwitharizona.com/blog/2011/08/18/obama-amnesty-begins-halts-deportations-for-300000-illegal-aliens-offers-work-permits/

Obama to deport illegals by ‘priority’

Case-by-case plan will curb numbers

“…The new rules apply to those who have been apprehended and are in deportation proceedings, but have not been officially ordered out of the country by a judge.

Ms. Napolitano said a working group will try to come up with “guidance on how to provide for appropriate discretionary consideration” for “compelling cases” in instances where someone already has been ordered deported.

Administration officials made the announcement just before Mr. Obama left for a long vacation out of Washington, and as members of Congress are back in their home districts.

The top House Republican on the Judiciary Committee said the move is part of a White House plan “to grant backdoor amnesty to illegal immigrants.”

“The Obama administration should enforce immigration laws, not look for ways to ignore them,” said Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican. “The Obama administration should not pick and choose which laws to enforce. Administration officials should remember the oath of office they took to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the land.”

Immigration legislation has been stalled in Congress for years as the two parties have sparred over what to include.

Republicans generally favor stricter enforcement and a temporary program that would allow workers in the country for some time, but eventually return to their home countries. Democrats want the legislation to include legalization of the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants now in the country, and want the future guest-worker program to also include a path to citizenship so those workers can stay permanently. …”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/18/new-dhs-rules-cancel-deportations/

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

When Is Enough Enough?–Alan West–The American People Must Go Out And Find The Candidates That Can Be Their Voice!–Videos

Posted on April 29, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Raves, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

LTC Allen West on Illegal Immigration

 

Congressional Candidate LTC Allen West Speaking Before The Tea Party Fort Lauderdale July 3rd Rally.

 

 

Glenn Beck-04/28/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-04/28/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-04/28/11-C

 

 

Congressional Candidate LTC Allen West At The Revolution / American Freedom Tour

 

Rep. Allen West Fights Job-Destroying Regulations

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

 

President Barack Obama’s Worst Nightmare–Allen West–”Now Is The Time!”–Videos

 

 

 

 

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

America Held Hostage: President Obama Holds The Security of American People Hostage For Amnesty of Illegal Aliens a.k.a. Comprehensive Immigration Reform–Impeach and Convict President Obama For Betraying Oath Of Office

Posted on June 24, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Crime, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

 

 

 

OBAMA: AMNESTY by EXECUTIVE ORDER for 18 Million Illegal Immigrants!!!! 

  

Arizona Sen. Kyl : Obama said he would not secure border without immigration reform first

Lou Dobbs Comments On Sen. Kyl On Hannity!

Obama using border security as a bargaining chip? Part 2

Alex Covers Sen. Kyle’s Comment About Why Obama Won’t Send Troops to The Border

  

Why Obama Won’t Secure the Border

Who’s a liar? Senator Kyle or President Obama?

Obama Double Talk, Caught In A Lie, Illegals and Healthcare Health Care, Immigration Reform Fox

  

Obama Lies 7 Times In Under 2 Minutes!

Obama’s Health Care Lies And Reversals

Barack Obama Lies To America

Obama’s Insane Lies

CNN – Obama on illegal immigration

Obama Administration to File Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona Gov. Brewer upset with Obama Admin. suit over Arizona’s SB 1070

  

Standing up for Jobless Hispanic Americans

Immigration Gumballs


Comprehensive immigration reform is a code word for amnesty for illegal aliens which President Obama fully supports. 

President Obama is seriously considering issuing an executive order that would give nearly 20 million illegal aliens amnesty and eventually full U.S. citizenship.

Should President Obama actually go forward with such an order, he would guarantee the defeat of most Democratic Party candidates running for reelection in 2010 and 2012 as well as his own impeachment and conviction under the U.S. Constitution.

Sudden Impact – “Go Ahead. Make My Day”

Since over three out four voters oppose illegal immigration, one only wonders why does President Obama want to commit political suicide?

Obama = Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

 

Has President Obama suddenly realized that he is not up to the job and more and more Americans are coming to the same conclusion. 

There are over 30 million American citizens looking for a full-time job and over 40 million receiving food stamps or a supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) card. 

There are over 30 million illegal aliens living and working in the United States. 

There are over 15 million American citizens officially unemployed in the United States with the real number over 25 million unemployed. 

There are between 10 million and 20 million illegal aliens employed at jobs that Americans need, want and should have. 

During the worse month of the Great Depression in 1933 there were over 13 million Americans unemployed. 

Instead of enforcing U.S. immigration laws and removing illegal aliens from the workplace and deporting them back to the their country of origin, President Obama is holding the American people hostage. 

President Obama will not stop the invasion of the United States by illegal aliens by securing the American borders until the illegal aliens living and working here now are given amnesty under a comprehensive immigration reform bill. 

For this alone President Obama should be impeached and convicted. 

President Obama’s own Secretary of Labor is aiding and abetting illegal immigration with this commercial. 

Obama’s DOL Secretary Hilda L. Solis: You Have the Right to Be Paid Fairly Whether Documented or Not

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/06/21/obama-wh-to-illegals-well-help-you-get-paid-fairly/ 

The only right an illegal alien has when they break into the United States, obtain fraudulent documents, and work here illegallly  is to be removed from the workplace, arrested and deported to their country of origin. 

The American employers that benefit from hiring illegal aliens should be prosecuted as well. 

The American people believe Senator Kyl. 

The American people do not believe, trust nor respect President Obama. 

Why? 

President Obama has a justly deserved reputation for being an habitual liar. 

President Obama’s refusal to vigorously enforce United States immigration law that he is required to do is legal grounds for impeachment under the United States Constitution. 

President Obama should be impeached and convicted for not defending the Constitution of The United States of America which requires him to defend the states when they are invaded. 

How many more millions of illegal alien invaders must the American people endure before removing a President of the United States who refuses to enforce immigration laws and defend America’s sovereignty and secure the borders? 

How many days will America Be Held Hostage by a President who is more concerned about amnesty and citizenship for illegal aliens than the safety and security of the American people? 

How many more millions of American citizens will be unemployed before Congress impeaches and the Senate convicts President Obama according to the process setforth in the United States Constitution? 

Employ American Citizens–No Amnesty For Illegal Aliens–Impeach and Convict Obama!

  

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Stop Amnesty for Illegal Immigrants – Expert Reveals the True Cost of Amnesty

 

 

The Dangers of Unlimited Legal & Illegal Immigration

Support a Moratorium on All Immigration, Legal and Illegal

Ambassador Alan Keyes on Stopping Illegal Immigration

Rush Limbaugh on Illegal Immigration

US Government is MUY LOCO…

Illegal Immigration Perks…

We Need an American President…

MICHAEL SAVAGE – IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!!! BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!!! BEFORE AMERICA IS FINISHED!!

Senators Challenge Pres. Obama on Rumors of Amnesty Thorugh Executive Actions

“…Several Senators have learned of a possible plan by the Obama Administration that would provide a mass Amnesty for the nation’s 11-18 million illegal aliens. Led by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), eight Senators addressed a letter to the President asking for answers to questions about a plan that would allow DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to provide an amnesty if they can’t secure enough votes for a bill in the Senate. …” 

“…Here is the text of the letter signed by Sens. Grassley, Hatch (R-Utah), Vitter (R-La.), Bunning (R-Ky.), Chambliss (R-Ga.), Isakson (R-Ga.), Inhofe (R-Okla.), and Cochran (R-Miss.). 

Dear President Obama: 

We understand that there’s a push for your Administration to develop a plan to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. We understand that the Administration may include aliens who have willfully overstayed their visas or filed for benefits knowing that they will not be eligible for a status for years to come. We understand that deferred action and parole are discretionary actions reserved for individual cases that present unusual, emergent or humanitarian circumstances. Deferred action and parole were not intended to be used to confer a status or offer protection to large groups of illegal aliens, even if the agency claims that they look at each case on a “case-by-case” basis. 

While we agree our immigration laws need to be fixed, we are deeply concerned about the potential expansion of deferred action or parole for a large illegal alien population. While deferred action and parole are Executive Branch authorities, they should not be used to circumvent Congress’ constitutional authority to legislate immigration policy, particularly as it relates to the illegal population in the United States. 

The Administration would be wise to abandon any plans for deferred action or parole for the illegal population. Such a move would further erode the American public’s confidence in the federal government and its commitment to securing the borders and enforcing the laws already on the books. 

We would appreciate receiving a commitment that the Administration has no plans to use either authority to change the current position of a large group of illegal aliens already in the United States, and ask that you respond to us about this matter as soon as possible. …” 

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/news/june-21-2010/senators-challenge-pres-obama-rumors-executive-order-amnesty.html 

 

  

58% Say No to Citizenship for Children of Illegal Immigrants

“…Fifty-eight percent (58%) of U.S. voters say a child born to an illegal immigrant in this country should not automatically become a citizen of the United States, according to a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. 

Thirty-three percent (33%) disagree and say if a women enters the United States as an illegal alien and gives birth to a child here, that child should automatically be a U.S. citizen. That’s what the current law allows and many believe it would require a Constitutional Amendment to change the law. 

Voter sentiments are basically unchanged from four years ago when the Senate was considering the immigration issue. The Senate was eventually forced to drop its plans and surrender to public opinion on the topic. 

On another aspect of the debate, voters overwhelmingly oppose allowing illegal immigrants to be eligible for state and federal government benefits. Just nine percent (9%) say illegals should receive such benefits, but 85% say they should not. …” 

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/immigration/58_say_no_to_citizenship_for_children_of_illegal_immigrants 

Impeachment: The Unthinkable Process

“…Impeachable Offenses 

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” In his report, Independent Counsel, Starr accuses President Clinton of committing eleven acts for which he could be removed from office by impeachment. Are any of those acts “Treason, Bribery, or other High Crimes and Misdemeanors?” Well, that’s up to the members of the House of Representatives. According to Constitutional Lawyers, “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” are (1) real criminality — breaking a law; (2) abuses of power; (3) “violation of public trust” as defined by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers. In 1970, then Representative Gerald R. Ford defined impeachable offenses as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.” An excellent definition, Mr. Former President. In the past, Congress has issued Articles of Impeachment for acts in three general categories: 

  • Behavior grossly incompatible with the proper function and purpose of the office.
  • Employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain.

  

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/impeachment.htm 

End Illegal Immigration

“…POLLS AND SURVEYS

Seventy-eight percent (78%) of likely voters were opposed to legalizing the status of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. with only 19% supporting it. 88% of African-Americans were opposed to legalization. Pulse Opinion Research, LLC, September, 2009

71% of Americans want to see the bosses who hire illegal immigrants arrested while 64 percent support police conducting surprise raids on businesses suspected of hiring illegal immigrants (The Raids Obama has stopped) Rasmussen Reports poll, October, 2009

80 percent of U.S. voters oppose proposals for government-backed health-care plans for illegal immigrants Rasmussen Reports poll, June, 2009

78 percent of Americans believe that high immigration numbers have had a negative impact on the cost and quality of the nation’s health care system and 78% of likely voters were opposed to legalizing the status of the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the U.S. American Council for Immigration Reform, September, 2009

73% of Americans called for a drop in the number of illegal immigrants CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll, October, 2009.

58% of Arizona voters say the policies and activities of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio have had a positive impact on the state’s image, [May 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

74% of Americans think the government is not doing enough to keep illegal immigrants from coming into this country, [Washington Post-ABC News poll, April 2009]

66% of likely voters nationwide say it is Very Important for the government to improve its enforcement of the borders and reduce illegal immigration, [April 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

73% of U.S. voters believe that a police officer should automatically check to see if someone is in this country legally when the officer pulls that person over for a traffic violation, [March 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

67% of voters also say that if law enforcement officers know of places where immigrants gather to find work, they should sometimes conduct surprise raids to identify and deport illegal immigrants,[March 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

68% of Arizona voters have a favorable view of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, [March 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

68% of U.S. voters favor strict government sanctions on employers who hire illegal immigrants, [March 2009, Rasmussen Reports]

62% of New Jersey Residents oppose offering illegal immigrants some type of driver’s licenses. Just 33% favor this proposal, [March 2009, Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll]

Only 20% of New Jersey residents favor extending in-state college tuition rates to undocumented immigrants living in the state compared to 37% who say illegal immigrants should pay higher out-of-state rates. 39% say that illegal immigrants should not even be allowed to attend New Jersey’s public colleges and universities at all, [March 2009, Monmouth University/Gannett New Jersey Poll]

78% of registered Utah voters want to see SB81 implemented. The bill would, among other provisions, require all companies that contract with the state to check the immigration status of their employees and allow local police to enforce immigration law, [January 2009, The Salt Lake Tribune]

74% of U.S. voters continue to believe the federal government is not doing enough to secure the country’s borders, [December 2008, Rasmussen Reports]

63% of voters say gaining control of the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers in the country, [December 2008, Rasmussen Reports]

Only 32% of Obama voters considered his support for amnesty as a factor in their decisions to vote for him. 67% said it was either not a factor at all, or they voted for Obama in spite of his stance on amnesty, [November 2008, Zogby Interactive Survey of Likely Voters]

60% of voters said reducing illegal immigration and cracking down on employers who hire them is important to them, while only 21% supported “legalizing or creating a pathway to citizenship” for illegal aliens, [November 2008, Zogby Interactive Survey of Likely Voters]

Transatlantic Trends: when asked about what governments should do to address illegal immigration, 83% of respondents supported stronger border controls, 74% supported cracking down on employers, and 68% supported deportation, [November 2008, TNS Opinion]

71.5% of likely voters said they agree (including 47.8% who strongly agree) that local law enforcement officers should enforce federal immigration laws, including 51.5% of Hispanics and 56.2% of self-described “liberals.” [October 2008, Judicial Watch/Zogby International]

57.1% of likely voters said more law enforcement is needed to address the issue of illegal immigration while only 7.1% said they believe less law enforcement should be used. 34.7% of Hispanics support more law enforcement while 15.5% said less, [October 2008, Judicial Watch/ Zogby International]

69% of voters say controlling the border is more important than legalizing the status of undocumented workers, while just 21% think legalization is more important, [August 2008, Rasmussen Reports]

Ohio voters prefer strict enforcement over integration of illegal immigrants 71 – 20 % and 22% say they would vote against a candidate who disagrees with them only on the immigration issue, [December 2007, Quinnipiac University poll]

77% of American voters say companies should be allowed to require employees to speak English while on the job, [November 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

77% of American adults are opposed to making drivers licenses available to people who are in the country illegally, [November 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

Only 22% of voters support the Dream Act proposal introduced by Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) and 59% of all voters oppose the Dream Act concept, [October 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

68% of North Carolinians disagree (including 41.6% who strongly disagree) with proposals that would allow undocumented immigrants to stay in this country for several years as long as they have a job, [September 2007, Elon University Poll]

58% of voters nationwide favor cutting off federal funds for “sanctuary cities” that offer protection to illegal immigrants, [August 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

79% of American adults favor a proposal requiring employers to fire workers who falsify identity documents, [August 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

Just 22% of American voters currently favor the “comprehensive” immigration reform bill in the U.S. Senate despite a despite a massive White House effort, [June 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

2007 Senate amnesty bill: just 16% of American voters believe illegal immigration will decline if the bill is passed. If voters had a chance to improve the legislation, 75% would make changes to increase border security measures and reduce illegal immigration and just 19% would make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country and eventually become citizens, [May 2007, Rasmussen Reports]

When presented by itself, 79% of likely voters supported reducing the illegal immigrant population by increasing border enforcement, penalizing employers, and increasing cooperation with local law enforcement, while 15 percent were opposed. No other proposal had near this level of support, [May 2007, Pulse Opinion Research]

Which approach do you prefer – enforcing the law and cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or granting legal status and citizenship to those who meet certain requirements? 56% prefer “Enforce the law” while 35% prefer “Grant legal status.” [May 2007, Pulse Opinion Research]

58% of likely voters prefer that the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country go home as opposed to 30% who prefer they be allowed to stay legally, [May 2007, Pulse Opinion Research]

59% of Americans believe the more effective way to deal with the potential treat to national security posed by millions of illegal immigrants living within the United States is to crack down on illegal immigration by toughening the enforcement of existing laws, deporting illegal immigrants and prosecuting the employers who illegally employ workers, [April 2007, UPI/Zogby Poll]

61% of likely American voters oppose providing a path to US citizenship for those illegal immigrants who entered the United States illegally, and who fraudulently obtained green cards and Social Security numbers, when millions are playing by the rules and waiting in their countries to enter the United States legally, [April 2007, McLaughlin & Associates Poll]

A poll of likely voters, using neutral language, found that Americans prefer the House of Representatives’ enforcement-only bill by 2-1 over Senate proposals to legalize illegal immigrants and greatly increase legal immigration, [April 2006, Zogby America] …”

http://www.endillegalimmigration.com/illegal_immigration_polls_surveys/index.shtml

Ray Stevens – Come to the USA

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Immigration

What Is Commander-In-Chief Obama’s Battle Plan For Stopping and Reversing The Invasion Of The United State of America By 30 Million Illegal Aliens–Unconditional Surrender!

Open Your Eyes To The Consequences Of Open Borders In Just One State–Join The Second American Revolution

Your Papers Please–Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic and Republican Senators Proposed National ID Card–Vote These Bums Out Of Office–Time For Operation Wetback II

Cheap Tomatoes, Cheap Labor, Criminal Aliens, Corrupt Polticians, Costing Trillions–Cradle To Grave Progressive Radical Socialism!

Obama Aids and Abets Illegal Immigration and High American Citizen Unemployment By Attacking Arizona State Law!

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

US Immigration Videos

Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos

The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF)

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Alan Keyes on Immigration

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

Obama Aids and Abets Illegal Immigration and High American Citizen Unemployment By Attacking Arizona State Law!

Posted on April 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, College, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , |

Obama: Arizona immigration law “irresponsible” and “misguided” 

Governor Jan Brewer Signs Arizona Illegal Immigration Bill SB 1070 Into LAW! Yes!!!!
 

 

Arizona gets tough on illegal immigrants 2010 

FOX News Sunday 4-25-10 AZ Immigration Law 

  

CNN- Obama = Amnesty For Illegal Aliens

Arizona Immigration Battle 

Immigration Gumballs

There are over 30 million Americans looking for full-time employment. 

There are over 30 million illegal aliens living in the United States. 

There are a minimum of 10 million illegal aliens currently working in the United States. 

The American  people want jobs for American citizens.   

The American people demand immigration law enforcement by the Federal, state and local governments. 

The American people want all employers to be required to use the E-Verify system to determine if a person can legally work in the United States.  

Instead the progressive radical socialists of both the Democratic and Republican Parties encourage  illegal immigration by refusing to honor their oaths of office, enforcing existing immigration law and requiring all employers to use the E-Verify system. 

The American people will vote out of office any politician that favors comprehensive immigration reform, a code word for amnesty for illegal aliens. 

The American people will vote out of office any politician  if they do not support illegal alien removal and deportation. 

The American people will vote of office any politician if they do not support the requirement that the E-Verify system be used in the hiring of new employees and verification of current employee’s status to legally work in the United States. 

All states should follow the example of Arizona and enact similar laws.

The civil rights of American citizens are being violated daily when the Federal government as well as local and state governments fail to enforce immigration laws.

Young and unskilled black, hispanic and white American citizens over the last decade have been replaced by illegal aliens.

Unemployed: 34.5% of Young Black Men

Standing up for Jobless Hispanic Americans


For example I watched two large buildings being constructed at a local community college where over 75% of the workers were illegal aliens that did not speak a word of English but did speak Spanish.

At this same community college the janitorial staff is mostly illegal aliens that again do not speak English but do speak Spanish.

How do I know?

I asked them several questions in English.

Local, country and state governments routinely hire contractors and subcontractors who in turn hire these illegal aliens.

All of these jobs would and should be performed by American citizens not illegal aliens.

By not enforcing immigration laws, the Federal Government along with state and local governments are discriminating against American citizens and violating their civil rights.

Arizona’s SB 1070: Sheriff Joe Arpaio Debates Kyrsten Sinema

Asking for a state driver’s license or an identification card is not racial profiling.

Playing the race card by saying it is racial profiling will not work this time.

Why?

Young and unskilled blacks, Hispanics, and whites have the highest unemployment rates.

Entry level jobs that were in the past performed by young and unskilled black, hispanic and white American citizens are now routinely going to illegal aliens so that the business can pay below market wages and benefits.

The American people are mad as hell at the Federal Government’s failure to enforce immigration laws.

The time for illegal alien removable from the workplace and deportation to their country of origin ia long past due.

American citizens demand immigration law enforcement and not comprehensive immigration reform–amnesty for criminal aliens!

Ask President Obama to Enforce E-Verify Executive Order and Protect Unemployed Americans

Map of States with Mandatory E-Verify Laws

 

E-Verify is an Internet-based system operated by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in partnership with the Social Security Administration (SSA). E-Verify is currently free to employers and is available in all 50 states. It provides an automated link to federal databases to help employers determine employment eligibility of new hires and the validity of their Social Security numbers. While its usage remains voluntary throughout the country, some states have passed legislation making its use mandatory for certain businesses.

States Requiring the use of E-Verify (Descriptions of each state below)

 http://www.numbersusa.com/content/learn/enforcement/workplace-verification/map-states-with-mandatory-e-verify-laws.html 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Roy Responds to Pres. Obama’s State of the Union 

 

Roy Beck on Lou Dobbs Tonight 

 

Roy Beck speaking at ‘Reclaim 


American Jobs Caucus’ in Rayburn
 

Numbers USA 

http://www.numbersusa.com/content/ 

Barack Obama: Immigration

Why Graham balked; can Dems win by losing on climate AND immigration?

By: Byron York

“…The fact is, many Democrats are just as afraid of the immigration issue as Republicans. The conventional wisdom is that immigration reform efforts of 2006 and 2007 split the GOP. They did, but they split the Democrats, too. In the Senate vote that killed the 2007 effort, 34 Democrats and 12 Republicans voted to move the measure forward, while 37 Republicans and 16 Democrats voted to block it.

And that bill was the result of long and painstaking bipartisan work. “In 2007,” Graham writes, “we spent hundreds of hours over many months with President Bush’s Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez, and nearly every member of the U.S. Senate searching for a way to address our nation’s immigration problems. Unlike this current ‘effort,’ it was a good-faith attempt to address a very difficult national issue.”

Now, Reid says he would like to have a bill in three weeks. It’s a laughable idea except for the fact that the majority leader is becoming desperate and might do anything to improve his chances of re-election.

But even if Democrats can cobble together some sort of legislation in the next few weeks, they can forget about having the sort of Republican support that existed in 2007. The watered-down border security measures in that bill — the “virtual fence,” for example — have been dumped. Temporary guest worker measures are gone, too. There is no way many Republicans would go along with a new Democratic measure. Even the famously pro-reform GOP Sen. John McCain campaigned for the presidency in 2008 by repeating thousands of times that he “got the message” that the U.S. should “secure the border first.” Now in a primary fight with hardliner J.D. Hayworth, McCain won’t be touching a Democratic immigration reform plan. …”

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Why-Graham-balked-can-Dems-win-by-losing-on-climate-AND-immigration-92056569.html

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Why-Graham-balked-can-Dems-win-by-losing-on-climate-AND-immigration-92056569.html#ixzz0mEC374N0

Obama Blasts Arizona Law
Governor Signs Strict Immigration Measure as Fight Moves to National Stage&lt

?”…In an unusual White House attack on state legislation, President Barack Obama harshly criticized an Arizona measure to crack down on illegal immigration and made clear Friday that he is looking for an election-year fight over the volatile issue. Hours later, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed the nation’s toughest immigration law, making illegal immigration a state crime and requiring police to question people about their immigration status if officers suspect they are in the U.S. illegally. Ms. Brewer, a Republican, said the state action was forced by Washington’s failure to secure the U.S. borders and solve the nation’s thorny illegal immigration problem. “Decades of inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation,” she said. The president said it was the state that was “misguided” and that the Arizona measure would “undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”a,/p> 

Mr. Obama said he instructed the Justice Department to “examine the civil rights and other implications” of the new law. Justice officials said they were considering their options, and it wasn’t clear Friday what they might do. Regardless, the law seemed certain to be challenged in court by opponents. …”

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703709804575202110136576160.html 

 

  

Roy Beck Sneak Peak new Immigration Gumballs 

  

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Immigration

American Citizens Want Jobs and Criminal Alien Removal, Not Criminal Alien Census and Health Care!

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Discover The Left’s Organized Crime Network–Crime Pays–Organized Crimes Pays More–Apply for Census Taker Jobs!

US Immigration Videos

Borderline Chaos: Immigration Out of Control–Videos

The Hyphenated American and The Hyphen

The Signed “Stimulus Package” Did Not Include Funding for E-Verify and Border Fence Construction–Less Jobs And Security for American Citizens

President Obama Delays E-Verify–Shame On You Mr. President!

The Issue of The United States 2008 Presidential Election–Criminal Alien Removal (CAR) and A Border Security Fence (BSF)

The Cost of Comprehensive Immigration Reform–McCain and Obama Are Hopeless–It is the Economy Stupid!

Appeasers and Oath Breakers All: Bush, Clinton, Bush, McCain, Clinton, Obama…Who is next?

Why immigration will be the number 1 political issue in the 2008 Presidential Election! — Gum Balls

Presidential Candidates on Illegal Immigration, Criminal Alien Removal and Social Service Benefits

John McCain’s Position on Illegal Immigration and Criminal Alien Removal?

Alan Keyes on Immigration

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...