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

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

Image result for number of illegal aliens in united states

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Image result for sanutary citiesImage result for sanutary cities

Image result for sanutary cities

Image result for sanutary cities

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

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

The Illegal Invasion of America

“The Gold Standard” of Fence System

The Great Wall of Trump

Top 5 Facts About President Donald Trumps Wall

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

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

What Mexicans think of Trump’s wall – BBC News

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

Is a wall along the US-Mexico border realistic?

Trump’s Touchback amnesty explained by Marc Thiessen

How Donald Trump’s Amnesty Plan Works

Donald Trump lays out three steps of his immigration policy

Donald Trump explains his immigration plan

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration Gumballs and White Genocide Best explanation ever

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

Ben Shapiro: Amnesty Will Destroy Conservatives

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

Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

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

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

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

This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:

Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR…

Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW…

Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY…

James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV…

James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun…

Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ…

Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…

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

Obama’s Amnesty & How Illegal Immigration Affects Us

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Texas governor vows sanctuary cities will not be tolerated

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

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

First The CIA Director Now The State Department Contradict Obama’s Islamic State, Syria and Iraq Policies — The Hillary Clinton Support Network Of Lying Lunatic Leftists Throws Obama Under The Bus — Work Place Violence — Hate Crime — Terrorist Act — Radical Islam — Radical Islamic Terrorist — Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists — Face Reality and Stopping Lying Obama — Radical Islamists Are A Majority of The World’s 1,600+ Million Muslims And Want Sharia Law — Ban All Radical Islamists From United States Permanently — Videos

Posted on July 2, 2016. Filed under: American History, Ammunition, Articles, Blogroll, Books, British History, Business, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), College, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), Demographics, Diasters, Documentary, Drones, Drug Cartels, Economics, Education, Elections, Employment, European History, External Hard Drives, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Federal Government, Foreign Policy, Freedom, Friends, government, history, Homicide, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Islam, Language, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Middle East, Missiles, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Newspapers, Nuclear Proliferation, People, Philosophy, Photos, Pistols, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Press, Radio, Radio, Raves, Raymond Thomas Pronk, Regulations, Religion, Religious, Religious, Resources, Rifles, Security, Shite, Speech, Spying, Strategy, Sunni, Talk Radio, Television, Trade, Unemployment, Union, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Weapons, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 701: June 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 700: June 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 699: June 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 698: June 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 697: June 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 696: June 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 695: June 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 694: June 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 693: June 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 692: June 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 691: June 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 690: June 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 689: May 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 688: May 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 687: May 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 686: May 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 685: May 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 684: May 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 683: May 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 682: May 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 681: May 17, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 680: May 16, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 679: May 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 678: May 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 677: May 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 676: May 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 675: May 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 674: May 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 673: May 5, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 672: May 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 671: May 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 670: May 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 669: April 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 668: April 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 667: April 27, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 666: April 26, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 665: April 25, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 664: April 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 663: April 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 662: April 20, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 661: April 19, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 660: April 18, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 659: April 15, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 658: April 14, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 657: April 13, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 656: April 12, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 655: April 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 654: April 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 653: April 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 652: April 6, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 651: April 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 650: April 1, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 649: March 31, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 648: March 30, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 647: March 29, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 646: March 28, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 645: March 24, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 644: March 23, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 643: March 22, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 642: March 21, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 641: March 11, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 640: March 10, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 639: March 9, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 638: March 8, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 637: March 7, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 636: March 4, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 635: March 3, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 634: March 2, 2016

Pronk Pops Show 633: March 1, 2016

Story 1: First The CIA Director Now The State Department Contradict Obama’s Islamic State, Syria and Iraq Policies — The Hillary Clinton Support Network Of Lying Lunatic Leftists Throws Obama Under The Bus — Work Place Violence — Hate Crime — Terrorist Act — Radical Islam — Radical Islamic Terrorist — Radical Islamic Terrorist Jihadists — Face Reality and Stopping Lying Obama — Radical Islamists Are A Majority of The World’s 1,600+ Million Muslims And Want Sharia Law — Ban All Radical Islamists From United States Permanently — Videos

Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology

What ISIS Wants

The rise of ISIS, explained in 6 minutes

The Basics of Islam 8: Robert Spencer on The Meaning of the Word “Jihad”

Robert Spencer Moment: Trump Was Right.

Robert Spencer on Hannity on the Orlando jihad massacre

The Basics of Islam 1: Robert Spencer on “Islamophobia”

What Does Jihad Really Mean? | For the Record

CIA Director Grave Warning: ISLAMIC STATE Dangerous As Ever

Gorka: CIA director no longer spreading Obama’s narrative

CIA CHIEF CONTRADICTS PRESIDENT OBAMA ON ISIS

Robert Spencer speaks on the Syrian refugee crisis and the Islamic idea of hijrah

State Department diplomats slam Obama’s Syria policy

Diplomats slam Obama’s Syria policy

Dozens of State Department officials just revolted against Obama’s Syria policy

How will Trump react to the diplomats’ memo on Syrian war?

Syria’s war: Who is fighting and why

The war in Syria explained in five minutes | Guardian Animations

State Department dissent memo critical of Obama policy on Syria and Assad

State Department Demands Policy Shift In Syria | MSNBC

DHS Whistleblower Phil Haney exposes Obama administration during Press Conference

DHS Whistleblower Exposes Government’s Submission To Jihad (FULL Press Conference)

Government Insider BLOWS WHISTLE on Obama’s ‘Countering Violent Extremism’ Policy

State Dept Under Fire For Including Syria In Top Foreign Policy Moments – America’s Newsroom

Ben Shapiro: The Myth of the Tiny Radical Muslim Minority

Obama gives speech in Orlando

Obama goes on tirade against Trump over ‘dangerous’ Muslim ban, ‘radical Islam’

Obama on ‘Radical Islam’

Speech by President Barack Obama After Counter-ISIL Meeting

President Obama On Orlando Shooting

Top Ex-CIA Agent Has ‘Chilling Warning’ About Obama’s Plans for Islamic State!

CIA Director on Islamic State

CIA Director John Brennan on ISIS and Global Threats at CSIS

CIA Chief Warns Islamic State Isn’t Finished Yet

CIA’S Brennan: Islamic State’s Momentum Blunted in Syria, Iraq

Shariamerica: Islam, Obama, and the Establishment Clause

Full Event: Donald Trump Rally in Dallas, TX (6-16-16)

 

An ’embarrassing’ break: Dozens of State Department officials just revolted against Obama’s Syria policy

 

At least 51 “mid-to-high-level State Department officials” have signed a dissent channel cable breaking with President Barack Obama’s policy on Syria and calling for US airstrikes on the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

The cable was provided to several news outlets on Thursday, including The New York Timesand The Wall Street Journal.

“Failure to stem Assad’s flagrant abuses will only bolster the ideological appeal of groups such as Daesh, even as they endure tactical setbacks on the battlefield,” the cable reads, according to The Journal.

Daesh is an alternate name for ISIS, aka the Islamic State or ISIL.

“We are aware of a dissent channel cable written by a group of State Department employees regarding the situation in Syria,” State Department spokesman John Kirby told The Wall Street Journal.

“We are reviewing the cable now, which came up very recently, and I am not going to comment on the contents,” he said.

The officials who signed the document “range from a Syria desk officer in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs to a former deputy to the American ambassador in Damascus,” and have all been involved in formulating or carrying out the administration’s Syria policy.

That policy has largely emphasized defeating the Islamic State over bolstering Syria’s anti-Assad rebel groups.

According to the American Foreign Service Association, the dissent channel is “a serious policy channel reserved only for consideration of responsible dissenting and alternative views on substantive foreign policy issues that cannot be communicated in a full and timely manner through regular operating channels and procedures.”

It is available to all “regular or re-employed annuitant employees” of the State Department and the US Agency for International Development.

The number of officials – at least 50 – who have signed the internal document calling for military action against Assad is unusual, a former State Department official who worked on Middle East policy told The Journal.

“It’s embarrassing for the administration to have so many rank-and-file members break on Syria,” they said.

Fighters of the Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) sit in a look out position in the western rural area of Manbij, in Aleppo Governorate, Syria, June 13, 2016. REUTERS/Rodi SaidFighters of the Syrian Democratic Forces sit in a lookout position in the western rural area of Manbij. Thomson Reuters

The cable calls for the Obama administration to place more emphasis on defeating Assad – whose brutality is seen by many experts as the driver of Syria’s jihadist problem – by arming and regaining the trust of Syria’s moderate opposition.

That, in turn, will “turn the tide of the conflict against the regime [to] increase the chances for peace by sending a clear signal to the regime and its backers that there will be no military solution to the conflict,” the cable reportedly says.

The CIA-backed factions of the Free Syrian Army – the majority of which are Arab and battling forces loyal to Assad – have at times clashed with Pentagon-trained fighters associated with the Syrian Democratic Forces, who are predominantly Kurdish and focused on defeating the Islamic State.

Their divergent military objectives and ethnicities have bred mistrust and fighting that is ultimately counterproductive to the cause of the revolution.

Several high-ranking government officials, moreover – including Robert S. Ford, a former ambassador to Syria, and Obama’s former defense secretary, Chuck Hagel – have left their positions over Obama’s failure to act decisively against Assad, whose brutality continues to fuel a bloody revolution that has left over 400,000 people dead and millions displaced.

“Many people working on Syria for the State Department have long urged a tougher policy with the Assad government as a means of facilitating arrival at a negotiated political deal to set up a new Syrian government,” Ford told The New York Times on Thursday.

Free Syrian Army IdlibProtesters carry Free Syrian Army flags and chant slogans during an antigovernment protest in the town of Marat Numan in Idlib Province, Syria, on March 4. REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi

“The moral rationale for taking steps to end the deaths and suffering in Syria, after five years of brutal war, is evident and unquestionable,” the cable said. ” The status quo in Syria will continue to present increasingly dire, if not disastrous, humanitarian, diplomatic and terrorism-related challenges.”

Assad crossed Obama’s now infamous “red line” for airstrikes in 2013, when he used chemical weapons to kill more than 1,000 people in the eastern Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Obama backed away from that red line when Assad agreed to a Russia-brokered deal to destroy his chemical-weapons stockpile.

Some experts say, however, that the entire stockpile has not been destroyed as promised.

The administration insists that it has maintained throughout the nearly five-year civil war that Assad “must go.” But that stance has been muddled as the administration continues to soften its position on Assad’s future.

“The US’ Syria policy has always been in the head of one man, and one man only: Barack Obama. No one else has ever really had a say in what happens in Syria,” Tony Badran, a Middle East expert and researcher at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Business Insiderin a previous interview.

“Obama has owned it since day one – and from day one, he never intended to remove Assad,” he said.

The cable addresses Russia’s bombing campaign in Syria as well, asserting that Moscow and Assad have not taken past ceasefires and “consequential negotiations” seriously.

Russia entered the war in late September 2015 on behalf of Assad under the guise of fighting ISIS. Russian warplanes have primarily targeted non-jihadist, anti-Assad rebel groups, however, many of which are backed by the US, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia.

Government warplanes bombarded the besieged Syrian town of Darayya with barrel bombs last weekend, shortly after food aid was delivered to the town for the first time in nearly four years.

http://www.businessinsider.com/state-department-officials-call-for-airstrikes-on-assad-2016-6

Chart: Obama Admin. On Pace to Issue One Million Green Cards to Migrants from Majority-Muslim Countries

The Obama Administration is on pace to issue more than a million green cards to migrants from majority-Muslim countries, according to an analysis of Department of Homeland Security data.

A chart released by the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest Friday details the surge in immigration to the U.S. from majority-Muslim countries since President Barack Obama took office in 2009.

Specifically, in the first six fiscal years of Obama’s presidency (FY2009 – FY2014), his administration issued 832,014 green cards to migrants majority-Muslim countries, the most of which were issued to migrants from Pakistan (102,000), Iraq (102,000), Bangladesh (90,000), Iran (85,000), Egypt (56,000), and Somalia (37,000).

The total 832,014 new permanent residents do not include migrants on temporary, nonimmigrant visas — which allow foreign nationals to come to the U.S. temporarily for work, study, tourism and the like. As the subcommittee notes, the number also does not include those migrants who overstayed the terms of their visas.

Obama Admin On Track To Issue 1M GCs (1)

Regardless, as the subcommittee explained in its analysis, the U.S. is playing host to immigrants from majority Muslim countries at an increasing pace.

Between FY 2013 and FY 2014, the number of green cards issued to migrants from Muslim-majority countries increased dramatically – from 117,423 in FY 2013, to 148,810 in FY 2014, a nearly 27 percent increase. Throughout the Obama Administration’s tenure, the United States has issued green cards to an average of 138,669 migrants from Muslim-majority countries per year, meaning that it is nearly certain the United States will have issued green cards to at least 1.1 million migrants from Muslim-majority countries on the President’s watch. It has also been reported that migration from Muslim-majority countries represents the fastest growing class of migrants.

Green cards, or Lawful Permanent Residency, puts immigrants on the path to citizenship and allows for lifetime residency, federal benefits, and work authorization. Included in the totals are refugees, who are required to apply for a green card after one year of residency in the U.S. Unlike other types of immigrants, refugees are immediately eligible for welfare benefits including Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), food stamps, and Medicaid.

A report from the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) indicated that in FY 2013, 91.4 percent of Middle Eastern refugees (accepted to the U.S. between 2008-2013) received food stamps, 73.1 percent were on Medicaid or Refugee Medical Assistance and 68.3 percent were on cash welfare.

Green Card Totals, FY09-FY14:

Pakistan (102K), Iraq (102K), Bangladesh (90K), Iran (85K), Egypt (56K), Somalia (37K), Uzbekistan (30K), Turkey (26K), Morocco (25K), Jordan (25K), Albania (24K), Afghanistan (21K), Lebanon (20K), Yemen (20K), Syria (18K), Indonesia (17K), Sudan (15K), Sierra Leone (12K), Guinea (9K), Senegal (8K), Saudi Arabia (9K), Algeria (8K), Kazakhstan (8K), Kuwait (6K), Gambia (6K), United Arab Emirates (5K), Azerbaijan (4K), Mali (4K), Burkina Faso (3K), Kyrgyzstan (3K), Kosovo (3K), Mauritania (3K), Tunisia (2K), Tajikistan (2K), Libya (2K), Turkmenistan (1K), Qatar (1K), Chad (1K)

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/17/obama-admin-pace-issue-one-million-green-cards-migrants-majority-muslim-countries/

51% of U.S. Muslims want Sharia; 60% of young Muslims more loyal to Islam than to U.S.

Really, what did you expect? A considerable portion of U.S. domestic and foreign policy is based on the assumption that Islam in the U.S. will be different: that Muslims here believe differently from those elsewhere, and do not accept the doctrines of violence against and subjugation of unbelievers that have characterized Islam throughout its history. But on what is that assumption based? Nothing but wishful thinking. And future generations of non-Muslims will pay the price.

Muslims_Pray_Capitol

“Meanwhile, An Islamic Fifth Column Builds Inside America,” by Paul Sperry, IBD, October 1, 2015 (thanks to Pamela Geller)

In berating GOP presidential hopeful Ben Carson for suggesting a loyalty test for Muslims seeking high office, CNN host Jake Tapper maintained that he doesn’t know a single observant Muslim-American who wants to Islamize America.

“I just don’t know any Muslim-Americans — and I know plenty — who feel that way, even if they are observant Muslims,” he scowled.

Tapper doesn’t get out much. If he did, chances are he’d run into some of the 51% of Muslims living in the U.S. who just this June told Polling Co. they preferred having “the choice of being governed according to Shariah,” or Islamic law. Or the 60% of Muslim-Americans under 30 who told Pew Research they’re more loyal to Islam than America.

Maybe they’re all heretics, so let’s see what the enlightened Muslims think.

If Tapper did a little independent research he’d quickly find that America’s most respected Islamic leaders and scholars also want theocracy, not democracy, and even advocate trading the Constitution for the Quran.

These aren’t fringe players. These are the top officials representing the Muslim establishment in America today.

Hopefully none of them ever runs for president, because here’s what he’d have to say about the U.S. system of government:

• Muzammil Siddiqi, chairman of both the Fiqh Council of North America, which dispenses Islamic rulings, and the North American Islamic Trust, which owns most of the mosques in the U.S.: “As Muslims, we should participate in the system to safeguard our interests and try to bring gradual change, (but) we must not forget that Allah’s rules have to be established in all lands, and all our efforts should lead to that direction.”

• Omar Ahmad, co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the top Muslim lobby group in Washington: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant. The Quran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

• CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper: “I wouldn’t want to create the impression that I wouldn’t like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future.”

• Imam Siraj Wahhaj, director of the Muslim Alliance in North America: “In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam.”

• Imam Zaid Shakir, co-founder of Zaytuna College in Berkeley, Calif.: “If we put a nationwide infrastructure in place and marshaled our resources, we’d take over this country in a very short time. . . . What a great victory it will be for Islam to have this country in the fold and ranks of the Muslims.”…

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/10/51-of-u-s-muslims-want-sharia-60-of-young-muslims-more-loyal-to-islam-than-to-u-s

John O. Brennan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
John O. Brennan
John Brennan CIA official portrait.jpg
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
Assumed office
March 8, 2013
President Barack Obama
Deputy David Cohen
Preceded by Michael Morell(Acting)
5th United States Homeland Security Advisor
In office
January 20, 2009 – March 8, 2013
President Barack Obama
Preceded by Ken Wainstein
Succeeded by Lisa Monaco
Director of the National Counterterrorism Center
Acting
In office
August 27, 2004 – August 1, 2005
President George W. Bush
Preceded by Position established
Succeeded by John Redd
Personal details
Born John Owen Brennan
September 22, 1955 (age 60)
Jersey City, New Jersey, U.S.
Spouse(s) Kathy Pokluda
Alma mater Fordham University
University of Texas, Austin

John Owen Brennan (born September 22, 1955)[1][2] is an American government official who is the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. He has served as chief counterterrorism advisor to U.S. President Barack Obama; his title was Deputy National Security Advisor for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, and Assistant to the President.[1][3][4] His responsibilities included overseeing plans to protect the country from terrorism and respond to natural disasters, and he met with the President daily.[5][6]Previously, he advised President Obama on foreign policy and intelligence issues during the 2008 presidential campaign and transition.[7] Brennan withdrew his name from consideration for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in the first Obama administration over concerns about his support for transferring terror suspects to countries where they may be tortured while serving under President George W. Bush.[3][5] Instead, Brennan was appointed Deputy National Security Advisor, a position which did not require Senate confirmation.[3][5][8]

Brennan’s 25 years with the CIA included work as a Near East and South Asia analyst, as station chief in Saudi Arabia, and as director of the National Counterterrorism Center.[3][5][9]After leaving government service in 2005, Brennan became CEO of The Analysis Corporation, a security consulting business, and served as chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance, an association of intelligence professionals.[10]

President Barack Obama nominated Brennan as his next director of the CIA on January 7, 2013.[11][12][13] The ACLU called for the Senate not to proceed with the appointment until it confirms that “all of his conduct was within the law” at the CIA and White House.[14] John Brennan was approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee on March 5, 2013 to succeedDavid Petraeus as the Director of the CIA by a vote of 12 to 3.[15]

His term as CIA Director coincided with revelations that the U.S. government conducted massive levels of global surveillance, that the CIA had hacked into the computers of U.S. Senate employees, and the release of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report on CIA torture.

Early life and education

Brennan, the son of Irish immigrants from Roscommon, was raised in North Bergen, New Jersey.[9] He attended the Immaculate Heart of Mary Elementary School, and graduated from Saint Joseph of the Palisades High School in West New York, New Jersey before enrolling at Fordham University in New York City.[5]

While riding a bus to class at Fordham, he saw an ad in The New York Times that said the CIA was recruiting, and he felt a CIA career would be a good match for his “wanderlust” and his desire to do public service.[5] He received a B.A. in political science from Fordham in 1977.[3] His studies included a junior year abroad learning Arabic and taking Middle Eastern studies courses at the American University in Cairo.[3][5] He also received a Master of Arts in government with a concentration in Middle Eastern studies from the University of Texas at Austin in 1980.[5] He speaks Arabic fluently.[9]

Brennan is married to Kathy Pokluda Brennan, with whom he has had one son and two daughters.[2][3][16]

Career highlights

Brennan with Kathleen Sebeliusand Rahm Emanuel, White House, April 2009

Brennan began his CIA career as an analyst, presumably in the Washington D.C. area, and spent 25 years with the agency.[1][5][17] At one point in his career, he was a daily intelligence briefer for President Bill Clinton.[5] In 1996 he was CIA station chief in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia when the Khobar Towers bombing killed 19 U.S. servicemen.[5] In 1999 he was appointed chief of staff to George Tenet, then-Director of the CIA.[3][5] Brennan became deputy executive director of the CIA in March 2001.[3] He was director of the newly created Terrorist Threat Integration Center from 2003 to 2004, an office that sifted through and compiled information for President Bush’s daily top secret intelligence briefings and employed the services of analysts from a dozen U.S. agencies and entities.[18] One of the controversies in his career involves the distribution of intelligence to the Bush White House that helped lead to an “Orange Terror Alert“, over Christmas 2003. The intelligence, which purported to list terror targets, was highly controversial within the CIA and was later discredited. An Obama administration official does not dispute that Brennan distributed the intelligence during the Bush era but said Brennan passed it along because that was his job.[19] His last post within the Intelligence Community was as director of the National Counterterrorism Center in 2004 and 2005, which incorporated information on terrorist activities across U.S. agencies.[3][20]

Brennan then left government service for a few years, becoming Chairman of the Intelligence and National Security Alliance (INSA) and the CEO of The Analysis Corporation (TAC). He continued to lead TAC after its acquisition by Global Strategies Group in 2007 and its growth as the Global Intelligence Solutions division of Global’s North American technology business GTEC, before returning to government service with the Obama administration as Homeland Security Advisor on January 20, 2009.[10]

On January 7, 2013, Brennan was nominated by President Barack Obama to be director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[21]

Counterterrorism advisor to President Obama

In late 2008 Brennan was the reported choice for Director of the CIA in the incoming Obama administration. Brennan withdrew his name from consideration because of opposition to his CIA service under President George W. Bush and past public statements he had made in support of enhanced interrogation and the transfer of terrorism suspects to countries where they might be tortured (extraordinary rendition).[3][5][22] President Obama then appointed him to be his chief counterterrorism advisor, a position that did not require Senate confirmation.[3][5][8]

Brennan and President Barack Obama at a meeting of the Homeland Security Council, May 2009

In August 2009, Brennan criticized some Bush-administration anti-terror policies, saying that waterboarding had threatened national security by increasing the recruitment of terrorists and decreasing the willingness of other nations to cooperate with the U.S.[23] He also described the Obama administration’s focus as being on “extremists” and not “jihadists“. He said that using the second term, which means one who is struggling for a holy goal, gives “these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek” and suggests the US is at war with the religion of Islam.[23]

In an early December 2009 interview with the Bergen Record Brennan remarked, “the U.S. intelligence and law enforcement communities have to bat 1.000 every day. The terrorists are trying to be successful just once”.[5] At a press conferences days after the failed Christmas Day bomb attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Brennan said U.S. intelligence agencies did not miss any signs that could have prevented the attempt but later said he had let the President down by underestimating a small group of Yemeni terrorists and not connecting them to the attempted bomber.[1][24] Within two weeks after the incident, however, he produced a report highly critical of the performance of U.S. intelligence agencies, concluding that their focus on terrorist attempts aimed at U.S. soil was inadequate.[17] In February 2010, he claimed on Meet the Press that he was tired of Republican lawmakers using national security issues as political footballs, and making allegations where they did not know the facts.[25]

Drone program

In April 2012 Brennan was the first Obama administration official to publicly acknowledge CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. In his speech he argued for the legality, morality, and effectiveness of the program.[26][27][28] The ACLU and other organizations disagreed. In 2011/2012 he also helped reorganize the process, under the aegis of the Disposition Matrix database, by which people outside of war zones were put on the list of drone targets. According to an Associated Press story, the reorganization helped “concentrate power” over the process inside the White House administration.[29][30][31]

In June 2011, Brennan claimed that US counter-terrorism operations had not resulted in “a single collateral death” in the past year because of the “precision of the capabilities that we’ve been able to develop.”[32][33] Nine months later, Brennan claimed he had said “we had no information” about any civilian, noncombatant deaths during the timeframe in question.[33][34] The Bureau of Investigative Journalism disagreed with Brennan, citing their own research[35] that initially led them to believe that 45 to 56 civilians, including six children, had been killed by ten US drone strikes during the year-long period in question.[33] Additional research led the Bureau to raise their estimate to 76 deaths, including eight children and two women.[33] According to the Bureau, Brennan’s claims “do not appear to bear scrutiny.”[33]The Atlantic has been harsher in its criticism, saying that “Brennan has been willing to lie about those drone strikes to hide ugly realities.”[36]

According to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, Brennan’s comments about collateral death are perhaps explained by a counting method that treats all military-aged males in a strike zone as combatants unless there is explicit information to prove them innocent.[33][37]

CIA Director (2013–present)

Nomination

Brennan being sworn in as CIA Director, March 8, 2013

United States PresidentBarack Obama twice nominated Brennan to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[11][12]

Morris Davis, a former Chief Prosecutor for the Guantanamo Military Commissions compared Brennan to Canadian Omar Khadr, who was convicted of “committing murder in violation of the law of war”.[38] He suggested that Brennan’s role in targeting individuals for CIA missile strikes was no more authorized than the throwing of the grenade Khadr was accused of.

On February 27, 2013, the Senate Intelligence Committee postponed a vote, expected to be taken the next day on the confirmation of Brennan until the following week. On March 5, the Intelligence Committee approved the nomination 12–3. The Senate was set to vote on Brennan’s nomination on March 6, 2013. However, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul began a talking Senate filibuster of the vote, citing President Barack Obama and his administration’s use of combat drones, stating “No one politician should be allowed to judge the guilt, to charge an individual, to judge the guilt of an individual and to execute an individual. It goes against everything that we fundamentally believe in our country.”[39][40] Paul’s filibuster continued for 13 hours, after which Brennan was confirmed by a vote of 63–34.

Brennan was sworn into the office of CIA Director on March 8, 2013.[41]

See also

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_O._Brennan

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 695-701

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 685-694

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or DownloadShows 675-684

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 668-674

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 660-667

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 651-659

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 644-650

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 637-643

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 629-636

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 617-628

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 608-616

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 599-607

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 590-598

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 585- 589

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 575-584

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 565-574

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 556-564

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 546-555

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 538-545

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 532-537

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 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 Show 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 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 )

Ann Coulter — Adios, America — Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Demon — Videos

Posted on September 21, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Diasters, Documentary, Economics, Education, Employment, Faith, Family, Foreign Policy, Freedom, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, Love, media, Money, Non-Fiction, Political Correctness, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religious, Speech, Strategy, Unemployment, Video, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Ann-Coulter-Net-Worth

never trust a liberaldemonic

ann-coulter-signs-book-fan-1
o-ANN-COULTER-facebook

• Ann Coulter • Adios, America • Hannity • 6/1/15 •

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

Ann Coulter Goes Off on Immigration w Glenn Beck Problems in U S A Traced Directly to Immigration

Ann Coulter about her Candidate for president

Ann Coulter talks immigration, Trump’s 2016 bid

Ann Coulter DISSECTS immigration reform for Megyn Kelly — and it rhymes!

Ann Coulter: I hope Donald Trump is serious

Ann Coulter Thinks Donald Trump Is GOP’s Best Bet, Maher Panel Erupts

Ann Coulter Introduces Donald Trump at Iowa Speech, 2016 Presidential Campaign Rally 8/25

DEMONIC: Ann Coulter Reloaded (FULL INTERVIEW)

Ann Coulter Talks About New Book “Demonic” and the Weiner Scandal

Demon Ann Coulter: Discusses Her Book Demonic

Ann Coulter on “Never Trust a Liberal Over 3” @ Hancock Park Patriots & USC College Republicans

Ann Coulter on Muslims

A Special Evening with Ann Coulter — 7/16/15

Please join us for a special lecture with Ann Coulter for her brand new book, “¡Adios, America!” (Publish Date: June 1, 2015). This event is in conjunction with KRLA 870AM The Answer. Introduction by Reagan Foundation Executive Director John Heubusch.

In “Adios, America,” Ann Coulter touches the third rail in American politics, attacking the immigration issue head-on and flying in the face of La Raza, the Democrats, a media determined to cover up immigrants’ crimes, churches that get paid by the government for their “charity,” and greedy Republican businessmen and campaign consultants—all of whom are profiting handsomely from mass immigration that’s tearing the country apart. Applying her trademark biting humor to the disaster that is U.S. immigration policy, Coulter proves that immigration is the most important issue facing America today.

Ann Coulter is the author of ten “New York Times” bestsellers. She is the legal correspondent for “Human Events” and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is also a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Hannity, Piers Morgan, Red Eye and more. In 2001, Ms. Coulter was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner.

Ann Coulter: Books, Education, Political Views, Religion, Youth, Biography (2011)

Ann Coulter

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ann Coulter
Ann Coulter smiling, with a blue wallpaper behind her.

Born Ann Hart Coulter
December 8, 1961 (age 53)
New York City, New York, United States
Nationality American
Alma mater Cornell University (B.A.)
University of Michigan Law School (J.D.)
Occupation Author, columnist, political commentator
Political party Republican[1]
Religion Presbyterian[2][3]
Website anncoulter.com

Ann Hart Coulter (/ˈkltər/; born December 8, 1961) is an American conservative social and political commentator, writer, syndicated columnist, and lawyer. She frequently appears on television, radio, and as a speaker at public and private events.

Coulter rose to prominence in the 1990s as an outspoken critic of the Clinton administration. Her first book concerned the Bill Clinton impeachment, and sprang from her experience writing legal briefs for Paula Jones‘s attorneys, as well as columns she wrote about the cases.[4][5] Coulter has described herself as a polemicist who likes to “stir up the pot”, and does not “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do”,[6] drawing criticism from the left, and sometimes from the right.[7]

Coulter’s syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate began appearing in newspapers, and was featured on major conservative websites.

Early life

Ann Hart Coulter was born on December 8, 1961 in New York City, to John Vincent Coulter (1926-2008), an FBI agent who was a native of Albany, New York, and Nell Husbands Coulter (née Martin; died 2009), a native of Paducah, Kentucky.[8][9] The family later moved to New Canaan, Connecticut, where Coulter and her two older brothers, James and John, were raised.[10] She graduated from New Canaan High School in 1980. Coulter’s age was disputed in 2002 while she was arguing that she was not yet 40, yetWashington Post columnist Lloyd Grove cited that she provided a birthdate of December 8, 1961, when registering to vote in New Canaan, Connecticut prior to the 1980 Presidential election. Meanwhile, a driver’s license issued several years later allegedly listed her birthdate as December 8, 1963. Coulter will not confirm either date, citing privacy concerns.[11]

While attending Cornell University, Coulter helped found The Cornell Review,[12][13] and was a member of the Delta Gamma national sorority.[14] She graduated cum laude from Cornell in 1984 with a B.A. in history, and received her J.D. from the University of Michigan Law School in 1988, where she was an editor of the Michigan Law Review.[15] At Michigan, Coulter was president of the local chapter of the Federalist Society and was trained at the National Journalism Center.[16]

Career

After law school, Coulter served as a law clerk, in Kansas City, for Pasco Bowman II of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.[17] After a short time working in New York City in private practice, where she specialized in corporate law, Coulter left to work for the United States Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of Congress in 1994. She handled crime and immigration issues for Senator Spencer Abraham of Michigan and helped craft legislation designed to expedite thedeportation of aliens convicted of felonies.[18] She later became a litigator with the Center for Individual Rights.[19]

In 2000, Coulter considered running for Congress in Connecticut on the Libertarian Party ticket[20] to serve as a spoiler in order to throw the seat to the Democratic candidate and see that Republican Congressman Christopher Shays failed to gain re-election, as a punishment for Shays’ vote against Clinton’s impeachment. The leadership of the Libertarian Party of Connecticut, after meeting with Coulter, declined to endorse her. As a result, her self-described “total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign” did not take place.[21][22] Shays subsequently won the election, and held the seat until 2008.[23]

Coulter’s career is highlighted by the publication of ten books, as well as the weekly syndicated newspaper column that she publishes. She is particularly known for her polemical style,[24] and describes herself as someone who likes to “stir up the pot. I don’t pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do”.[25] She has been compared to Clare Boothe Luce, one of her idols, for her satirical style.[26] She also makes numerous public appearances, speaking on television and radio talk shows, as well as on collegecampuses, receiving both praise and protest. Coulter typically spends 6–12 weeks of the year on speaking engagement tours, and more when she has a book coming out.[27] In 2010, she made an estimated $500,000 on the speaking circuit, giving speeches on topics of modern conservatism, gay marriage, and what she perceives to be the hypocrisy of modern American liberalism.[28] During one appearance at the University of Arizona, a pie was thrown at her.[29][30][31] Coulter has, on occasion, in defense of her ideas, responded with insulting remarks toward hecklers and protestors who attend her speeches.[32][33]

Books

Coulter is the author of ten books, many of which have appeared on the New York Times Best Seller list, with a combined 3 million copies sold as of May 2009.[34]

Coulter’s first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors: The Case Against Bill Clinton, was published by Regnery Publishing in 1998 and made the New York Times Bestseller list.[4] It details Coulter’s case for the impeachment ofPresident Bill Clinton.

Her second book, Slander: Liberal Lies About the American Right, published by Crown Forum in 2002, reached the number one spot on The New York Times non-fiction best seller list.[35] In Slander, Coulter argues that PresidentGeorge W. Bush was given unfair negative media coverage. The factual accuracy of Slander was called into question by then-comedian and author, and now Democratic U.S. Senator from Minnesota, Al Franken; he also accused her of citing passages out of context.[36] Others investigated these charges, and also raised questions about the book’s accuracy and presentation of facts.[37][38][39] Coulter responded to criticisms in a column called “Answering My Critics”.[40]

In her third book, Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, also published by Crown Forum, she reexamines the 60-year history of the Cold War — including the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, theWhittaker ChambersAlger Hiss affair, and Ronald Reagan’s challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall“—and argues that liberals were wrong in their Cold War political analyses and policy decisions, and that McCarthy was correct about Soviet agents working for the U.S. government.[41] She also argues that the correct identification of Annie Lee Moss, among others, as communists was misreported by the liberal media.[42] Treason was published in 2003, and spent 13 weeks on the Best Seller list.[43]

Crown Forum published a collection of Coulter’s columns in 2004 as her fourth book, How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must): The World According to Ann Coulter.[44]

Coulter’s fifth book, published by Crown Forum in 2006, is Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[45] In it, she argues, first, that American liberalism rejects the idea of God and reviles people of faith, and second, that it bears all the attributes of a religion itself.[46] Godless debuted at number one on the New York Times Best Seller list.[47] Some passages in the book match portions of others’ writings published at an earlier time (including newspaper articles and aPlanned Parenthood document), leading John Barrie of ithenticate to assert that Coulter had engaged in “textbook plagiarism”.[48]

Coulter’s next books If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans (Crown Forum), published in October 2007, and Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America (Crown Forum), published on January 6, 2009, both also achieved best-seller status.[49][50][51]

On June 7, 2011, Crown Forum published her eighth book Demonic: How the Liberal Mob Is Endangering America. Coulter said she based this book heavily on the work of French social psychologist Gustave Le Bon, who wrote on mass psychology, and in it she argues that liberals have mob-like characteristics.[52]

Her next book, published September 25, 2012, is Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama. It argues that liberals, and Democrats in particular, have taken undue credit for racial civil rights in America.[53]

Coulter’s tenth book, Never Trust a Liberal Over 3 — Especially a Republican, was released October 14, 2013. It is her second collection of columns and her first published by Regnery since her first book, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.[54]

Columns

In the late 1990s, Coulter’s weekly (biweekly from 1999–2000) syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate began appearing. Her column is featured on six conservative websites: Human Events Online, WorldNetDaily, Townhall.com, VDARE, FrontPageMag,Jewish World Review and her own web site. Her syndicator says, “Ann’s client newspapers stick with her because she has a loyal fan base of conservative readers who look forward to reading her columns in their local newspapers”.[55]

In 1999 Coulter worked as a regular columnist for George magazine.[21][56] Coulter also wrote exclusive weekly columns between 1998 and 2003 and with occasional columns thereafter for the conservative magazine Human Events. In her columns for the magazine, she discusses judicial rulings, Constitutional issues, and legal matters affecting Congress and the executive branch.[57]

In 2001 as a contributing editor and syndicated columnist for National Review Online (NRO), Coulter was asked by editors to make changes to a piece written after the September 11 attacks. On the national television show Politically Incorrect, Coulter accused NROof censorship and said that she was paid $5 per article. NRO dropped her column and terminated her editorship. Jonah Goldberg, editor-at-large of NRO, said, “We did not ‘fire’ Ann for what she wrote… we ended the relationship because she behaved with a total lack of professionalism, friendship, and loyalty [concerning the editing disagreement].”[58]

Coulter contracted with USA Today to cover the 2004 Democratic National Convention. She wrote one article that began, “Here at the Spawn of Satan convention in Boston…” and referred to some unspecified female attendees as “corn-fed, no make-up, natural fiber, no-bra needing, sandal-wearing, hirsute, somewhat fragrant hippie chick pie wagons”. The newspaper declined to print the article citing an editing dispute over “basic weaknesses in clarity and readability that we found unacceptable”. An explanatory article by the paper went on to say “Coulter told the online edition of Editor & Publisher magazine that ‘USA Today doesn’t like my “tone”, humor, sarcasm, etc., which raises the intriguing question of why they hired me to write for them.'” USA Today replaced Coulter withJonah Goldberg, and Coulter published it instead on her website.[59][60][61]

In August 2005, the Arizona Daily Star dropped Coulter’s syndicated column citing reader complaints that “Many readers find her shrill, bombastic, and mean-spirited. And those are the words used by readers who identified themselves as conservatives”.[62]

In July 2006, some newspapers replaced Coulter’s column with those of other conservative columnists following the publication of her fourth book, Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[63] After The Augusta Chronicle dropped her column, newspaper editor Michael Ryan explained that “it came to the point where she was the issue rather than what she was writing about”.[64] Ryan also stated that “pulling Ann Coulter’s column hurts; she’s one of the clearest thinkers around”.

She has criticized former president George W. Bush‘s immigration proposals, saying they led to “amnesty”. In a 2007 column, she claimed that the current immigration system was set up to deliberately reduce the percentage of whites in the population. In it, she said:[65]

In 1960, whites were 90 percent of the country. The Census Bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner.

One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been. If this sort of drastic change were legally imposed on any group other than white Americans, it would be called genocide. Yet whites are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration law is intentionally designed to reduce their percentage in the population.

Overall, Coulter’s columns are highly critical of liberals and Democrats. In 2006, she wrote:[66]

This year’s Democratic plan for the future is another inane sound bite designed to trick American voters into trusting them with national security.

To wit, they’re claiming there is no connection between the war on terror and the war in Iraq, and while they are all for the war against terror—absolutely in favor of that war—they are adamantly opposed to the Iraq war. You know, the war where the U.S. military is killing thousands upon thousands of terrorists (described in the media as “Iraqi civilians”, even if they are from Jordan, like the now-dead leader of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi). That war.

Television and radio

Ann Coulter at the 2012 Time 100

Coulter made her first national media appearance in 1996 after she was hired by the then-fledgling network MSNBC as a legal correspondent. She later appeared on CNN and Fox News.[67] Coulter went on to make frequent guest appearances on many television and radio talk shows, including American Morning, The Fifth Estate, Glenn Beck Program, The Mike Gallagher Show, The O’Reilly Factor, Real Time with Bill Maher, Red Eye w/ Greg Gutfeld, The Rush Limbaugh Show, The Sean Hannity Show, The Today Show, Lou Dobbs Tonight, Fox and Friends, The Laura Ingraham Show, The View, The Michael Medved Show, and HARDtalk.

In an interview with Bob McKeown on the January 26, 2005 edition of The Fifth Estate, Coulter came under criticism for her statement, “Canada used to be…one of our most…most loyal friends, and vice versa. I mean, Canada sent troops to Vietnam. Was Vietnam less containable and more of a threat than Saddam Hussein?” McKeown contradicted her with, “No, actually Canada did not send troops to Vietnam.”[68] On the February 18, 2005 edition ofWashington Journal, Coulter justified her statement by referring to the thousands of Canadians who served in the American armed forces during the Vietnam era, either because they volunteered or because they were living in the United States during the war years and got drafted. She said, “The Canadian Government didn’t send troops … but … they came and fought with the Americans. So I was wrong. It turns out there were 10,000 Americans who happened to be born in Canada.” (There were actually between 5,000 and 20,000 Canadians who fought in Vietnam itself, including approximately 80 who were killed.)[69] John Cloud of Time, writing about the incident a few months later, said, “Canada [sent] noncombat troops to Indochina in the 1950s and again to Vietnam in 1972″.[67]

Films

In 2004 Coulter appeared in three films. The first was Feeding the Beast, a made-for-television documentary on the “24-Hour News Revolution”.[70] The other two films were FahrenHYPE 9/11, a direct-to-video documentary rebuttal ofMichael Moore‘s Fahrenheit 911, and Is It True What They Say About Ann?, a documentary on Coulter containing clips of interviews and speeches.[71] In 2015, Coulter had a cameo as the Vice President in the made for TV movieSharknado 3: Oh Hell No!.

Personal life

Coulter has been engaged several times, but she has never married and has no children.[32] She has dated Spin founder and publisher Bob Guccione, Jr.,[21] and conservative writer Dinesh D’Souza.[72] In October 2007, she began dating Andrew Stein, the former president of the New York City Council, a liberal Democrat. When asked about the relationship, Stein told the paper, “She’s attacked a lot of my friends, but what can I say, opposites attract!”[73] On January 7, 2008, however, Stein told the New York Post that the relationship was over, citing irreconcilable differences.[74]

Coulter owns a house, bought in 2005, in Palm Beach, Florida, a condominium in Manhattan, and an apartment in Los Angeles. She votes in Palm Beach and is not registered to do so in New York or California.[75][76] She is a fan of several jam bands, such as theGrateful Dead, the Dave Matthews Band, and Phish.[77][78] Some of her favorite books include the Bible, Mere Christianity, Wuthering Heights, Anna Karenina, true crime stories about serial killers, and anything by Dave Barry.[79]

Religious views

Coulter says that she is a Christian, and belongs to the Presbyterian denomination.[2][3] Her father was Catholic while her mother was not.[80] At one public lecture she said, “I don’t care about anything else; Christ died for my sins, and nothing else matters”.[81] She summarized her view of Christianity in a 2004 column, saying, “Jesus’ distinctive message was: People are sinful and need to be redeemed, and this is your lucky day, because I’m here to redeem you even though you don’t deserve it, and I have to get the crap kicked out of me to do it.” She then mocked “the message of Jesus…according to liberals”, summarizing it as “something along the lines of ‘be nice to people,'” which, in turn, she said “is, in fact, one of the incidental tenets of Christianity”.[82]

Confronting some critics’ views that her content and style of writing is un-Christian-like,[83] Coulter stated that “I’m a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don’t you ever forget it.”[84] She also said, “Christianity fuels everything I write. Being a Christian means that I am called upon to do battle against lies, injustice, cruelty, hypocrisy—you know, all the virtues in the church of liberalism”.[85] In Godless: The Church of Liberalism, Coulter characterized the theory of evolution as bogus science, and contrasted her beliefs to what she called the left’s “obsession with Darwinism and the Darwinian view of the world, which replaces sanctification of life with sanctification of sex and death”.[86]

Coulter was accused of anti-semitism in an October 8, 2007 interview with Donny Deutsch on The Big Idea. During the interview, Coulter stated that the United States is a Christian nation, and said that she wants “Jews to be perfected, as they say” (referring to them being converted to Christianity).[87] Deutsch, a practicing Jew, implied that this was an anti-semitic remark, but Coulter said she didn’t consider it to be a hateful comment.[88][89] In response to Coulter’s comments on the show, the Anti-Defamation League, American Jewish Committee and Bradley Burston condemned those comments,[90] and the National Jewish Democratic Council asked media outlets to stop inviting Coulter as a guest commentator.[91] Talk show host Dennis Prager, while disagreeing with her comments, said that they were not “anti-semitic”, noting, “There is nothing in what Ann Coulter said to a Jewish interviewer on CNBC that indicates she hates Jews or wishes them ill, or does damage to the Jewish people or the Jewish state. And if none of those criteria is present, how can someone be labeled anti-Semitic?”[92] Conservative activist David Horowitz also defended Coulter against the allegation.[93]

Coulter again sparked outrage in September 2015, when she tweeted in response to multiple Republican candidates’ references to Israel during a Presidential debate, “How many f—ing Jews do these people think there are in the United States?”[94] The Anti-Defamation League referred to the tweets as “ugly, spiteful and anti-Semitic.”[95] In response to accusations of anti-Semitism, she tweeted “I like the Jews, I like fetuses, I like Reagan. Didn’t need to hear applause lines about them all night.”[94]

Political views

Coulter is a conservative columnist. She is a registered Republican and member of the advisory council of GOProud since August 9, 2011.[96]

Coulter supported George W. Bush’s presidency. She endorsed Mitt Romney in the 2008 Republican presidential primary[97] and the 2012 Republican presidential primary and presidential run.[98]

Abortion

Coulter believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned and left to the states. She is pro-life, but believes there should be an exception if a woman is raped.[99]

Illegal immigration

She strongly opposed amnesty for illegal immigrants, and at the 2013 CPAC said she has now become “a single-issue voter against amnesty”.[100]

Afghanistan War

Although she originally supported the war in Afghanistan during the Bush administration, beginning in 2009 she expressed concern that the war might have turned into another Vietnam, and opposed sending more troops to Afghanistan.[101]

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage

Coulter opposes same-sex marriage and supports a federal U.S. constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman. She insists that opposing same-sex marriage “wasn’t an anti-gay thing”. and “It’s genuinely a pro-marriage position to oppose gay marriage”.[102] She also opposes civil unions as well.[103] When addressed with the issue of rights granted by marriage she said “Gays already can visit loved ones in hospitals. They can also visit neighbors, random acquaintances, and total strangers in hospitals—just like everyone else. Gays can also pass on property to whomever they would like”.[104] She disagreed with the U.S. Supreme Court‘s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas because she claims there is no right to sodomy in the Constitution,[105] however she doesn’t actually want to ban same-sex sexual activity.[106] She also disagreed with repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell stating that it is not an “anti-gay position; it is a pro-military position” because “sexual bonds are disruptive to the military bond”.[107]

At the 2007 CPAC, Coulter said, “I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media — how they keep describing Mitt Romney’s position as being pro-gays, and that’s going to upset the right wingers,” and “Well, you know, screw you! I’m not anti-gay. We’re against gay marriage. I don’t want gays to be discriminated against.” She added, “I don’t know why all gays aren’t Republican. I think we have the pro-gay positions, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money and they’re victims of crime. No, they are! They should be with us.”[108] In Ann’s 2007 book If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans, in the chapter Gays: No Gay Left Behind!, she argued that Republican policies were more pro-gay than Democratic policies. Ann Coulter attended the 2010 HomoCon of GOProud, where she commented that same-sex marriage “is not a civil right”.[109] At the 2011 CPAC, during her question and answer segment, she was asked about GOProud and the controversy over their exclusion from the 2011 CPAC. She boasted how she talked GOProud into dropping its support for same-sex marriage in the party’s platform and said that “The left is trying to co-opt gays, and I don’t think we should let them. I think they should be on our side” and “Gays are natural conservatives”.[110] Later that year, Coulter joined advisory board for GOProud. On Logos The A-List: Dallas she told gay Republican, Taylor Garrett, that “The gays have got to be pro-life,” and “As soon as they find the gay gene, guess who the liberal yuppies are gonna start aborting?”[111]

War on Drugs

Coulter strongly supports continuing the War on Drugs.[112] However, she has said that, if there were not a welfare state, she “wouldn’t care” if drugs were legal.[113]

Political activities and commentary

Ann Coulter has described herself as a “polemicist” who likes to “stir up the pot” and doesn’t “pretend to be impartial or balanced, as broadcasters do.”[6] While her political activities in the past have included advising a plaintiff suing President Bill Clinton as well as considering a run for Congress, she mostly serves as a political pundit, sometimes creating controversy ranging from rowdy uprisings at some of the colleges where she speaks to protracted discussions in the media. Time magazine’s John Cloud once observed that Coulter “likes to shock reporters by wondering aloud whether America might be better off if women lost the right to vote.”[67] This was in reference to her statement that “it would be a much better country if women did not vote. That is simply a fact. In fact, in every presidential election since 1950—except Goldwater in ’64—the Republican would have won, if only the men had voted.”[114] Similarly, in an October 2007 interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said:[115]

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and ‘We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care—and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?’

Paula Jones – Bill Clinton case

Coulter first became a public figure shortly before becoming an unpaid legal adviser for the attorneys representing Paula Jones in her sexual harassment suit against President Bill Clinton. Coulter’s friend George Conway had been asked to assist Jones’ attorneys, and shortly afterward Coulter, who wrote a column about the Paula Jones case for Human Events, was also asked to help, and she began writing legal briefs for the case.

Coulter later stated that she would come to mistrust the motives of Jones’ head lawyer, Joseph Cammaratta, who by August or September 1997 was advising Jones that her case was weak and to settle, if a favorable settlement could be negotiated.[18][116] From the outset, Jones had sought an apology from Clinton at least as eagerly as she sought a settlement.[117] However, in a later interview Coulter recounted that she herself had believed that the case was strong, that Jones was telling the truth, that Clinton should be held publicly accountable for his misconduct, and that a settlement would give the impression that Jones was merely interested in extorting money from the President.[18]

David Daley, who wrote the interview piece for The Hartford Courant recounted what followed:

Coulter played one particularly key role in keeping the Jones case alive. In Newsweek reporter Michael Isikoff’s new book Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter’s Story, Coulter is unmasked as the one who leaked word of Clinton’s “distinguishing characteristic”—his reportedly bent penis that Jones said she could recognize and describe—to the news media. Her hope was to foster mistrust between the Clinton and Jones camps and forestall a settlement … I thought if I leaked the distinguishing characteristic it would show bad faith in negotiations. [Clinton lawyer] Bob Bennett would think Jones had leaked it. Cammaratta would know he himself hadn’t leaked it and would get mad at Bennett. It might stall negotiations enough for me to get through to [Jones adviser] Susan Carpenter-McMillan to tell her that I thought settling would hurt Paula, that this would ruin her reputation, and that there were other lawyers working for her. Then 36 hours later, she returned my phone call. I just wanted to help Paula. I really think Paula Jones is a hero. I don’t think I could have taken the abuse she came under. She’s this poor little country girl and she has the most powerful man she’s ever met hitting on her sexually, then denying it and smearing her as president. And she never did anything tacky. It’s not like she was going on TV or trying to make a buck out of it.”[18]

In his book, Isikoff also reported Coulter as saying: “We were terrified that Jones would settle. It was contrary to our purpose of bringing down the President.”[116] After the book came out, Coulter clarified her stated motives, saying:

The only motive for leaking the distinguishing characteristic item that [Isikoff] gives in his book is my self-parodying remark that “it would humiliate the president” and that a settlement would foil our efforts to bring down the president…. I suppose you could take the position, as [Isikoff] does, that we were working for Jones because we thought Clinton was a lecherous, lying scumbag, but this argument gets a bit circular. You could also say that Juanita Broaddrick’s secret motive in accusing Clinton of rape is that she hates Clinton because he raped her. The whole reason we didn’t much like Clinton was that we could see he was the sort of man who would haul a low-level government employee like Paula to his hotel room, drop his pants, and say, “Kiss it.” You know: Everything his defense said about him at the impeachment trial. It’s not like we secretly disliked Clinton because of his administration’s position on California’s citrus cartels or something, and then set to work on some crazy scheme to destroy him using a pathological intern as our Mata Hari.[118]

The case went to court after Jones broke with Coulter and her original legal team, and it was dismissed via summary judgment. The judge ruled that even if her allegations proved true, Jones did not show that she had suffered any damages, stating, “…plaintiff has not demonstrated any tangible job detriment or adverse employment action for her refusal to submit to the governor’s alleged advances. The president is therefore entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff’s claim of quid pro quo sexual harassment.” The ruling wasappealed by Jones’ lawyers. During the pendency of the appeal, Clinton settled with Jones for $850,000 ($151,000 after legal fees) in November 1998, in exchange for Jones’ dismissal of the appeal. By then, the Jones lawsuit had given way to the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

In October 2000, Jones revealed that she would pose for nude pictures in an adult magazine, saying she wanted to use the money to pay taxes and support her grade-school-aged children, in particular saying, “I’m wanting to put them through college and maybe set up a college fund.”[119] Coulter publicly denounced Jones, calling her “the trailer-park trash they said she was” (Coulter had earlier chastened Clinton supporters for calling Jones this name),[120] after Clinton’s former campaign strategist James Carville had made the widely reported remark, “Drag a $100 bill through a trailer park, and you’ll never know what you’ll find,” and called Jones a “fraud, at least to the extent of pretending to be an honorable and moral person.”[119]

Coulter wrote:

Paula surely was given more than a million dollars in free legal assistance from an array of legal talent she will never again encounter in her life, much less have busily working on her behalf. Some of those lawyers never asked for or received a dime for hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal work performed at great professional, financial and personal cost to themselves. Others got partial payments out of the settlement. But at least they got her reputation back. And now she’s thrown it away.[121]

Jones claimed not to have been offered any help with a book deal of her own or any other additional financial help after the lawsuit.[119]

2008 presidential election

As the 2008 presidential campaign was getting under way, Coulter drew criticism for statements she made at the 2007 Conservative Political Action Conference about presidential candidate John Edwards:[122][123]

I was going to have a few comments on the other Democratic presidential candidate, John Edwards, but it turns out that you have to go into rehab if you use the word ‘faggot,’ so I’m… so, kind of at an impasse, can’t really talk about Edwards, so I think I’ll just conclude here and take your questions.

The comment was in reference to Grey’s Anatomy star Isaiah Washington‘s use of the epithet and his subsequent mandatory “psychological assessment” imposed by ABC executives.[124] It was widely interpreted as meaning that Coulter had called Edwards a “faggot,” but Coulter argued that she didn’t actually do so, while simultaneously indicating she would not have been wrong to say it.[125] Edwards responded on his web site by characterizing Coulter’s words as “un-American and indefensible,” and asking readers to help him “raise $100,000 in ‘Coulter Cash’ this week to keep this campaign charging ahead and fight back against the politics of bigotry.”[126] He also called her a “she-devil,” adding, “I should not have name-called. But the truth is—forget the names—people like Ann Coulter, they engage in hateful language.”[127] Coulter’s words also drew condemnation from many prominent Republicans and Democrats, as well as groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD).[126][128][129] Three advertisers (Verizon,Sallie Mae and Netbank) also pulled their advertisements from Coulter’s web site,[130] and several newspapers dropped her column.[131][132] Coulter responded in an e-mail to the New York Times, “C’mon, it was a joke. I would never insult gays by suggesting that they are like John Edwards. That would be mean.”[129] On March 5, 2007, she appeared on Hannity and Colmes and said, “Faggot isn’t offensive to gays; it has nothing to do with gays. It’s a schoolyard taunt meaning ‘wuss.'”[133] Gay rights advocates were not convinced. “Ann Coulter’s use of this anti-gay slur is vile and unacceptable,” said Neil G. Giuliano, president of the Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, “and the applause from her audience is an important reminder that Coulter’s ugly brand of bigotry is at the root of the discriminatory policies being promoted at this gathering.”[123] A spokesman for Sen. John McCain, a Republican presidential candidate, called Coulter’s comments “wildly inappropriate.”[123]

As the campaign waged on, she continued to insert her commentary regarding the candidates, both Democrats and Republicans. In a June 2007 interview, Coulter named Duncan Hunter as her choice for the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, highlighting his views on immigration and specifically his anti-abortion credentials, saying “[t]his is a winning issue for us, protecting little babies.”[134] On January 16, 2008, Coulter began endorsing Governor Mitt Romney as her choice for the 2008 Republican nomination, saying he is “manifestly the best candidate” (contrasting Romney with Republican candidates John McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Rudy Giuliani).[135] By contrast, Coulter was critical of eventual Republican nominee John McCain. On the January 31, 2008 broadcast of Hannity and Colmes, Coulter claimed that if McCain won the Republican nomination for president, she would support and campaign for Hillary Clinton, stating, “[Clinton] is more conservative than McCain.”[136]

Regarding then-presidential-candidate Barack Obama in an April 2, 2008 column, she characterized his book Dreams from My Father as a “dimestore Mein Kampf.” Coulter writes, “He says the reason black people keep to themselves is that it’s ‘easier than spending all your time mad or trying to guess whatever it was that white folks were thinking about you.’ Here’s a little inside scoop about white people: We’re not thinking about you. Especially WASPs. We think everybody is inferior, and we are perfectly charming about it.”[137]

2010 Canadian university tour

Ann Coulter at CPAC in February 2012

In March 2010, Coulter announced that she would be embarking on a speaking tour of three Canadian universities, The University of Western Ontario, the University of Ottawa and the University of Calgary. The tour was organized by the International Free Press Society.[138]

On the eve of Coulter’s first speech at the University of Western Ontario, an e-mail to Coulter from François Houle, provost of the University of Ottawa, was leaked to the media. The e-mail warned that “promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.” Coulter released a public statement alleging that by sending her the e-mail, Houle was promoting hatred against conservatives.[139] During her speech at the University of Western Ontario she told a Muslim student to “take a camel,” in response to the student’s question about previous comments by Coulter that Muslims should not be allowed on airplanes.[140]

On March 22, the University of Ottawa made international news when liberal protesters conspired to prevent Coulter from speaking. The event was canceled in spite of a massive security presence; Alain Boucher of the Ottawa Police Service said there were ten officers visible at the scene, “plus other resources” nearby.[141] Boucher alleged that Coulter’s security team decided to call off the event, saying, “We gave her options,” including, he said, to “find a bigger venue.” But “they opted to cancel … It’s not up to the Ottawa police to make that decision.”[142] Boucher claimed there were no arrests.[143] CTV News reported, “It was a disaster in terms of just organization, which is probably one of the reasons why it was cancelled,” citing the small number of students tasked with confirming who had signed up to attend Coulter’s talk.[144]

Event organizer and conservative activist Ezra Levant blamed the protest on the letter sent to Coulter by Houle.[145] After the cancellation, Coulter called the University of Ottawa “bush league,” stating:[146]

I go to the best schools, Harvard, the Ivy League, and those kids are too intellectually proud to threaten speakers. … I would like to know when this sort of violence, this sort of protest, has been inflicted upon a Muslim—who appear to be, from what I’ve read of the human rights complaints, the only protected group in Canada. I think I’ll give my speech tomorrow night in a burka. That will protect me.

Comments on Islam, Arabs and terrorism

On September 14, 2001, three days after the September 11 attacks (in which her friend Barbara Olson had been killed), Coulter wrote in her column:

Airports scrupulously apply the same laughably ineffective airport harassment to Suzy Chapstick as to Muslim hijackers. It is preposterous to assume every passenger is a potential crazed homicidal maniac. We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war.[147]

Responding to this comment, Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations remarked in The Chicago Sun Times that before September 11, Coulter “would have faced swift repudiation from her colleagues,” but “now it’s accepted as legitimate commentary.”[148]

David Horowitz, however, saw Coulter’s words as irony:

I began running Coulter columns on Frontpagemag.com shortly after she came up with her most infamous line, which urged America to put jihadists to the sword and convert them to Christianity. Liberals were horrified; I was not. I thought to myself, this is a perfect send-up of what our Islamo-fascist enemies believe—that as infidels we should be put to the sword and converted to Islam. I regarded Coulter’s phillipic (sic) as a Swiftian commentary on liberal illusions of multi-cultural outreach to people who want to rip out our hearts.[149]

One day after the attacks (when death toll estimates were higher than later), Coulter asserted that only Muslims could have been behind the attacks:

Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims—at least all terrorists capable of assembling a murderous plot against America that leaves 7,000 people dead in under two hours.[150]

Coulter has been highly critical of the U.S. Department of Transportation and especially its then-secretary Norman Mineta. Her many criticisms include their refusal to use racial profiling as a component of airport screening.[151] After a group of Muslims was expelled from a US Airways flight when other passengers expressed concern, sparking a call for Muslims to boycott the airline because of the ejection from a flight of six imams, Coulter wrote:

If only we could get Muslims to boycott all airlines, we could dispense with airport security altogether.[152]

Coulter also cited the 2002 Senate testimony of FBI whistleblower Coleen Rowley, who was acclaimed for condemning her superiors for refusing to authorize a search warrant for 9-11 conspirator Zacarias Moussaoui when he refused to consent to a search of his computer. They knew that he was a Muslim in flight school who had overstayed his visa, and the French Intelligence Service had confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups. Coulter said she agreed that probable cause existed in the case, but that refusing consent, being in flight school and overstaying a visa should not constitute grounds for a search. Citing a poll which found that 98 percent of Muslims between the ages of 20 and 45 said they would not fight for Britain in the war in Afghanistan, and that 48 percent said they would fight for Osama bin Laden,[153] she asserted “any Muslim who has attended a mosque in Europe—certainly in England, where Moussaoui lived—has had ‘affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups,'” so that she parsed Rowley’s position as meaning that “‘probable cause’ existed to search Moussaoui’s computer because he was a Muslim who had lived in England.” Because “FBI headquarters … refused to engage in racial profiling,” they failed to uncover the 9-11 plot, Coulter asserted. “The FBI allowed thousands of Americans to be slaughtered on the altar of political correctness. What more do liberals want?”[154]

Coulter wrote in another column that she had reviewed the civil rights lawsuits against certain airlines to determine which of them had subjected Arabs to the most “egregious discrimination” so that she could fly only that airline. She also said that the airline should be bragging instead of denying any of the charges of discrimination brought against them.[155] In an interview with The Guardian she quipped, “I think airlines ought to start advertising: ‘We have the most civil rights lawsuits brought against us by Arabs.'” When the interviewer replied by asking what Muslims would do for travel, she responded, “They could use flying carpets.”[114]

One comment that drew criticism from the blogosphere, as well as fellow conservatives,[156] was made during a speech at the Conservative Political Action Conference in February 2006, where she said, referring to the prospect of a nuclear-equipped Iran, “What if they start having one of these bipolar episodes with nuclear weapons? I think our motto should be, post-9-11: Raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.”[157] Coulter had previously written a nearly identical passage in her syndicated column: “…I believe our motto should be, after 9/11: Jihad monkey talks tough; jihad monkey takes the consequences. Sorry, I realize that’s offensive. How about ‘camel jockey‘? What? Now what’d I say? Boy, you tent merchants sure are touchy. Grow up, would you?”[158]

In October 2007, Coulter made further controversial remarks regarding Arabs—in this case Iraqis—when she stated in an interview with The New York Observer:

We’ve killed about 20,000 of them, of terrorists, of militants, of Al Qaeda members, and they’ve gotten a little over 3,000 of ours. That is where the war is being fought, in Iraq. That is where we are fighting Al Qaeda. Sorry we have to use your country, Iraqis, but you let Saddam come to power, and we are going to instill democracy in your country.[159]

In a May 2007 article looking back at the life of recently deceased evangelical Reverend Jerry Falwell, Coulter commented on his (later retracted) statement after the 9/11 attacks that “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbianswho are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America … helped this happen.” In her article, Coulter stated that she disagreed with Falwell’s statement, “because Falwell neglected to specifically include Teddy Kennedy and ‘the Reverend’ Barry Lynn.”[160]

In October 2007, Coulter participated in David Horowitz‘ “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week,” remarking in a speech at the University of Southern California, “The fact of Islamo-Fascism is indisputable. I find it tedious to detail the savagery of the enemy … I want to kill them. Why don’t Democrats?”[161]

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings Coulter told Hannity host Sean Hannity that the wife of bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev should be jailed for wearing a hijab. Coulter continued by saying “Assimilating immigrants into our culture isn’t really working. They’re assimilating us into their culture.”[162]

In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shooting in Paris, Coulter said France “needs to move to the next step” in dealing with terror. Coulter said of some immigrants:

They don’t want to live in Muslim countries, and yet they want to change the non-Muslim countries they move to [into] Muslim countries. It may be a small minority of Muslims “and still it’s enough of them that maybe you take a little pause in Muslim immigration for a while.”[163]

In the aftermath of the second Republican Presidential Debate on CNN in September 2015 Coulter said: “How many fucking Jews do these people think there are in the United States?” [164]

Ionizing radiation as “cancer vaccine”

On March 16, 2011, discussing the Fukushima I nuclear accidents, Coulter, citing research into radiation hormesis, wrote that there was “burgeoning evidence that excess radiation operates as a sort of cancer vaccine.”[165] Her comments were criticized by figures across the political spectrum, from Fox NewsBill O’Reilly (who told Coulter, “You have to be responsible …. in something like this, you gotta get the folks out of there, and you have to report worst-case scenarios”)[166] to MSNBC‘s Ed Schulz (who stated that “You would laugh at her if she wasn’t making light of a terrible tragedy.”)[167]

2012 presidential election

During the Republican Party presidential primaries, she supported Mitt Romney over former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. On an interview with The O’Reilly Factor on Fox News, she compared Newt Gingrich’s attacks on the media to Jesse Jackson “accusing people of racism”.[168] On her website, she posted a column titled, “Re-elect Obama: Vote Newt!” arguing that if Newt Gingrich won the Republican nomination, Barack Obama would win re-election.[169] When asked to respond about her criticism, Newt Gingrich dismissed them as “the old order” and cited recent polls showing him ahead of Mitt Romney.[170]

On October 22, 2012, following a presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, Coulter published the following tweet from her official Twitter account (@anncoulter): “I highly approve of Romney’s decision to be kind and gentle to the retard,” drawing stiff criticism for her use of a word which some find offensive to describe the president of the United States. The Special Olympics condemned Coulter in a tweet shortly after Coulter’s.[171] On The Alan Colmes Show, Coulter stated that she does not regret her use of the word, saying, “‘Retard’ had been used colloquially to just mean ‘loser’ for 30 years. But no, these aggressive victims have to come out and tell you what words to use.”[172]

After the election, in which Barack Obama won, Ann Coulter wrote a column titled “Romney Was Not the Problem”. In it she argued against the idea that Mitt Romney lost because he failed to get his message across. She also said that Mitt Romney lost because he was running against an incumbent.[173]

2013 CPAC Conference

In March 2013, Coulter was one of the keynote speakers at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where she made references to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie‘s weight (“CPAC had to cut back on its speakers this year about 300 pounds”) and progressive activist Sandra Fluke‘s hairdo. (Coulter quipped that Fluke didn’t need birth control pills because “that haircut is birth control enough.”) Coulter advocated against a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants because such new citizens would never vote for Republican candidates: “If amnesty goes through, America becomes California and no Republican will ever win another election.”[174][175]

Comments on Soccer

During the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Coulter continuously criticized the growing interest of the Americans in the national team’s campaign at the competition held in Brazil and in soccer as a whole, claiming that it represents the country’s “moral decay”. On her article, she claims that:[176]

You can’t use your hands in soccer. (Thus eliminating the danger of having to catch a fly ball.) What sets man apart from the lesser beasts, besides a soul, is that we have opposable thumbs. Our hands can hold things. Here’s a great idea: Let’s create a game where you’re not allowed to use them!

Soccer is like the metric system, which liberals also adore because it’s European. Naturally, the metric system emerged from the French Revolution, during the brief intervals when they weren’t committing mass murder by guillotine.

If more “Americans” are watching soccer today, it’s only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy’s 1965 immigration law. I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time.[177]

VDARE

Coulter has been a contributor to VDARE since 2006.[178]

VDARE is a right wing website and blog founded by anti-immigration activist and paleo-conservative Peter Brimelow.[179] VDARE is considered controversial because of its alleged ties to white supremacist rhetoric and support of scientific racism and white nationalism.[180][181][182][183] It has been designated as a “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.[184]

Bibliography

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

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

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

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 534: September 15, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 533: September 15, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 532: September 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 531: September 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 530: September 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 529: September 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 528: September 8, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 527: September 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 526: September 3, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 525: September 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

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

Joe_Biden_Slams_Donald_Trump8217s-70931083db7d50522d5dfed5c895c75d.cftrump-USS-Iowa

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

17-joe-biden-stephanie-carter

Biden thumps Trump for selling ‘sick message’

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

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

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

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

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

FNN: Donald Trump speaks on the USS Iowa

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

Karl Rove Destroys Joe Biden

Joe Biden Prevaricates about Law School Class Standing

JOE BIDEN — PLAGIARIST

Joe Biden Says Dumb Things

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

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

Joe Biden Kisses Woman on Lips at Rally

Vote For A Genuine Scumbag: Joe Biden For Prez

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

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

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

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

Trump’s Right: Anchor Babies Are Big Business

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

Joe Biden hammers Trump for ‘sick message’ exploiting xenophobia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consequences of misinterpreting the 14thAmendment to the United States Constitution

Cost

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule of Law

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

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

One Man, One Vote

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

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

United States Sovereignty

The Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens

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

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

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

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

Population and environmental consequences

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

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

Other countries

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

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

Millions of Americans

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

Notes and more information:

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

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

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

4.   US Census Bureau.

5.   NumbersUSA.com resources on Birthright Citizenship

6.   SUSPS

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

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

9.   US Citizenship and Immigration Services

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 532-534

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 526-531

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-525

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Jeb Bush (Low Energy) vs. Donald Trump (High Energy) and — Media Calls Trump Arrogant, Blowhard, Clown, Idiot, and Businessman — The Vast Majority of The American People Support Trump On Illegal Immigration — Trump Wins in A Landslide — Trump The Macho Man — Videos

Posted on September 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Computers, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Documentary, Elections, Employment, Entertainment, Federal Government, Fraud, Heroes, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, Money, Music, Narcissism, Newspapers, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Television, Television, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: Jeb Bush (Low Energy) vs. Donald Trump (High Energy)  and  — Media Calls Trump Arrogant, Blowhard, Clown, Idiot, and Businessman — The Vast Majority of The American People Support Trump On Illegal Immigration — Trump Wins in A Landslide — Trump The Macho Man — Videos

Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton

Thursday, August 27

2016 Republican Presidential Nomination Quinnipiac Trump 28, Carson 12, Bush 7, Rubio 7, Cruz 7, Walker 6, Fiorina 5, Kasich 5, Huckabee 3, Paul 2, Christie 4, Perry 1, Santorum 1, Jindal 0, Graham 0 Trump +16

Village People – Macho Man OFFICIAL Music Video (short version) 1978

Trump Throws Univision Anchor Jorge Ramos out press conference Trump Q&A Jorge Ramos kicked out

FNN: FULL Donald Trump Press Conference Before Dubuque, Iowa Rally

Megyn Kelly and Jorge Ramos On Getting Kicked Out Of Trump Press Conference

‘Why Are You Dividing Americans?’ Ingraham and Geraldo Clash over Trump, Immigration

Bill O’Reilly, Jorge Ramos Spar over Immigration, White Privilege, Religon

Ann Coulter on Fusion TV (Fusion TV won’t release this)

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

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Donald Trump: Macho Man of 2016

The best of Donald Trump vs. Jeb Bush

War of words between Jeb Bush and Donald Trump

Jeb Bush And Donald Trump Scuffle Over ‘Anchor Babies’

Watch Donald Trump Hilariously Tear Jeb Bush to Shreds

The Young Donald Trump

Village People – YMCA OFFICIAL Music Video 1978

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-523

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

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

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

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

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

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

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Trump Outlines Immigration Plan

Immigration Gumballs Short Version

Rupert Murdoch On Why He Supports Immigration Reform

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

Fox News Owner Rupert Murdoch Calls For Immigration Reform

Partnership for a New American Economy Launches on Fox & Friends

Mayor Bloomberg on the Partnership for a New American Economy

Trump trolls Megyn Kelly on Twitter

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

Donald Trump: Charles Krauthammer is a jerk

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

George Will on Donald Trump Run

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

Unions Muscle Big Business on Immigration Reform – WSJ Opinion

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

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

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

Rand Paul: More Immigrants, More Tax Revenue

Rand Paul sounds off on fallout over immigration plan

Scott Walker talks immigration, presidential debate

Jeb Bush Discusses Immigration Reform

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXCLUSIVE — ANN COULTER TO INTRODUCE DONALD TRUMP IN IOWA

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

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

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

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

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

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

Immigration Reform Can’t Wait

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-521

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

President Trump — The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) of The Democratic and Republican Parties and Mainstream Media Worst Nightmare — American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Ending Birthright Citizenship aka Anchor Babies — American People Including Trump Democrats, Trump Republicans and Trump Independents Will Elect Trump — PEES are Panicing — Videos

Posted on September 5, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Babies, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Education, Elections, Employment, Faith, Family, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, government spending, Heroes, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, media, National Security Agency (NSA), National Security Agency (NSA_, Obamacare, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Press, Private Sector, Psychology, Public Sector, Radio, Raves, Religious, Security, Speech, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Terrorism, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: President Trump — The Political Elitist Establishment (PEEs) of The Democratic and Republican Parties and Mainstream Media Worst Nightmare — American People Want Immigration Law Enforcement and Ending Birthright Citizenship aka Anchor Babies — American People Including Trump Democrats, Trump Republicans and Trump Independents Will Elect Trump — PEES are Panicing —  Videos

Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 5.

The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

14th Amendment

The Fourteenth Amendment addresses many aspects of citizenship and the rights of citizens.  The most commonly used — and frequently litigated — phrase in the amendment is  “equal protection of the laws“, which figures prominently in a wide variety of landmark cases, including Brown v. Board of Education (racial discrimination), Roe v. Wade (reproductive rights),  Bush v. Gore (election recounts), Reed v. Reed (gender discrimination),  and University of California v. Bakke (racial quotas in education).  See more

Article I

Article I describes the design of the legislative branch of US Government — the Congress.  Important ideas include the separation of powers between branches of government (checks and balances), the election of Senators and Representatives, the process by which laws are made, and the powers that Congress has.  See more…

Section 8.

Clause 4

…To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

Bill O’Reilly Donald Trump Battle over Immigration Plan and 14th Amendment

Trump tackles problem of what he calls ‘anchor babies’

Donald Trump: I’ll keep saying “anchor baby” even if it’s not PC.

Trump’s Right: Anchor Babies Are Big Business

Trump on Immigration — the Good, the Bad & the Ugly

Should U.S. Citizenship Be Guaranteed at Birth?

Mark Levin Weighs In On 14th Amendment & Donald Trump’s Immigration Plan – Hannity

How the 14th Amendment Undermines Citizenship

Why Donald Trump rallies are becoming massive events

Donald Trump Still the Top Republican in New Poll –

Donald Trump Leads GOP Field By Wide Margin In New Fox Poll – Rove On Trump Immigration – Lou Dobbs

Donald Trump Leading In Latest GOP Poll As Candidates Descend On Iowa State Fair – Bulls & Bears

Donald Trump Still leading In Polls And GOP Not Happy

Donald Trump is trolling the Republican Party

Donald Trump: ‘Leaders of the party take me seriously…

Ann Coulter defends Donald Trump from “idiot” Rick Perry

Watch Ann Coulter Destroy an Anti-Trump Chump on Hannity

Rush Limbaugh: Donald Trump “is showing everybody how it’s done

FULL: Donald Trump Gives Rousing Speech in Hampton, NH (8-14-15)

Are Trump’s immigration views out of the mainstream?

Could Birthright Citizenship Be Undone?

MATT FORD AUG 19, 2015

The Fourteenth Amendment, for its part, is clear on the scope of birthright citizenship: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” Redefining the Citizenship Clause, either by legislation or by constitutional amendment, seems all but impossible today. “The only thing a politician could promise that would be harder would be, say, promising to build a giant, hundreds-of-miles-long wall and getting another country to pay for it,” The Washington Post’s Philip Bump drily notes. But like the proposed Great Wall of Mexico, feasibility may not be the point. It’s all about getting votes.

Donald Trump’s Immigration Principles Would’ve Barred His Own Grandfather

The last constitutional amendment used to resolve a political controversy was the Twenty-First Amendment in 1933, which reversed prohibition. Constitutional amendments since then have reformed either presidential election and succession procedures (the Twenty-second, Twenty-third, and Twenty-fifth) or elections themselves (the Twenty-fourth and Twenty- sixth). The Twenty-seventh and most-recently ratified amendment, which addresses congressional pay, lay dormant for over 200 years before a college student revived interest in it.

Indeed, since the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment in 1982, no major social or political movement has seriously attempted to amend the Constitution to accomplish its goals. The anti-abortion movement, for example, generally focuses on limiting abortion’s scope through legislation and on supporting presidential candidates who will appoint Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v. Wade. Opponents of capital punishment universally argue that the death penalty already violates the Eighth Amendment; advocating a separate constitutional amendment would undermine that argument. The gay-rights movement made the case that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause protects their rights, a position adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges in June.

But recent history shows the electoral value of proposing constitutional amendments. In 2003, the gay-rights movement scored two major legal victories: the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws nationwide in Lawrence v. Texas and Massachusetts’s highest court legalized same-sex marriage under that state’s constitution. For conservatives at the time, the Supreme Court’s trajectory seemed obvious—and so did the solution. As the 2004 election loomed, the conservative National Review forecasted that the spectacle of same-sex marriage would hurt Democratic candidate John Kerry. At the time, the American electorate was still broadly hostile to marriage equality.

To hammer home this connection, the National Review pointed to the Federal Marriage Amendment. First proposed in 2002, the FMA would constitutionally define marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. A path to ratification would be arduous, the magazine argued, but the struggle would bring its own benefits. “Constitutional amendments must be approved by a two-thirds vote of Congress and three quarters of the state legislatures,” it eagerly noted. “That means every political candidate, from the state level up, will be asked to take a stand.” In essence, the 2004 election would become “a national referendum on gay marriage.”

If John Kerry is elected, gay marriage will surely be nationalized by the end of his term. A Bush defeat would take the wind out of the sails of the campaign for the Federal Marriage Amendment, assure liberal judges that no serious consequences will arise from nationalization, and bring more Goodridge-style liberals onto the courts. A Bush victory, on the other hand, would keep the FMA alive, would help signal the courts that they’ve gone too far, and would stop the proliferation of activist judges on our courts.
Evangelicals took credit when Bush trounced Kerry that fall, although some dispute their impact. But their perceived role went unrewarded when Congress didn’t pass the FMA after Bush’s reelection; Democrats then retook both houses in 2006, forestalling future attempts. As public acceptance of same-sex couples grew in the Obama years, most GOP candidates abandoned the amendment. (Texas senator and GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said last year that he still supports it, however.)

Republicans aren’t alone in using constitutional amendments to stir up their base, although they do it particularly effectively. After Al Gore was defeated in the 2000 presidential election despite winning the popular vote, some congressional Democrats proposed a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College. Those efforts lost steam after Barack Obama trounced John McCain and Mitt Romney with significant margins of electoral votes. A similar movement emerged after the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. FECthat struck down limits on corporate and union election spending. Vermont senator and Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders proposed one of several amendments in 2011; Hillary Clinton said she would only appoint justices who pledged to overturn the ruling.

Could birthright citizenship still be undone? There’s a strain of legal thought that argues that a constitutional amendment wouldn’t be necessary. In 1985, Yale law professors Peter Schuck and Rogers Smith proposed that congressional legislation could clarify that the right does not extend to the children of undocumented immigrants. It’s not a completely heretical idea—Richard Posner, a prominent federal judge in the Seventh Circuit, endorsed it in 2010—but it’s not a mainstream one, either. When Congress considered similar legislation in 1995, Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger told members that a bill “that would deny citizenship to children born in the United States to certain classes of alien parents is unconstitutional on its face.” Although a constitutional amendment to achieve the same goal could not itself be unconstitutional, Dellinger also argued it “would flatly contradict the Nation’s constitutional history and constitutional traditions.”

Anchor baby

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the 2010 film, see Anchor Baby (film).

Anchor baby is a pejorative[1][2] term for a child born in the United States to a foreign national mother who was not lawfully admitted for permanent residence.[3]There is a popular misconception that the child’s U.S. citizenship status (acquired by jus soli) legally helps the child’s parents and siblings to quickly reclassify their visa status (or lack thereof) and to place them on a fast pathway to acquire lawful permanent residence and eventually United States citizenship.[4][5] This is a myth.[6] Current U.S. federal law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from being able to petition for their non-citizen parent to be lawfully admitted into the United States for permanent residence. So at best, the child’s family would need to wait for 21 years before being able to use their child’s US citizenship to modify their immigration status.[7]

The term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen and can later act as a sponsor for other family members.[8][9] The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States to refer to children of illegal immigrants, but may be used for the child of any immigrant.[10] A similar term, “passport baby”, has been used in Canada for children born through so-called “maternity” or “birth tourism“.[11][12]

History and usage

A related term, “anchor child”, referring in this case to “very young immigrants who will later sponsor immigration for family members who are still abroad”, was used in reference to Vietnameseboat people from about 1987.[10][13][14][15][16] “Anchor baby” appeared in print in 1996, but remained relatively obscure until 2006, when it found new prominence amid the increased focus on the immigration debate in the United States.[8][10][16][17] Lexicographer Grant Barrett nominated the term for theAmerican Dialect Society‘s 2006 Word of the Year.[16]

It is generally considered pejorative. In 2011 the American Heritage Dictionary added an entry for the term in the dictionary’s new edition, which did not indicate that the term was disparaging. Following a critical blog piece by Mary Giovagnoli, the director of the Immigration Policy Center, a pro-immigration research group in Washington, the dictionary updated its online definition to indicate that the term is “offensive”, similar to its entries on ethnic slurs.[17][18] As of 2012, the definition reads:

n. Offensive Used as a disparaging term for a child born to a noncitizen mother in a country that grants automatic citizenship to children born on its soil, especially when the child’s birthplace is thought to have been chosen in order to improve the mother’s or other relatives’ chances of securing eventual citizenship.

The decision to revise the definition led to some criticism from illegal immigration opponents.[19]Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that advocates tighter restrictions on immigration,[20] argues that defining the term as offensive is inaccurate and is done for purposes of political rhetoric; according to Krikorian, “‘[An anchor baby] is a child born to an illegal immigrant,'” and the revision of the definition to state that the term is offensive was done to make a political statement.[19] According to Fox News:

Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington-based organization that seeks to end illegal immigration, said the revised definition panders to a small but vocal group of critics who are “manipulating the political, cultural and now linguistic landscape” of the United States. “Publishing word definitions to fit politically correct molds surrenders the language to drive an agenda,” Dane told FoxNews.com. “This dictionary becomes a textbook for the open borders lobby.”[19]

Professor of Law at the University of Florida, Pedro A. Malavet,[21] said that the dictionary’s reclassification of the term “anchor baby” to a term that is considered offensive was “right”.[22]

According to the Double-Tongued Dictionary, written by American lexicographerGrant Barrett, the term “anchor baby” means “a child born of an immigrant in the United States, said to be a device by which a family can find legal foothold in the US, since those children are automatically allowed to choose United States citizenship.” In response to a reader comment, Barrett claimed that the term is used to refer to a child of any immigrant, not just children of illegal immigrants.[23]

In 2012, UtahAttorney GeneralMark Shurtleff, in a meeting designed to promote the 2010 Utah Compact declaration as a model for a federal government approach to immigration, said that “The use of the word ‘anchor baby’ when we’re talking about a child of God is offensive.”[24]

Maternity tourism industry

As of 2015, Los Angeles is considered the center of the maternity tourism industry; authorities in the city there closed 14 maternity tourism “hotels” in 2013.[25] The industry is difficult to close down since it is perfectly legal for a pregnant woman to travel to the U.S.[25]

On March 3, 2015 Federal Agents in Los Angeles conducted a series of raids on 3 “multimillion-dollar birth-tourism businesses” expected to produce the “biggest federal criminal case ever against the booming ‘anchor baby’ industry”, according to the Wall Street Journal.[25][26]

Immigration status

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution indicates that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), that the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees citizenship for nearly all individuals born in the country, regardless of their parents’ citizenship or immigration status.[27][28][29][30][31][32] However, some, like Edward Erler argue that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, there is no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants: “Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally.”[33]

Statistics show that a significant, and rising, number of illegal aliens are having children in the United States, but there is mixed evidence that acquiring citizenship for the parents is their goal.[28] According to PolitFact of the St. Petersburg Times, the immigration benefits of having a child born in the United States are limited. Citizen children cannot sponsor parents for entry into the country until they are 21 years of age, and if the parent had ever been in the country illegally, they would have to show they had left and not returned for at least ten years; however, pregnant and nursing mothers could receive free food vouchers through the federalWIC (Women, Infants and Children) program and enroll the children in Medicaid.[28]

Parents of citizen children who have been in the country for ten years or more can also apply for relief from deportation, though only 4,000 persons a year can receive relief status; as such, according to PolitFact, having a child in order to gain citizenship for the parents is “an extremely long-term, and uncertain, process.”[28]Approximately 88,000 legal-resident parents of US citizen children were deported in the 2000s, most for minor criminal convictions.[34]

Incidence

Some critics of illegal immigration claim the United States’ “birthright citizenship” is an incentive for illegal immigration, and that immigrants come to the country to give birth specifically so that their child will be an American citizen. The majority of children of illegal immigrants in the United States are citizens, and the number has risen. According to a Pew Hispanic Center report, an estimated 73% of children of illegal immigrants were citizens in 2008, up from 63% in 2003. A total of 3.8 million unauthorized immigrants had at least one child who is an American citizen. In investigating a claim by U.S. SenatorLindsey Graham, PolitiFact found mixed evidence to support the idea that citizenship was the motivating factor.[28] PolitiFact concludes that “[t]he data suggests that the motivator for illegal immigrants is the search for work and a better economic standing over the long term, not quickie citizenship for U.S.-born babies.”[28]

There has been a growing trend, especially amongst Chinese visitors to the United States, to make use of “Birth Hotels” to secure US citizenship for their child and leave open the possibility of future immigration by the parents to the United States.[35][36] The U.S. government estimates that there were 7,462 births to foreign residents in 2008[37] while the Center for Immigration Studies estimates that 40,000 births are born to “birth tourists” annually.[37] Pregnant women typically spend around $20,000 to stay in the facilities during their final months of pregnancy and an additional month to recuperate and await their new baby’s U.S. passport.[38] In some cases, the birth of a Canadian[39] or American[40] child to mainland Chinese parents is a means to circumvent the one-child policy in China;[41]Hong Kong[42]and the Northern Mariana Islands[43] were also popular destinations before more restrictive local regulation impeded traffic. Some prospective mothers misrepresent their intentions of coming to the United States, a violation of U.S. immigration law; however, it is not illegal for a woman to come to the U.S. to give birth.[44]

Controversies

On August 17, 2006, Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn used the term “anchor baby” in reference to Saul Arellano, in a column critical of his mother, who had been given sanctuary at a Chicago church after evading a deportation order.[45] After receiving two complaints, the next day Eric Zorn stated in his defense in his Chicago Tribune blog that the term had appeared in newspaper stories since 1997, “usually softened by quotations as in my column”, and stated that he regretted having used the term in his column and promised not to use it again in the future.

On August 23, 2007, the San Diego, California-area North County Times came under criticism from one of its former columnists, Raoul Lowery Contreras, in a column titled “‘Anchor babies’ is hate speech”, for allowing the term “anchor baby” to be printed in letters and opinion pieces.[46]

On April 15, 2014, during a televised immigration debate between San Antonio, Texas Mayor Julian Castro and Texas Senator Dan Patrick, Dan Patrick came under criticism when he used the term “anchor babies” while describing his own view of some of the immigration issues the state of Texas faced.[47][48]

On November 14, 2014, CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo used the term on New Day: “Breaking overnight, President Obama has a plan to overhaul the immigration system on his own — an executive order on anchor babies entitling millions to stay in the U.S. Republicans say this would be war. Is the word “shutdown” actually being used already?” Chris Cuomo later apologized for the comment, ” OK, now, do they? Because let’s think through what this issue actually is on the other side of it. This issue is called the “anchor babies.” I used that term this morning. I shouldn’t have. It’s ugly and it’s offensive to what it is. What it really goes to is the root of the most destructive part of our current immigration policy, you’re splitting up families. They come here, here illegally, they have a baby, and the family gets split up. Maybe the kid stays. We don’t have a workable formation. This goes to the heart of the Latino vote because it shows a real lack of sympathy. You have to come up with some kind of fix. So why avoid this one? Don’t you have to take it on?”[49]

See also

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

Birthright citizenship in the United States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For laws regarding U.S. citizenship, see United States nationality law. For U.S. citizenship (birthright and naturalized), see Citizenship in the United States.

Birthright citizenship in the United States refers to a person’s acquisition of United States citizenship by virtue of the circumstances of his or her birth. It contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization later in life. Birthright citizenship may be conferred by jus soli or jus sanguinis. UnderUnited States law, U.S. citizenship is automatically granted to any person born within and subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. This includes the territories of Puerto Rico, the Marianas (Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands) and the U.S. Virgin Islands, and also applies to children born elsewhere in the world to U.S. citizens (with certain exceptions).[1][2]

The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Current U.S. law

Citizenship in the United States is a matter of federal law, governed by the United States constitution.

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution on July 9, 1868, the citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by itsCitizenship Clause, which states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[3]

Statute, by birth within U.S.

As of 2011, United States Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1401) defines who is a United States citizen from birth. The following are among those listed there as persons who shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

  • “a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” or
  • “a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe” (see Indian Citizenship Act of 1924).
  • “a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States”
  • “a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person”

U.S. territories

The 14th amendment applies to incorporated territories, so people born in incorporated territories of the U.S. (currently, only the Palmyra Atoll) are automatically U.S. citizens at birth.[4]

There are special provisions governing children born in some current and former U.S. territories or possessions, including Puerto Rico, the Panama Canal Zone, theVirgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. There are also special considerations for those born in Alaska and Hawaii before those territories acquired statehood. For example, 8 U.S.C. § 1402 states that “[a]ll persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are citizens of the United States at birth”.[5]

Outlying possessions

According to 8 U.S.C. § 1408 persons born (or found, and of unknown parentage, under the age of 5) in an outlying possession of the U.S. (which is defined by 8 U.S.C. § 1101 as American Samoa and Swains Island) are U.S. nationals but not citizens, unless otherwise provided in section 1401. The U.S. State Department publication titled Acquisition of U.S. Nationality in U.S. Territories and Possessions explains the complexities of this topic.[6]

Statute, by parentage

Under certain circumstances, children may acquire U.S. citizenship from their parents. From 1940 until 1978, a child born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but had only one U.S. citizen parent had to fulfill a “retention requirement” of residing, or being physically present, in the United States or its outlying possessions for a certain number of years before reaching a specified age. Otherwise the child would not retain the U.S. citizenship (hence the name “retention requirement”). The retention requirement was changed several times, eliminated in 1978, and subsequently eliminated with retroactive effect in 1994.[7]

Children born overseas to married parents

The following conditions affect children born outside the U.S. and its outlying possessions to married parents (special conditions affect children born out of wedlock: see below):[8]

  • If both parents are U.S. citizens, the child is a citizen if either of the parents has ever had a residence in the U.S. prior to the child’s birth
  • If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is a U.S. national, the child is a citizen if the U.S. citizen parent has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year prior to the child’s birth
  • If one parent is a U.S. citizen and the other parent is not, the child is a citizen if
    • the U.S. citizen parent has been “physically present”[9] in the U.S. before the child’s birth for a total period of at least five years, and
    • at least two of those five years were after the U.S. citizen parent’s fourteenth birthday.[10]

Children born overseas out of wedlock

There is an asymmetry in the way citizenship status of children born overseas to unmarried parents, only one of whom is a U.S. citizen, is handled.

Title 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (c) provides that children born abroad after December 24, 1952 to unmarried American mothers are U.S. citizens, as long as the mother has lived in the U.S. for a continuous period of at least one year at any time prior to the birth.

8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that children born to American fathers unmarried to the children’s non-American mothers are considered U.S. citizens only if the father meets the “physical presence” conditions described above, and the father takes several actions:

  • Unless deceased, has agreed to provide financial support to the child until he reaches 18,
  • Establish paternity by clear and convincing evidence and, while the person is under the age of 18 years
    • the person is legitimated under the law of the person’s residence or domicile,
    • the father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
    • the paternity of the person is established by adjudication of a competent court.
      • 8 U.S.C. § 1409 paragraph (a) provides that acknowledgment of paternity can be shown by acknowledging paternity under oath and in writing; having the issue adjudicated by a court; or having the child otherwise “legitimated” by law.

Because of this rule, unusual cases have arisen whereby children have been fathered by American men overseas from non-American women, brought back to the United States as babies without the mother, raised by the American father in the United States, and later held to be deportable as non-citizens in their 20s.[11][12]The final element has taken an especially significant importance in these circumstances, as once the child has reached 18, the father is forever unable to establish paternity to deem his child a citizen.[13]

This distinction between unwed American fathers and American mothers was constructed and reaffirmed by Congress out of concern that a flood of illegitimate Korean and Vietnamese children would later claim American citizenship as a result of their parentage by American servicemen overseas fighting wars in their countries.[14] In many cases, American servicemen passing through in wartime may not have even learned they had fathered a child.[14] In 2001, the Supreme Court, by 5–4 majority in Nguyen v. INS, first established the constitutionality of this gender distinction.[11][12]

Eligibility for office of President

According to the Constitution of the United States only natural born citizens are eligible to serve as President of the United States or as Vice President. The text of the Constitution does not define what is meant by natural born: in particular it does not specify whether there is any distinction to be made between persons whose citizenship is based on jus sanguinis (parentage) and those whose citizenship is based on jus soli (birthplace). As a result, controversies have arisen over the eligibility of a number of candidates for the office.

Legal history

Throughout much of the history of the United States, the fundamental legal principle governing citizenship has been that birth within the territorial limits of the United States confers United States citizenship, although slaves and the children of slave mothers, under the principle of partus sequitur ventrem, were excluded.[15] The United States did not grant citizenship after the American Civil War to all former slaves until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which was subsequently confirmed by the Fourteenth Amendment. American Indian tribal members are not covered specifically by the constitutional guarantee. Those living in tribes on reservations were generally not considered citizens until passage of the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, although by that time nearly two-thirds of American Indians were already citizens.

English common law

Birthright citizenship, as with much United States law, has its roots in English common law.[16] Calvin’s Case, 77 Eng. Rep. 377 (1608),[18] was particularly important as it established that, under English common law, “a person’s status was vested at birth, and based upon place of birth—a person born within the king’s dominion owed allegiance to the sovereign, and in turn, was entitled to the king’s protection.”[19] This same principle was adopted by the newly formed United States, as stated by Supreme Court Justice Noah Haynes Swayne: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England…since as before the Revolution.[20]United States v. Rhodes, 27 Fed. Cas. 785 (1866). However, Calvin’s Case is distinguishable, as a Scotsman was granted title to English land as his King and England’s King (James) were one and the same.[21] Calvin was not born in England.[21] Moreover, inCalvin’s Case, Lord Coke cited examples in which the native-born children of parents, either invading the country or who were enemies of the country, were not natural-born subjects because the birth lacked allegiance and obedience to the sovereign.[22]

Federal law

The Naturalization Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. Since that time, laws concerning immigration and naturalization in the United States have undergone a number of revisions.[23]

Dred Scott v. Sanford

Justice Roger B. Taney in the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford 60 U.S. (How. 19) 393 (1857) held that African Americans, whether slave or free, had never been and could never become citizens of the United States, as they were excluded by the Constitution. The political scientist Stuart Streichler writes that Taney’s decision was based on “a skewed reading of history.”.[24] Justice Benjamin R. Curtis in his dissent showed that under the Articles of Confederation, free blacks had already been considered citizens in five states and carried that citizenship forward when the Constitution was ratified.[25]

He wrote:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language “a natural-born citizen.” It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in the history of this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred Citizenship to the place of birth. At the Declaration of Independence, and ever since, the received general doctrine has been, in conformity with the common law, that free persons born within either of the colonies, were the subjects of the King; that by the Declaration of independence, and the consequent acquisition of sovereignty by the several States, all such persons ceased to be subjects, and became citizens of the several States … The Constitution has left to the States the determination what person, born within their respective limits, shall acquire by birth citizenship of the United States…[26]

1862 opinion of the Attorney General of the United States

In 1862, Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase sent a question to Attorney General Edward Bates asking whether or not “colored men” can be citizens of the United States. Attorney General Bates responded on November 29, 1862, with a 27-page opinion concluding, “I conclude that the free man of color, mentioned in your letter, if born in the United States, is a citizen of the United States, …[27][italics in original]” In the course of that opinion, Bates commented at some length on the nature of citizenship, and wrote,

… our constitution, in speaking of natural born citizens, uses no affirmative language to make them such, but only recognizes and reaffirms the universal principle, common to all nations, and as old as political society, that the people born in a country do constitute the nation, and, as individuals, are natural members of the body politic.

If this be a true principle, and I do not doubt it, it follows that every person born in a country is, at the moment of birth, prima facie a citizen; and who would deny it must take upon himself the burden of proving some great disfranchisement strong enough to override the natural born right as recognized by the Constitution in terms the most simple and comprehensive, and without any reference to race or color, or any other accidental circumstance.[28][italics in original]

Civil Rights Act of 1866

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 declared: “…all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”[29] (“Indians not taxed” referred to tribal members living on reservations.)

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution[edit]

Since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution on July 9, 1868, citizenship of persons born in the United States has been controlled by itsCitizenship Clause, which states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[3]

Expatriation Act of 1868

This act, a companion piece to the Fourteenth Amendment, was approved on 27 July 1868.[30]

The Expatriation Act of 1868 led President Ulysses S. Grant to write in 1873, that the United States had “led the way in the overthrow of the feudal doctrine of perpetual allegiance”.[31]

Dr. Edward J. Erler of California State University, San Bernardino, and Dr. Brook Thomas of the University of California at Irvine, have argued that this Act was an explicit rejection of birth-right citizenship as the ground for American citizenship,[32] basing that argument on the debate that surrounded the passage of this act.[33][34]

1873 opinion of the Attorney General

In 1873, The Attorney General of the United States published the following legal opinion concerning the Fourteenth Amendment:

“The word ‘jurisdiction’ must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment. Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them.”[35]

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924[36] provided “That all noncitizen Indians born within the territorial limits of the United States be, and they are hereby, declared to be citizens of the United States”. This same provision (slightly reworded) is contained in present-day law as section 301(b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (8 USC 1401(b)).

U.S. Supreme Court case law

Sailor’s Snug Harbor

In the case of Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) the Supreme Court decided the question of the disposition of the estate of a man born in New York State in 1776. The Supreme Court resolved complicated questions of how citizenship had been derived during the Revolutionary War. The court found that the jus soli is so consistent in American Law as to automatically grant American citizenship to children born in New York City between the Declaration of Independence and the Landing at Kip’s Bay in 1776, but not to children born in New York during the British occupation that followed.[37]

“Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth..”

The Slaughter-House Cases

In the Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) — a civil rights case not dealing specifically with birthright citizenship — a majority of the Supreme Courtmentioned in passing that “the phrase ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”.[38]

Elk v. Wilkins

In Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), the Supreme Court denied the birthright citizenship claim of an American Indian. The court ruled that being born in the territory of the United States is not sufficient for citizenship; those who wish to claim citizenship by birth must be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The court’s majority held that the children of Native Americans were

“no more ‘born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,’ within the meaning of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, than the children of subjects of any foreign government born within the domain of that government, or the children born within the United States of ambassadors or other public ministers of foreign nations.”[39]

Thus, Native Americans who voluntarily quit their tribes would not automatically become U.S. citizens.[40] Native Americans were granted U.S. citizenship by Congress half a century later in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924, which rendered the Elk decision obsolete.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who

  • is born in the United States
  • of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
  • whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
  • whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject

becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Canadians transferred to U.S. hospitals

Since the majority of Canadians live in the relatively thin strip of land close to the long border with the United States, Canadians in need of urgent medical care are occasionally transferred to nearby American medical centers. In some circumstances, Canadian mothers facing high-risk births have given birth in Americanhospitals. Such children are American citizens by birthright.[41]

In these circumstances, Canadian laws are similar to those of the United States. Babies born in Canada of American parents are also Canadian citizens by birthright.[42]

In both of these situations, the birthright citizenship is passed on to their children, born decades later. In some cases, births in American hospital (sometimes called “border babies“) have resulted in persons who lived for much of their lives in Canada, but not knowing that they had never had official Canadian citizenship. This group of people is sometimes called Lost Canadians.[43]

Another problem arises where a Canadian child, born to Canadian parents in a US border hospital, is treated as a dual citizen and added to the United States tax base on this basis despite having never lived, worked nor studied in that nation. While Canadian income tax is only payable by those who reside or earn income in Canada, the US Internal Revenue Service taxes its citizens worldwide. Campobello Island is particularly problematic as, while legally part of New Brunswick, the only year-round fixed link off the island leads not to Canada but to Lubec, Maine — leading to many Canadians whose families have lived on Campobello for generations not being able to claim to be born in Canada.[44]

Current controversy

Original meaning

During the original debate over the 14th Amendment Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan—the sponsor of the Citizenship Clause—described the clause as having the same content, despite different wording, as the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1866, namely, that it excludes American Indians who maintain their tribal ties and “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.”[45] Others also agreed that the children of ambassadors and foreign ministers were to be excluded.[46][47] However, concerning the children born in the United States to parents who are not U.S. citizens (and not foreign diplomats), three senators, including Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull, the author of the Civil Rights Act, as well asPresident Andrew Johnson, asserted that both the Civil Rights Act and the 14th Amendment would confer citizenship on them at birth, and no senator offered a contrary opinion.[48][49][50]

Most of the debate on this section of the Amendment centered on whether the wording in the Civil Rights Act or Howard’s proposal more effectively excluded Aboriginal Americans on reservations and in U.S. territories from citizenship. Senator James R. Doolittle of Wisconsin asserted that all Native Americans are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, so that the phrase “Indians not taxed” would be preferable,[51] but Trumbull and Howard disputed this, arguing that the U.S. government did not have full jurisdiction over Native American tribes, which govern themselves and make treaties with the United States.[52][53]

Edward Erler argues that since the Wong Kim Ark case dealt with someone whose parents were in the United States legally, there is no valid basis under the 14th Amendment for the practice of granting citizenship to U.S.-born children of illegal immigrants: “Even if the logic is that Wong Kim Ark became a citizen by birth with the permission of the United States when it admitted his parents to the country, no such permission has been given to those who enter illegally.”[54] Angelo Ancheta, by contrast, criticizes the “consent-based theory of citizenship”, saying that “The Fourteenth Amendment was designed to ensure citizenship for ‘all persons’ born in the United States, particularly in response to ambiguities in legal status that attached to being the descendants of an outsider class, namely slaves.”[55]

Modern dispute

In the late 1990s opposition arose over the longstanding practice of granting automatic citizenship on a jus soli basis[56] as fears grew in some circles that the existing law encouraged parents-to-be to come to the United States to have children in order to improve the parents’ chances of attaining legal residency themselves.[57][58] Some media correspondents[59][60] and public leaders, including former congressman Virgil Goode, have controversially dubbed this the “anchor baby” situation,[61][62] and politicians have proposed legislation on this basis that might alter how birthright citizenship is awarded.[63]

The Pew Hispanic Center determined that according to an analysis of Census Bureau data about 8 percent of children born in the United States in 2008 — about 340,000 — were offspring of illegal immigrants. In total, about four million American-born children of illegal immigrant parents resided in this country in 2009, along with about 1.1 million foreign-born children of illegal immigrant parents.[64] The Center for Immigration Studies—a think tank which favors stricter controls on immigration—claims that between 300,000 and 400,000 children are born each year to illegal immigrants in the U.S.[65][66]

Bills have been introduced from time to time in Congress which have sought to declare American-born children of foreign nationals not to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”, and thus not entitled to citizenship via the 14th Amendment, unless at least one parent was an American citizen or a lawfulpermanent resident.

Both Democrats and Republicans have introduced legislation aimed at narrowing the application of the Citizenship Clause. In 1993, Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) introduced legislation that would limit birthright citizenship to the children of U.S. citizens and legally resident aliens, and similar bills have been introduced by other legislators in every Congress since.[66] For example, U.S. Representative Nathan Deal, a Republican from the State of Georgia, introduced the “Citizenship Reform Act of 2005” (H.R. 698) in the 109th Congress,[67] the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2007” (H.R. 1940)[68] in the 110th Congress, and the “Birthright Citizenship Act of 2009” (H.R. 1868)[69] in the 111th Congress. However, neither these nor any similar bill has ever been passed by Congress.

Some legislators, unsure whether such Acts of Congress would survive court challenges, have proposed that the Citizenship Clause be changed through aconstitutional amendment.[70] Senate Joint Resolution 6, introduced on January 16, 2009 in the 111th Congress, proposes such an amendment;[71] however, neither this, nor any other proposed amendment, has yet been approved by Congress for ratification by the states.

The most recent judge to weigh in on the issue as to whether a constitutional amendment would be necessary to change the policy is Judge Richard Posner who remarked in a 2003 case that “Congress would not be flouting the Constitution if it amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to put an end to the nonsense.” He explained, “A constitutional amendment may be required to change the rule whereby birth in this country automatically confers U.S. citizenship, but I doubt it.” Posner also wrote, that automatic birthright citizenship is a policy that “Congress should rethink” and that the United States “should not be encouraging foreigners to come to the United States solely to enable them to confer U.S. citizenship on their future children.”[72]

Professor Edward J. Erler of the California State University has argued that “Congress began to pass legislation offering citizenship to Indians on a tribe by tribe basis. Finally, in 1923, there was a universal offer to all tribes. Any Indian who consented could become an American citizen. This citizenship was based on reciprocal consent: an offer on the part of the U.S. and acceptance on the part of an individual. Thus Congress used its legislative powers under the Fourteenth Amendment to determine who was within the jurisdiction of the U.S. It could make a similar determination today, based on this legislative precedent, that children born in the U.S. to illegal aliens are not subject to American jurisdiction. A constitutional amendment is no more required now than it was in 1923.”[73] Some others have disagreed with this interpretation, contending that while Congress can define territories (such as an Indian Reservation) as US jurisdiction, it has no power to define people as under US jurisdiction aside from where they were born.[74]

Republicans in the State of Arizona have indicated an intention to introduce state legislation which would seek to deny American citizenship to Arizona-born children of illegal immigrant parents by prohibiting the issuance of a birth certificate unless at least one parent has legal status.[75][76] However, critics argue that the child or parents could immediately sue the state for discrimination and that the federal courts would immediately force the state to issue the birth certificate.[74]

A report by an organization called the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP) in 2012 asserted that revoking birthright citizenship would be bureaucratic, expensive, would result in a national ID card, and would not slow illegal immigration.[74] Under current law, if a citizen parent gives birth in a foreign country, they must prove their own citizenship in order for their baby to have citizenship. The NFAP estimated this to cost $600 per baby, not including legal fees. The report alleged that if birthright citizenship were eliminated, every baby in the United States would be subject to this cost. For the four million babies born each year in the U.S., this would total $24 billion per year. In addition, currently the US government does not keep any record of births, instead using the records of individual states to issue passports. The report alleged that the end of birthright citizenship would leave the states unable to verify whether a new baby should be granted citizenship, requiring the federal government instead to issue birth certificates, and likely a national ID card. Finally, the report claimed that eliminating birthright citizenship would not reduce illegal immigration. The report said that immigrants come to the United States for economic reasons, and illegal immigrants cannot use a citizen child to be granted citizenship. The report also said that all proposals to end birthright citizenship, aside from a constitutional amendment, would be unconstitutional and quickly be overturned in court.[74] The Center for Immigration Studies disputed these conclusions, asserting in its own 2012 report that the NFAP’s claims were “unsupported”, that a bureaucratic overhaul would not be necessary, and that ending automatic birthright citizenship would not cost parents money, result in a caste system, or create stateless children.[77]

See also

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

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

Training For Mexicans On How To Cross The U.S. Mexican Border To Enter The United States Illegally — The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Continues and Is Growing Everyday! — How To Stop and Roll Back The Invasion? Immigration Law Enforcement — Videos

Posted on September 1, 2015. Filed under: American History, Babies, Blogroll, Business, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Culture, Documentary, Federal Government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Love, media, Money, People, Philosophy, Photos, Police, Political Correctness, Politics, Radio, Rants, Raves, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 524: August 31, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 523: August 27, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 522: August 26, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 521: August 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 520: August 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 519: August 21, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 518: August 20, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 517: August 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 516: August 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 515: August 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 514: August 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 513: August 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 512: August 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 511: August 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 510: August 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 509: July 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 508: July 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 507: July 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 506: July 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 505: July 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 504: July 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 503: July 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 502: July 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 501: July 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 500: July 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 499: July 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 498: July 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 497: July 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 496: June 30, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 495: June 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 494: June 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 493: June 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 492: June 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 491: June 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 490: June 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 489: June 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 488: June 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 487: June 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 486; June 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 485: June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484: June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483: June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482; June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481: June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480: June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479: June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478: June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477: June 3, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 476: June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475: June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474; May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473: May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472: May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471: May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470: May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469: May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468: May 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 467: May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466: May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465: May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464; May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463; May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462: May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461: May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460; May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459: May 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 458: May 1, 2015

Story 1: Training For Mexicans On How To Cross The U.S. Mexican Border To Enter The United States Illegally — The 30-50 Million Illegal Alien Invasion of United States Continues and Is Growing Everyday! — How To Stop and Roll Back The Invasion? Immigration Law Enforcement — Videos

Illegal Border Crossing in Mexico

Every year, thousands of Mexicans illegally cross the US border. To find out exactly how it’s done we went to El Alberto, Mexico to film the experience.

El Alberto lies 800 miles south of the US border in the state of Hidalgo. It’s pretty much like any other town of 3,000 people, except in El Alberto they offer tourists the chance to participate in a simulated illegal border crossing. It all happens at a standard recreational park with swimming pools, river trips, zip lines, and the other typical fare. We took a few cameras and headed for the EcoAlberto Park to spend some late-nights running through underground tunnels on the heels of our personal “Coyote” while being chased by border patrol. While we were there, we crashed a quinceñera party and saw El Alberto from the perspective of the locals.

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

Can a wall be built between U.S. and Mexico?

U.S. BORDER WIDE OPEN – Illegals Caught on Camera

A LOT of people flee from a Van Crash

Illegal Immigrants caught Posing as U.S. Marines

63 Illegal Immigrants Caught

Mexico’s Immigrant Oasis: Last Stop Before the Border

Cop Pulls Over A Van Full of Illegals

14 Illegal Immigrants Flee Cops After Getting Pulled Over

Dealing with illegal immigration, US style (03 Aug10)

Illegal Alien steals Maricopa deputy’s ID. Gets work with it. Plus Sheriff Joe Arpaio Interview

ILLEGAL CROSSINGS AT CALIFORNIA MEXICO BORDER

Undocumented Mexican Worker Working For Donald Trump Wants You To Know Something – Ricardo Aca

Bill O’Reilly Interviews GRILLS Donald Trump on Immigration Plan – August 18, 2015 – Fox News

Satellite Images Confirm Many Holes In Border Fence

Risk Takers – 09 – Border Patrol Agents

Several weeks ago, the U.S. Border Patrol moved dozens of agents from Texas and California to patrol

01_apprehensionsus_border_apprehensions_1976_2013

cbp-illegal-alien-apprehens06_appsagentDHS’ STRATEGY ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER

2011-deporations-and-latinos-112013-aprilborder-patrol-apprehensions-by-dispositionFT_14.06.06_UnaccompaniedChildren

How Many Illegal Aliens are in the U.S.? – Introduction

Uploaded on Oct 20, 2007

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the United States? Introduction by Wayne Lutton, The Social Contract.

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

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

This is a presentation of five panelists presenting at the National Press Club, Washington, D.C. on October 3, 2007. The presentations are broken into a series of video segments:

Wayne Lutton, Introduction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5KHQR…

Diana Hull, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6WvFW…

Diana Hull, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYuRNY…

James H Walsh, part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB0RkV…

James H. Walsh, part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbmdun…

Phil Romero: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_ohvJ…

Fred Elbel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNTJGf…

For complete articles on the topic, see the Summer, 2007 issue of The Social Contract at http://www.TheSocialContract.com .

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

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

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 1

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Diana Hull, part 2

Bear Stearns

The Underground Labor Force Is Rising To The Surface Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA January 3, 2005

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the US? – Fred Elbel

Immigration by the Numbers — Off the Charts

Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs – Updated 2010

Numbers USA’s Roy Beck on Illegal Aliens Coming to a Town Near You

Newsmax Prime | Roy Beck discusses the GOP presidential contenders’ stance on immigration

2016 Presidential Hopefuls

Worker-Protection Immigration Grade Cards

Assessing immigration stances that affect Americans’ jobs & wages by changing supply of workers.

Updated: 08/17/15

White House

2016 Presidential Hopefuls

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

picture

WHAT DO THESE GRADES MEASURE?
For the most part, candidates are being measured by the recommendations and principles of the bi-partisan U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform which favored an immigration system that protects the interests of American wage-earners (both U.S.-born and foreign-born). Commission members were chosen by leaders of each party in the Senate and House, with Chairwoman Barbara Jordan appointed by Pres. Bill Clinton.

UPDATED WEEKLY:
Every week, we add statements by candidates that modify or add texture to a candidate’s stances. Then, each category rating and grade is re-calculated weekly.

HOW THE HOPEFULS ARE ORDERED ON THE GRID: (1) The first 5 are the most popular Democrats in order of how they were polling early in the month. (2) Then the 5 most popular Republicans. (3) All the rest are in the order of best grade to worst.

WHAT ARE WE MISSING?
Are you aware of statements by a candidate that we don’t have, especially if they suggest a different stance than what we show? If so, send url links to us at: elections2016@numbersusa.com

WHAT COUNTS MOST IN RATINGS?
Past actions as a legislator or governor are important. Usually more important, though, are the promises a candidate makes on his/her website, in official press releases and in statements reported in credible media. We are looking for specifics in what candidates say they would do if elected President. We usually give more weight to recent statements and actions. But we watch for signs of deception and waffling in the past that challenge credibility. We always give candidates the opportunity to clarify statements, especially in direct communication with us.

WHY ARE WE SUCH TOUGH GRADERS?
The ratings and grades reflect an urgency about the economic status of tens of millions of American workers who are in occupations where real wages are lower than they were 15 and 20 years ago. With nearly 60 million working-age Americans not even holding jobs, NumbersUSA reserves A and B grades for those who have shown they are truly serious about reducing the flow of foreign labor into these giant pools of surplus labor.

HOW TO DIG DEEPER:
(a) Click on a candidate’s photo to view all statements & actions that led to the rating for each category.
(b) Hover over the category titles in the left column for a quick description of what a category is about.
(c) Click on the question marks in the left column for a full description of what a candidate needs to do to achieve a pro-worker rating in a category and why it is important to American workers.
(d) Click on the grade at the top for our comments on the overall grade.

HOW YOU CAN OJECTIVELY RELY ON THE GRADES:
NumbersUSA has a point of view and agrees with the “Jordan Commission” that a tighter labor market is better for the American people. So, we give the high grades to candidates who prefer tightening the labor supply, and we give low grades to candidates who favor looser labor supplies. But everybody can rely on the spectrum upon which we place each candidate. If you disagree with NumbersUSA and think the U.S. would be better off by adding more foreign workers into the current labor surplus, you still can depend on our grading system to tell you which candidates are best for you on immigration policy by looking for the F and D grades.

ARE THE GRADECARDS AN ENDORSEMENT?
NO! We understand that people choose to back candidates based on their stands on many different policy issues, as well as on their character, experience and leadership. We intend our Grade Cards to be the most reliable source for judging a candidate on one issue: how to modify immigration policies to add or reduce the number of foreign workers competing with American workers in U.S. jobs.

llegal Aliens: Counting the Uncountable

By James H. Walsh
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”
Summary:
No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. This article demonstrates that this number is closer to 2 times 20 million.

Qui vult decipi, decipiatur.
(Let him who wishes to be deceived, be deceived.)

– Latin proverb

No exact head count exists for the ghost population of illegal aliens residing in the United States. Data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) and by national surveys, governmental agencies, nongovernment statistics-keeping agencies, philanthropic organizations, religious charities, and immigrant advocates are used in estimates ranging from 7 million to 20 million. I believe that number is closer to 2 times 20, and here is why.

Guessing the number of illegal aliens in the United States is like playing the lottery––more than a million to one that you will be right on. Government agencies each have their own methodology and thus their own estimate. Leading the list are the Census Bureau and the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—an amalgamation of 22 federal agencies, including the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) transferred from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the former Customs Service (USC) transferred from the U.S. Treasury Department. The INS and USC had the distinction of being among the most dysfunctional agencies in the U.S. Government. Added to these are other public and private prestidigitators (listed here in alphabetical order): academics, demographers, economists, environmentalists, geographers, historians, immigration advocates, journalists, labor specialists, political scientists, religious charities, sociologists, statisticians, and welfare administrators.

Not one of these “experts” has a clue as to the exact number of illegal aliens, but this does not keep them from crafting estimates to fit their own agenda. Few have ever been to the U.S.–Mexican border, where the majority of illegal aliens cross into the United States. My high-ball estimate, at least, is based on first-hand data compiled on site. During eleven years as a renegade INS Associate General Counsel, I regularly traveled the Southern Border, as it meanders 2,000 miles from the Pacific Ocean to the Gulf of Mexico. My duties took me as well to the then even less secure Northern Border with Canada, which extends through often heavily wooded wilderness.

The INS, in its stormy heyday, had a chronic problem with numbers, be it the number of illegal aliens crossing U.S. borders each year, the number of visa overstays, the number of actual, in-the-flesh deportations, or the number of criminal illegal aliens (those convicted of crimes committed in the United States, after their illegal entry).

In 1994, the INS Statistics Division published a seminal statistical work on illegal aliens. Emphasizing that the figures were estimates, the report acknowledged the assistance of the Urban Institute, the Center for Social Demographic Analysis, the State University of New York, Albany, and the New York City Planning Department. The Urban Institute contributor also worked as an INS consultant, and now is with the Pew Foundation. The major players in immigration statistics do tend to quote each other. Although the report cited the INS Nonimmigrant Information System (NIIS), it failed to mention that the 1990 NIIS records were lost during a processing error. Nevertheless, the report concluded that the actual illegal alien population residing in the United States in October 1992 was “not likely to have been higher than the estimated total of 3.4 million, because the assumption used to construct the estimates was selected deliberately to avoid underestimating the population.”

At the same time, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General found INS statistics suspect and cited deliberate deception by senior INS officials tampering with immigration statistics. Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus (false in one, false in all).

The DOJ investigation agreed with audits by the Government Accounting Office (now Government Accountability Office, GAO) that an “aura of incompetence and incestuous mismanagement” permeated the INS. Over the years, GAO auditors voiced their concerns to the INS Office of the General Counsel, which was plagued by a swinging door of political appointee General Counsels. Those who pushed for accurate counts were stilled by bureaucratic estoppel, dead-end rewrites, and persistently convoluted and distorted statistics.

U.S. Border Patrol agents confided that they were told to cap apprehensions and deportations to conform to the desires of various Administrations to create at least a public perception of border control. One method was to move deportation cases from the Border States to inland districts with fewer alien cases; thus deportations would better match depressed apprehension figures. Another method was to send illegal aliens back across the border without recording the apprehensions. That strategy failed on occasions when Mexican officials refused to accept non-Mexican deportees. Not all illegal aliens crossing the Southern Border are Mexican. These “others” have their own acronym, OTM (other than Mexican), and it is among the OTMs, that the risk of terrorism is greatest. For instance, Arabs are said to be training in South America to pass as Hispanics at the Southern Border.

Unfortunately, under DHS, things have not greatly changed, other than to rename former INS and USC units and positions. The same bureaucrats, at the behest of political appointees, still supply Congress and the White House with illegal alien numbers. Just as with the old INS, the new DHS bureaucrats are adept at rationalizing their methodology and head counts.

In addition, the U.S. Census Bureau routinely undercounts and then adjusts upward total census numbers of Hispanics and other foreign nationals residing in the United States––counting only, of course, those willing to be counted. For the year 2000, the Census Bureau reported a total U.S. population count of “about 275 million” men, women, and children. When the states and local governments challenged that number as an undercount, the total was corrected upward to 281.4 million, with no clear count of illegal aliens. The Hispanic 2000 census count was 32.8 million, but on re-count the Census Bureau adjusted this number upward to 35.3 million, a 13 percent increase.

In 2001, Northeastern University, in an independent study, estimated a total of about 13 million illegal aliens in the United States, at the same time that the INS was estimating 4 million to 6 million illegal aliens. Unquestionably, the INS had a policy of underestimating the illegal alien count in keeping with its agenda traceable back to the Immigration Act of 1965, which opened the doors to Third World immigrants.

The average number of recorded apprehensions of illegal aliens in the United States now hovers at 1.2 million a year. A DHS report, Border Apprehensions: 2005, documented 1.3 million apprehensions in 2005. For the 10-year period (1996–2005), the highest number of apprehensions, 1.8 million, occurred in 2000, and the lowest, 1 million, in 2003. These DHS statistics contradict persistent statements by other government agencies that only 400,000 to 500,000 illegal aliens enter the country each year.

Journeymen Border Patrol agents (on the job five years or more) estimate that a minimum of five illegal aliens enter the United States for each apprehension, and more likely seven. That informed estimate would raise the total number of illegal aliens entering the United States in 2003 to 8 million men, women, and children.

Immigrant apologists argue that the number of illegal aliens in the United States fluctuates: many die; many return to their homeland part of each year or after many years of work; others are granted amnesty or refugee status; and others become (LPRs) and then citizens. Logic questions some of these arguments. Why would those who pay $1,500 to $15,000 to be smuggled into the United States, risking their life, return in a matter of months or years? Why would they suffer long trips confined to over-crowded boats, trucks, or other containers to stay for a few months or years? Why would people suffer possible assaults, rape, or murder to stay a few months or years? Why would Chinese illegal aliens suffer decades of indentured servitude for a few years in the United States? Most of those illegal aliens who risk their lives sneaking into the United States are here to stay.

My estimate of 38 million illegal aliens residing in the United States is calculated, however, using a conservative annual rate of entry (allowing for deaths and returns to their homelands) of three illegal aliens entering the United States for each one apprehended. My estimate includes apprehensions at the Southern Border (by far, the majority), at the Northern Border, along the Pacific, Atlantic, and Gulf of Mexico coasts, and at seaports and airports. Taking the DHS average of 1.2 million apprehensions per year and multiplying it by 3 comes to 3.6 million illegal entries per year; then multiplying that number by 10 for the 1996–2005 period, my calculations come to 36 million illegal entries into the United States. Add to this the approximately 2 million visa overstays during the same period, and the total is 38 million illegal aliens currently in the United States.

In contrast to my estimate, the head of the U.S. Border Patrol Union Local in Tucson was quoted in a May 16, 2006, Christian Science Monitor article, as estimating the total number of “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) in the United States, as of that date, at between 12 million and 15 million. At the same time, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) in DHS put the number at 7 million; the Census Bureau estimated 8.7 million; and The Pew Hispanic Center estimate was 11.5 million to 12 million “unauthorized migrants” (illegal aliens) living in the United States. Depending on the source, the Christian Science Monitor concluded, illegal aliens in the United States in May 2006 numbered from “about 7 million up to 20 million or more.” At least the reporter was on the right track.

The current confusion of laws, regulations, DHS operating procedures, judicial decisions, and political agenda wreaks havoc on border enforcement. It is hardly reassuring that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, on February 16, 2007, stated that immigration reform would let U.S. law enforcement focus on catching criminals instead of “future housekeepers and landscapers.” The Secretary opined that security alone is not enough to permanently stop “illegal border jumpers” (illegal aliens). With internecine fighting reported on the rise between and among alien and drug smuggling Hispanic gangs, the Secretary noted that alien smugglers are in disarray, but he expects “flows to go up again as smugglers regroup.”

A Closer Look at the Numbers

Thus far in 2007, the U.S. population has passed 301 million. DHS statistics indicate that illegal aliens are the fastest growing segment, followed by their anchor babies. In addition, the number of Mexican illegal aliens apprehended is nine times the combined numbers of all other illegal aliens.

Still the number of illegal aliens is downplayed by the immigration lobby, which is a coalition of liberal-radical academics, liberal politicians, federal and state bureaucrats, labor unions, La Raza (“The Race,” the leading immigrant activist group), other immigrant activists, and religious organizations.

Aiding and abetting the immigrant coalition is the news media, which is committed to not identifying persons as illegal aliens, especially those who commit crimes. Only when forced to do so does the news media refer to illegal aliens, and then only as “undocumented persons” or “unauthorized immigrants.” The latest newspeak introduced the term “migrants” with the blessing of the New York Times, when the coalition realized that U.S. citizens were beginning to catch on that “undocumented immigrant” actually meant illegal alien. Finally U.S. taxpayers are becoming alarmed by the numbers of illegal aliens in their states, cities, and communities. Finally they are sensing that the actual numbers exceed the official estimates.

Illegal alien apologists must downplay the numbers because the actual costs to federal and state taxpayers are rising drastically each year. By undercounting illegal aliens, the costs to taxpayers for increased school enrollment and hospital treatment are never fully explained. Texas school officials are recruiting in Mexico for bilingual persons to teach in Texas public schools. The 2005–06 Texas school data showed at least 711,237 students had “limited” English-speaking skills. U.S. school districts are recruiting foreign nationals to come and teach in U.S. schools to accommodate illegal aliens.

Arizona will spend $1.2 billion to educate non-English-speaking children in 2007. The pro-immigrant rights Pew Hispanic Center estimates that one in nine Arizona students is an “illegal immigrant or the child of an illegal immigrant.” Others in Arizona suggest the number is more like one in four.

tsc_17_4_walsh_chart1.png

On Capitol Hill, Congressional staffers are quick to rely on governmental studies as accurate; the acceptance of flawed data is routine in immigration circles. The Pew Hispanic Center published a report on June 14, 2005, entitled,Unauthorized Migrants: Numbers and Characteristics by Jeffrey S. Passel, formerly with the Urban Institute and a former INS consultant. His report, illustrated with charts and diagrams, included a footnote in which he stated his preference for the term “unauthorized migrants”:

Various labels have been applied to this group of unauthorized migrants, including “undocumented immigrants,” “illegals,” “illegal aliens,” and “illegal immigrants.” The term “unauthorized migrant” best encompasses the population in our data, because many migrants now enter the country or work using counterfeit documents, and thus are not really “undocumented,” in the sense that they have documents, but not completely legal documents.

Perhaps in place of “illegal aliens,” Passel would prefer “not completely legal aliens.” His report, largely advo-babble (immigrant advocate babble) under the guise of research and statistical analysis, rehashes disingenuous data in an attempt to cloud illegal alien numbers and their impact. In a chapter on “Methods: Residual Estimates of Unauthorized Migrants,” he states that the “residual method has been used for several decades to measure unauthorized migration to the U.S.” and that “some of the first sound empirical estimates came from residual methodology applied to the 1980 Census. Variants of the method were used or discussed by the Census Bureau, the Panel on Immigration Statistics, the Bi-National (U.S.-Mexico) Study, and the Commission on Immigration Reform, INS, and a number of other organizations and researchers.” If incest is a crime, then these researchers are guilty––at least of quoting themselves and cross-referencing their colleagues.

A GAO report (May 9, 2005) on criminal illegal aliens compared a 2000 INS estimate of the total “unauthorized immigrant” (illegal alien) population residing in the United States at 7 million to a 2005 estimate of “about 10 million illegal aliens living in the United States.” Of the 55,322 criminal illegal aliens studied by the GAO, each averaged eight arrests––without deportation.

The new DHS has yet to correct the multitude of problems inherited from the INS and Customs. A GAO report (May 27, 2005) described the memorandum of understanding on respective duties and intelligence sharing signed by the newly formed Immigration and Customs Enforcement component (ICE) and the Customs and Border Protection component (CBP). As of May 2005, however, no mechanism was in place to track numbers and results of referrals between the two. Little has changed.

Recently experts at liberal think-tanks, such as the Brookings Institution, are commenting on the extraordinary explosion across the United States of diversity and immigration. These experts are just learning that “immigrants” (illegal aliens) are showing up in many more communities than the experts ever believed, such as Loudoun County, Virginia (an affluent suburb of Washington, D.C.), Palm Beach County, Florida; and Plainfield, Illinois. They had accepted as fact the under-reporting of illegal aliens by immigrant special interest groups, including Democrats in Congress and federal agencies. Finally the ghost population of illegal aliens is becoming visible, through its sheer numbers at the state and local level. Not only are U.S. citizens beginning to see the reality of unfettered illegal immigration in their own communities; they are beginning to feel the pinch.

Countable Snapshots

Although no exact numbers exist on illegal aliens residing in the United States, the following snapshots support my contention that the actual numbers far exceed the “official” estimates of the federal government.

On an inspection tour of the El Paso Border Patrol Sector, while interviewing an agent, I observed in the distance twelve illegal aliens dash through a split in a fence, and three Border Patrol agents give chase. The aliens spread out like a fireworks starburst; the agents apprehended three of them; and thus nine illegal aliens were on their way to mingle in El Paso or parts unknown. This snapshot, remember, was a 20-foot stretch of a 2,000-mile border.

In an immigration/civil rights case, a federal judge asked attorneys, “Do we really know how many undocumented immigrants we are talking about, in the United States?” School Board attorneys hemmed and hawed; finally one replied, “One expert told me 1,300 “undocumented students” were in the school district, and another said 7,000.” When the judge later asked the question again, attorneys answered that privacy laws and federal laws prohibited questions about citizenship.

The Hispanic population is skyrocketing in such diverse areas as Fort Myers, Florida; Charlotte, North Carolina; Indianapolis, Indiana; Las Vegas, Nevada; and Seattle, Washington. Illegal aliens make up an estimated 80 percent of the new population. In Nebraska, the number of illegal aliens is estimated at more than 50,000. Nationally, Hispanics, now the largest minority, have a higher fertility rate than other ethnic groups.

In early 2007, more than 1.6 million Hispanics were reported living in the greater Chicago area, the majority of them Mexicans and 80 percent of them illegal aliens. One of them, Elvira Arellaño, is being granted “sanctuary” in a Chicago store-front church. DHS officers have not breached this “sanctuary” to deport Arellaño once again. Having lived in Chicago for nine years, she can still not speak English. As one of the few people actually deported by the U.S. Government, she re-entered the United States without inspection and thus is subject to felony charges. The radical immigration advocates who support her “sanctuary” mean to make a mockery of U.S. laws.

In January 2007, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) spokeswoman estimated that 600,000 “illegal immigrants” (illegal aliens) are currently ignoring deportation orders. Illegal aliens call the written notice of a deportation order a “run letter,” and that is what they do.

Southern states have the fastest growing populations in the country. Brookings Institution demographer William Frey opined in 2006, “Immigrants are finally catching up to the fact that the South is a magnet for jobs and quality of life. They are rag-tag migrants, taking jobs created by people who come from other parts of the U.S.” Texas, Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina are among the ten most popular states with illegal aliens.

In 2005, a total of 11,400 migrants on their way to the United States took refuge in the Jesuit shelter, Casa del Migrante, in Nuevo Laredo, Mexico, across the Rio Grande from Laredo, Texas; this figure was up from 4,647 in 1999.

In Palm Beach County, Florida, in 2006, according to an immigration advocate, the Hispanic population was undercounted by 3–4 to 1, with 90 percent of them illegal aliens. Thus when the 2005 Census recorded 50,000 Hispanic residents among the population of 1.2 million, the actual count was closer to 200,000, most of them illegal.

Among illegal aliens in the United States, most are of child-bearing age. The fertility rate of immigrants, legal and illegal, compared to that of U.S. citizens is 3–4:1.

In January 2007, U.S. Treasurer Anna Escobedo Cabral stated that remittances to Mexico from the United States are a driving force of Mexico’s economic growth. In 2006, these remittances were US$23 billion, an increase of 15 percent from remittances in 2005. Some of these remittances are coming from the estimated 5,000 to 30,000 Mexicans working in New Orleans to rebuild the city.

Illegal Aliens and “Comprehensive” Immigration Reform

A history of legislative chicanery and out-right misrepresentation has fed the illegal alien crisis now being felt at federal, state, and local levels in the United States. To Congress must go the majority of blame for the some 38 million illegal aliens now residing in the United States––threatening public safety and public health, stressing school and hospital budgets, damaging the environment, and draining taxpayer pocketbooks.

The new Democrat-controlled Congress is poised to repeat past legislative mistakes. The Immigration Act of 1965 (Hart-Celler Act), as part of Lyndon Johnson’s War on Poverty, served as an open invitation to those wishing to flee Third World countries; and the 1986 Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA), which promised amnesty and employer sanctions, delivered little of either. Only an estimated 2.7 million illegal aliens took advantage of the IRCA (Reagan) amnesty. This low participation rate can be traced to the reluctance of illegal aliens to believe any country would be so naive as to wave in persons who had committed a crime in crossing the border. At that time, the total illegal alien population in the United States was estimated at 4 million to 6 million. The tsunami of “border jumpers” began once word spread around the world that the United States, with the passage of IRCA, was opening its borders.

In a 2005 Pew Hispanic Center report, Jeffrey Passel did make a coherent summation: “The unauthorized population [illegal aliens] has been steadily increasing in size (and possibly by large increments since the last half of the 1990s).”

Amnesty and employer sanction provisions failed to curb the flow of illegal aliens; IRCA proved to be a legislative mistake, and the present Democrat-controlled Congress is falling into the same trap, with the support of the President. As illegal alien counts rise daily, employer sanction provisions in any 2007 immigration legislation promise to be as unenforceable as those in IRCA. Just as the Reagan amnesty was followed by a new wave of emboldened illegal aliens, the same aftermath awaits “comprehensive” immigration legislation in 2007.

U.S. citizens (for the most part, we presume) elected the current Congress to pass legislation to “form a more perfect union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and Secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” (Preamble to the U.S. Constitution, 1789).

Immigration is not the problem; the burgeoning ghost population of illegal aliens now becoming visible across the United States is. Conflicting counts of illegal aliens reflect muddled immigration policies––purposeful or not. Such policies render the nation less capable of apprehending and deporting illegal aliens (among them violent criminals and terrorists) than ever before. ■

About the author

James H. Walsh, formerly an Associate General Counsel of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) in the United States Department of Justice, writes immigration commentary. During his INS tenure, Walsh was selected as a German Marshall Fund Scholar, traveled through Europe interviewing immigration officials, and published articles based on his findings. At INS, he worked with other federal agencies and with congressional committees on immigration matters. His assignments included consultations with foreign governments and international business concerns. He chaired a task force on Transit without Visa (TWOV), whose report identified weaknesses in pre-9/11 airport security.

Walsh has served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (Middle District of Florida) and as a Special Trial Attorney in the U.S. Department of Justice Organized Crime Section. He chaired the Constitutional Rights Committee, General Law Section, of the American Bar Association, and served on the Editorial Board of The Florida Bar Journal. His articles on immigration have appeared inMigrationWorld, Social Contract, The Florida Bar Journal, and Newsmax.com.
Walsh has a B.A. in history from Spring Hill College and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center.

How Many Illegal Aliens Are in the U.S.? – An Alternative Methodology for Discovering the Numbers

By Fred Elbel
Volume 17, Number 4 (Summer 2007)
Issue theme: “How many illegal aliens are in the U.S.?”
Summary:
The Department of Homeland Security estimated in December 2003 that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and 700,000 new illegals enter and stay each year. These official estimates are somewhat suspect and may represent significant undercounts, as they are produced by the very entity responsible for the tidal wave of illegal aliens entering our nation —the United States Government. An alternative methodology is used here to estimate a range of numbers of illegals that is likely more realistic.

The Department of Homeland Security estimated in December 2003 that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens resided in the United States and 700,000 new illegals enter and stay each year. These official estimates are somewhat suspect and may represent significant undercounts, as they are produced by the very entity responsible for the tidal wave of illegal aliens entering our nation —the United States Government. An alternative methodology is used here to estimate a range of numbers of illegals that is likely more realistic.

Methodology

The precise number of illegals entering the United States and the exact rate at which they cross our borders are unknown. Official government numbers are often hard to come by and are routinely sanitized. 7, 12 In this analysis, the estimate of the number of illegals in the U.S. is derived from U.S. Border Patrol apprehension rates and estimates of the number that “get away”—those that evade apprehension. This “get away” number is not reliably known, but can be estimated; therefore the methodology based upon this factor will produce a range of results as opposed to a single projection.

This methodology consists of the following steps:

  1. Estimate the gross number of illegals entering the U.S., as well as the number of those that evade apprehension by the Border Patrol. A “get away” ratio is applied to the numbers of illegals entering, resulting in a gross estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension.
  2. Factor in repeat apprehensions of the same individuals and legalizations out of the overall estimate. Many illegal aliens who are apprehended and are returned home try to enter the U.S. again and are subsequently apprehended. Others are legalized and are allowed to stay in the U.S.
  3. Factor “short term stays” from the overall estimate. Some illegal aliens voluntarily return home in less than year.
  4. Estimate the total number of illegal aliens living in the United States, based upon the estimate of illegals entering and evading apprehension each year.

Step 1: Estimate the gross numbers of illegals entering the U.S.

Census figures show that 90 percent of illegal immigration comes from Latin America, with 70 percent of the total from Mexico.26 The last decade has witnessed a tidal wave of illegal Mexican immigration. The Center for Immigration Studies noted:

Indeed, the last decade saw an unprecedented number of Mexicans cross the U.S. border. Between 1990 and 2000, their number doubled—from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, or 30 percent of the entire foreign-born population in the United States. Within this number, unauthorized Mexicans grew by more than 100 percent—from 2 million to 4.8 million, or 69 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States.

Though the Mexican government should be embarrassed that 10 percent of its people have fled to the U.S. from Mexico, former President Vicente Fox’s administration embraced this reality. In fact, increasing the number of Mexicans working illegally in the United States is among Mexico’s highest foreign policy objectives.30

U.S. Government estimates of illegal aliens residing in the United States have been uniformly low.18 On December 9, 2003, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge stated that there were 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens in the United States.1 The corrected U.S. Census Bureau estimate for 2003 was 8 million2; other Census data extrapolated to more like 10 million, and it recently has been questioned whether the actual number is much higher.20 Referring to a 2001 Northeastern University study stating that there were 11 million illegal aliens in the United States as opposed to U.S. Government estimates of 6 million,18 the Federation for American Immigration Reform stated:

It is inconceivable that official estimates could be that far off the mark unless someone was deliberately trying to mislead the American public.28

Senator John McCain (R-AZ) stated in February 2004 that according to U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, almost 4 million illegal aliens entered the U.S. illegally in 2002.5 (More than half of all illegal immigration into the U.S. comes through Arizona).

Of these 4 million, some were apprehended and removed, while most of them evaded apprehension and succeeded in reaching their interior destinations. How many were apprehended? The answer to this question clearly affects the number of illegals that are believed to reside within the United States. The Border Patrol provides numbers of apprehensions,6 but generally declines to answer specific questions regarding apprehension rates. However, Arizona’s representative Jim Kolbe testified to Senator McCain in a Congressional hearing on June 17, 2004, that the Border Patrol “figure about one out of four or five are apprehended”.9 Michael Nicely, Chief, Tucson Sector, U.S. Border Patrol, stated in a private telephone conversation in 2004 that “ It’s more like seven.”

This author has visited the Arizona border and has personally observed the situation on the ground. Border Patrol agents who were brave enough to share their own insights have stated that in their opinion, the Border Patrol is not apprehending anywhere close to one out of three or four illegal crossers, and that significantly larger numbers evade apprehension.7, 12, 14

Indeed, in July of 2005, the U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 stated on their website that “There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure…” 36

Using Senator McCain’s number of 4 million entering illegally in 20025 and an official apprehension rate of one out of four means that 3 million were not apprehended and therefore remained in the U.S.

It also should be noted that this figure does not include the millions who the Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly called the Government Accounting Office) tell us enter legally on temporary visas and continue to stay after their visas expire.13

Because the U.S. government routinely sanitizes statistics,7, 12 the number of illegal entries into the United States is almost certainly higher than official numbers. In fact, Forbes Magazine estimates that only four percent of illegal aliens crossing in Texas are apprehended and prosecuted.15

Detailed approaches to gross yearly calculations

Senator John McCain stated in February of 2004 that almost 4 million illegal aliens crossed our borders illegally in 2002.5 If one out of four were apprehended, that would mean in the year 2002, 3 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension (4 million x 3/4).

Under Secretary for Border and Transportation Security, Asa Hutchinson, stated in June 2004 that arrests of illegal aliens in Arizona have increased to 3,000 daily from an average of about 2,000 a day since March.11 The increase in apprehensions can be attributed in part to additional Border Patrol agents, “but more than half of the promised U.S. Border Patrol agents have not arrived.11 Thus, it is highly likely that the numbers of illegal aliens entering the U.S. through Arizona had commensurately increased.

Below are several approaches used to converge on the number of illegals entering on a yearly basis:

  1. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that in 2001 there were 1,676,438 total U.S. border apprehensions.6 If one out of four were apprehended as the Border Patrol officially states, that would mean that in the year 2001, 5 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension (1,676,438 x 3). Table I summarizes illegal entries at various apprehension rates.
  2. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that in 2002 there were 955,310 total U.S. border apprehensions6 (this is significantly lower than apprehensions in 2000 and 2001). With a one out of four apprehension rate, then in the year 2002, 2.9 million illegals would have entered and evaded apprehension (955,310 x 3).
  3. Official Border Patrol statistics stated that there were 888,480 total U.S. border apprehensions from January 1, 2004, to June 30, 2004.6If one out of four were apprehended, then in the year 2004, 2.7 million illegals entered and evaded apprehension in that six-month period (888,480 x 3). Assuming that a similar number of illegals enter in each six-month period, this works out to 5.3 million per year.

Table I (below) summarizes calculations used by these three approaches.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table1.png

Step 2: Factor in repeat apprehensions of the same individuals

An illegal alien typically pays a coyote U.S. $1,500 or more to guide their illegal border crossing. Although a crossing is an expensive proposition, many illegals who are apprehended by the U.S. Border Patrol may try again several times until they make it across the border. 31

Precise data on the numbers who attempt reentry into the United States are not available. For the purposes of this analysis, the assumption is made that every single illegal alien who is apprehended and returned home subsequently tries again and successfully evades apprehension on his second attempt.

Under this assumption, of every four illegals reported in line one of Table I, we will assume one (the one apprehended) to be double-counted. (Although perhaps a questionable assumption, this is consistent with actual observations31). The numbers in line one of Table I therefore are assumed to include a 25 percent overcount. Line 2 of Table I is similarly assumed to represent a 14 percent overcount.

Table II shows the result of reducing values in Table I by these overcounts in order to factor out repeat apprehensions.

Table II shows an adjusted low range of 2.2 million to 4 million illegals entering annually and evading apprehension, using the official optimistic one out of four apprehension rate.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table2.png

Using similar logic and data, Time magazine subsequently reached the conclusion that 3 million illegals enter and stay annually,22 while using themost optimistic assumption that the Border Patrol apprehends one out of three illegal crossers.

Step 3: Factor “short term” stays and legalization from the overall estimate

Table II (below) shows the number of illegals entering, but those numbers must be adjusted downward to account for illegals returning home each year or receiving legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.

It is difficult to determine how many illegal aliens stay here permanently, or at least remain for a period of several years. Representative Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) testified in 2004 that males no longer go back home but instead stay in the United States and then send for their families.9 Veteran Border Patrol agents have confirmed that illegal aliens are now coming here to stay.14

Yet a certain proportion of illegals return home each year after only a temporary stay in the United States.32 The INS estimated in 2001 that several hundred thousand illegals return home each year or receive legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.19 The Center for Immigration Studies reported that in 1999, the INS estimated that:

968,000 new illegal aliens settled in the United States

210,000 illegal aliens either died or returned home on their own

63,000 were removed (deported) by the INS

183,000 were given green cards as part of the normal “legal” immigration process.3

Table III (below) shows the results of applying INS estimates and thus assumes a generous estimate that 500,000 illegal aliens currently return home, are removed (deported), or receive legal status each year. Here, a projected average of between 2.8 and 7.1 illegal aliens are shown to be entering and staying annually.

It may be argued that Table III (below) contains inadequate adjustments—that since Table II presents total numbers significantly higher than official estimates, the number of illegals returning home must be increased accordingly. Although such an argument tends to contradict current information indicating that illegals are no longer returning home as they were in the past,9, 14 it is nevertheless interesting to see how the numbers play out under this argument.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table3.png

The following table shows the results of an overly generous assumption thatone-third of illegal aliens in the U.S. either return home or are legalized each year.

Table IV (below) shows a projected average of between 2.2 and 5.1 million illegal aliens entering and staying annually—a lower range than presented in Table III.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table4.png

Based on the results shown in Tables III and IV, it is reasonable to suggest that a medium-range figure of 12,000 illegal aliens enter the U.S. every day, or about 4 million per year. Indeed, Time magazine reports that along the 65-mile-long border of the Tohono O’odham Indian Nation with Mexico, up to 1,500 illegals are apprehended every day (with many more evading apprehension).22

Mortality of illegals is assumed not to significantly reduce these numbers. Although a certain number of illegals undoubtedly die each year, the overall mortality of the illegal alien population is presumed to be relatively low because of the young age (about 25 years of age34) of those entering the U.S. illegally. Thus, Census Bureau mortality data almost certainly do not correlate with illegal alien numbers, and therefore cannot be used as a proxy for those numbers.

Step 4: Estimate the total number of illegal aliens

Could there be 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. ?

In 2003, Georgia state Senator—and MALDEF national board member—Sam Zamarripa told the Georgia state senate that there were 20 million illegals in the U.S. at the time.8 This 20 million amounts to more than six percent of our current U.S. population (295 million in 2004) and is larger than the population of most states.

A January 3, 2005 Bear Stearns report, “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface,” sharply criticized Census Bureau estimates of the illegal alien population as being incomplete and inaccurate, and concluded that “The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, more than double the official 9 million people estimated by the Census Bureau.” 35

In other words, possibly one out of every 15 persons in the United States might well be an illegal alien.

Using traditional Department of Homeland Security estimates of 700,000 illegal aliens entering and staying each year, it would take 28.6 years to amass 20 million. If it is assumed that 1 million illegals enter and stay annually, then the time to amass 20 million would be 20 years.

Thus, even the relatively low official numbers lead us to conclude that we have quite possibly amassed nearly 20 million illegal aliens in the United States since the 1986 “amnesty to end all amnesties.” Table V shows the number of years it would take to amass 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table5.png

The higher yearly numbers in Table V reveal how quickly 20 million could be amassed. Based on the results of the analysis summarized in Table IV, it would take perhaps between four and nine years to amass 20 million illegal aliens in the U.S. at the current rate of entry.

While immigration numbers fluctuate on a yearly basis, legal immigration into the U.S. since 1986 has increased steadily, and it is reasonable to assume that illegal immigration has correspondingly increased. Although the actual number of illegal aliens in the U.S. is not precisely known, it appears quite possible that 20 million or more illegals could be living within the U.S.

Considerations regarding illegal immigration numbers

Mexico ’s fertility and growth rate

How do the presumed 3 million to 4 million illegal aliens entering and staying in the U.S. each year compare to population growth in Mexico, the leading supplier of illegal aliens to the U.S.?

Population Reference Bureau mid-year data show that Mexico’s 2004 natural increase is 2.2 million and that actual 2003 to 2004 population increased by 1.3 million (1.2 percent).21 The difference is 0.9 million, representing the approximate legal emigration number into the United States. However, if Mexico alone is actually losing several million per year to U.S. emigration, then Mexico’s rate of natural increase (2.2 million) must be high enough so that the margin of births minus deaths yields the reported population increase of 1.3 million plus several million emigrants. This would require a high fertility rate to sustain such increases. Mexico’s 2004 fertility rate was only 2.8 births per woman, but it was significantly higher in the past: 5.4 in 1976 when the current generation of emigrants was first being born.23

This discrepancy could relate to the actual data source: the Mexican census. As stated by the Population Reference Bureau:

Mexico is a really thorny problem. It is a really bad problem—we don’t really know their Total Fertility Rate. It’s somewhere between 2.5 and three…. The (Mexican) Census was also a bit of a problem. They actually lied about the 1980 population.21

Unfortunately, due to the PRB’s methodology, it is not possible to calculate yearly population growth by direct comparison of one year’s total population to the next.21 Thus, Mexico’s true yearly population growth remains obscured.

Proportion of illegals from countries other than Mexico

Of course, not all illegal aliens come from Mexico. In 1997, the illegal alien population was 54 percent Mexican.24 The illegal alien population is currently 70 percent Mexican, with 30 percent coming from other countries.24 Latin America, including Mexico, is the source of 90 percent of illegal aliens entering into the United States.26 A 2004 Fox News article stated that “it is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as ‘OTMs’”—Other Than Mexicans.10

Time magazine reports that “from October 1 of last year until August 25, the Border Patrol estimates that it apprehended 55,890 OTMs”.22 This may represent a distinct undercount since the Border Patrol routinely sanitizes and underreports numbers of illegals.7, 18 It is therefore reasonable to assume that Other Than Mexicans account for at least several hundred thousand illegal entries annually.

Visa overstays contribute to illegal alien numbers

Many individuals from foreign countries are issued temporary work and student visas. Those who fail to return home after the visa expires become illegal aliens. Visa overstays account for a sizable number of illegal aliens in the United States. The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported in 1997 that:

There were 170,000 new overstayers each year between 1982–1992 and 181,000 between 1992 and 1996.

The number of new illegals who joined the illegal population by Entering Without Inspection (EWI) was 250,000 from 1982 to 1988 and 242,000 from 1988 to 1996.

41 percent of the illegal population are overstayers.24

The Government Accountability Office reported that significant numbers of foreign visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident overstay population as of January 2000 at 2.3 million, not including short-term overstays. It also omits what is described as “millions of potential long-term overstays from Mexico and Canada. A more recent Department of Homeland Security estimate placed the January 2000 resident overstay population at one-third of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million.24

Although correlation does not necessarily imply causation, it seems reasonable to presume a relatively modest 25 percent increase in illegal aliens starting January 15, 2004, through the rest of the year as a result of the “guest worker” proposal. This 25 percent is a conservative estimate of the increased flow of illegal aliens into the U.S. as a result of President Bush’s amnesty proposal.4 In fact, official Border Patrol apprehension statistics show that total 2004 apprehensions as of June 30, 2004 represent a 190-percent increaseover total 2003 apprehensions.6

Some of these apprehensions can be attributed to increased Border Patrol staffing levels, but since additional staffing has been only half of what was requested in 2004,11 it is logical to conclude that increased apprehensions have been due to increased illegal border crossings. Furthermore, recent Border Patrol directives have been issued, such as “sitting on X’s” (ordering Border Patrol agents to stay in a fixed location for an entire shift), in order tolower apprehensions and thereby sanitize publicized statistics.12 It also stands to reason that as larger numbers of illegals cross the border, more total numbers will evade apprehension. Thus, if apprehensions are reported to be increasing in the context of these factors, it is highly likely that total illegal entries as well as the total number evading apprehension are increasing in even larger proportions.

From the preceding sections, it can be estimated that approximately 3 million to 4 million illegal aliens entered in 2004 alone. If President Bush’s amnesty proposal had actually gone into law on January 7, 2004, those approximately 3 million would be greater than the total number “legalized” in the 1986“amnesty to end all amnesties.”29

President Bush’s 2004 Presidential opponent, John Kerry, stated that the president’s “legalization” plan did not go far enough and that he would offer legislation during the first hundred days of his administration that would offer not only amnesty, but a path to full, voting citizenship to the millions of illegal aliens in the U.S. If this were to happen without securing our borders, or if President Bush and subsequent presidents continue to push for amnesty, the magnet of amnesty will draw an unending stream of high numbers of illegal aliens into our country.

Conclusion

Intentionally low, static, and misleading official government estimates claim that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens reside in the United States and that 700,000 new illegals enter and stay every year. Based upon the analysis presented here, it is likely that up to 20 million illegal aliens presently reside in the United States, with up to 12,000 additional illegal aliens entering every day.

No one can say with certainty how many illegal aliens enter and reside in the United States because the precise data simply are not available. The methodology used in this analysis is presented as an alternative approach to estimating illegal alien numbers. Because it depends on factors that are not known with great accuracy, it produces a wider range of estimates than traditional estimates, but can be used to present another perspective on illegal immigration numbers.

Further analysis is certainly warranted. However, it is important to recognize the magnitude of the numbers in order to recognize the seriousness of the crisis and urgency for a return to the rule of law and secured borders that the United States Constitution demands. ■

References

1 Jerry Seper, “Ridge rapped for immigration views,” Washington Times(December 11, 2003):

“Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge’s suggestion that 8 million to 12 million illegal aliens now in the United States be ‘legalized’ drew harsh criticism yesterday from congressional and other opponents of such legalization.”

2 U.S. Census Bureau, http://www.Census.gov.

3 Center for Immigration Studies, http://www.CIS.org, including report on Illegal Immigration.

The Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) estimates that in January of 2000 there were 7 million illegal aliens living in the United States, a number that is growing by half a million a year. Thus, the illegal-alien population in 2003 stands at least 8 million. Included in this estimate are approximately 78,000 illegal aliens from countries who are of special concern in the war on terror. It is important to note that the 500,000 annual increase is the net growth in the illegal-alien population (new illegal immigration minus deaths, legalizations, and out-migration). In 1999 for example, the INS estimates that 968,000 new illegal aliens settled in the U.S. This number was offset by 210,000 illegal aliens who either died or returned home on their own, 63,000 who were removed by the INS, and 183,000 illegal aliens who were given green cards as part of the normal “legal” immigration process. One of the most important findings of the INS report is the intimate link between legal and illegal immigration. The INS estimates that it gave out 1.5 million green cards to illegal aliens in the 1990s. This was not due to amnesty legislation, but rather reflects how the legal immigration process embraces illegal immigration and encourages it through legal exemptions. According to the INS, only 412,000 illegal aliens were removed during the decade.

The Census Bureau has also developed estimates of its own. Their estimate at the time of the 2000 Census suggests that the illegal immigration population was about 8 million. Using this number, it can be concluded that the illegal-alien population grew by almost half a million a year in the 1990s. This conclusion is derived from a draft report given to the House immigration subcommittee by the INS that estimated the illegal population was 3.5 million in 1990. For the illegal population to have reached 8 million by 2000, the net increase had to be 400,000 to 500,000 per year during the 1990s.

4 Stephen Dinan, “Bush ‘amnesty’ blamed for rise in illegals,” Washington Times (April 16, 2004).

5 Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Letter from Sen. John McCain to citizen (February 10, 2004). (Arizona is a state with extremely high illegal numbers):

According to the U.S. Border Patrol apprehension statistics, it is estimated that almost four million people crossed our borders illegally in 2002.

6 Telephone call, July 19, 2004, and July 27, 2004 from D.A. King (TheAmericanResistance) to Gloria Chavez, Border Patrol Spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection and subsequent response by Patrol Agent Luis Gonzalez, assistant to Gloria Chavez. (See Table A in the appendix for on U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions.)

tsc_17_4_elbel_table6.png

7 Retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle, Illegal Entries (2004), ISBN 4-4140-4327-9. Available through AuthorHouse.com for $12.50 paperback; $4.50 electronic version. John Slagle has stated in correspondence that:

When it comes to illegal aliens, statistics can be maddening. The U.S. Border Patrol releases sanitized, low-number figures to the public by official information officers. There is no mention in these reports of illegal aliens from the Mid-east who are arrested, nor people apprehended from red list nations—that might alarm the public. Active duty agents I know state it’s all smoke and mirrors set up by D.C. plutocrats, resulting in frustration and low morale with the Border Patrol.

The official Border Patrol statistics are that one in five illegal aliens are apprehended and arrested. For agents on the line, they know better—it’s much higher,” e.g., one in ten.

8 Georgia State Senator Sam Zamarripa stated that there are 20 million illegals in the U.S. His comments were made on record to the Georgia Senate on April 17, 2003 in his remarks withdrawing his amendment to Senate Bill 191.

9 CNN Lou Dobbs segment (CNN, June 17, 2004):

Rep. Kolbe (R-AZ) testified that “155,000 people had been apprehended along the Arizona border in the first three months of this year,” and that one out of four or five are apprehended.

Sen. McCain (R-AZ) testified that he projected 2.4 million illegals entering in 2004—a figure based on the overly optimistic official one in four apprehension rate by the U.S. Border Patrol.

10 “Bush Amnesty Sparks Surge in Border Crossings,” (Fox News, February 19, 2004):

“… more than half of the Mexicans trying to sneak into the U.S. through San Ysidro told authorities they were doing so to position themselves for the amnesty… ‘They believe that they are only responding to an invitation’… In the last several weeks, a staggering 90 percent of all illegal aliens intercepted in one sector in southern Texas claim they’ve come for the amnesty… ‘The agents were soon told to stop collecting this information.’

“Word of the 2000-mile wide open door between Mexico and the U.S. has spread far beyond Mexico. It is not just Mexicans who are flooding into our border states anymore. Along with the Nicaraguans, Brazilians, Venezuelans, Ecuadorians, and Chileans, agents of the Border Patrol now encounter Chinese, Pakistanis, and Indians. Nationals of countries other than Mexico are known, in Border Patrol parlance, as ‘OTMs.’”

11Susan Carroll and Daniel Gonzalez, “Border control initiative runs into troubles,” Tucson Citizen (June 3, 2004).

When Department of Homeland Security officials launched the Arizona Border Control Initiative in March, they said the agency planned to add 260 agents, four helicopters and two unmanned aerial drones, and expand detention space to hold illegal immigrants.

The effort was supposed to be in full swing by Tuesday. But more than half of the promised U.S. Border Patrol agents have not arrived, officials have scrapped plans to add tents for detained immigrants illegal aliens, and the drones remain on the ground…

Hutchinson said arrests of illegal immigrants in the state have increased to 3,000 daily from an average of about 2,000 a day since March.

12The new policy of sitting on X’s—ordering Border Patrol agents to stay in a fixed location for an entire shift—has been reported by CNN’s Lou Dobbs. Forward deployment has never worked, but is a method producing statistics showing that apprehensions are down. As a former Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Terry McCann stated in private correspondence:

“It’s all bullshit and politics. The number of people entering is massive, but by ordering Border Patrol agents to sit on predetermined sites all day and all night, there is visible presence, and arrests go down. Of course, the flood tide of illegal aliens ‘flank’ those positions right and left and with no one guarding the rear, the invasion is hardly slowed.”

13Overstay Tracking: A Key Component of Homeland Security and a Layered Defense, Report to the Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives United States General Accounting Office, General Accounting Office, report GAO-04-82 (May, 2004).

14 Former Supervisory Border Patrol Agent Terry McCann stated in private correspondence:

“As the Chinese did during the last century, Mexicans have decided to stay. You are correct in your assessment that they send for their families. With regard to Border Patrol checkpoints, aliens simply walk around them and are later picked up by alien smugglers. Man power provided, the Patrol will position personnel to apprehend ‘walk around’ aliens.

Non immigrants aliens, after having been admitted as temporary agricultural workers, may seek employment in better paying jobs and thereby void the terms of their admissions. With such monetary gain why should they return to countries of their birth? Their intended destination may be another municipality to reside and work near their families.

The United States continues to make history; however, as per aliens illegally entering the United States, we are facing an onslaught far worse than that experienced by the ancient Roman Empire.”

15 Michael Maiello and Susan Kitchens, “Preying on Human Cargo,” Forbes(June 7, 2004).

16 Juan Mann, “It’s Official! Bush Betrayal Triggered Wave of Illegals” (VDARE.com, June 14, 2004.

The U.S. Border Patrol made 135,468 apprehensions along the southwest border during April 2004, an 80 percent increase when compared to April 2003.

17 Timothy Egan, “Border Desert Proves Deadly For Mexicans,” New York Times (May 23, 2004).

After a four year drop, apprehensions which the Border Patrol uses to measure human smuggling are up 30 per cent over last year along the entire southern border, with 660,000 people detained from Oct. 1, 2003 through the end of April, 2004

18 “Feds Undercount Illegal Aliens,” (NewsMax.com, March 16, 2001).

Northeastern University researchers Andrew Sum, Neeta Fogg and Paul Harrington have been researching for some time another anomaly. From 1994 to 2000, U.S. businesses reported creating 5.2 million more jobs than U.S. workers had been reporting obtaining. They believe this discrepancy largely stems from illegal aliens who wish to avoid coming to the government’s attention. This would suggest that the annual increase in illegal aliens is between 500,000 and 1 million. That would be about the same as the net number of legal immigrants each year…

The new estimates of illegal immigration have important implications for long-term population growth. Last year, the Census Bureau estimated that America’s population would grow to 571 million in 2100, with the number of Hispanics growing to 190 million. But these figures may now have to be looked at again…

19 “Estimate of Illegal Immigrant Population Rises” (National Center for Policy Analysis, October 25, 2001).

…the INS estimates that several hundred thousand illegals return home each year or receive legal status as part of the normal “legal” immigration process

20 D.A. King , “Could There Be Twenty Million Illegals in the U.S.?” (VDARE.com, August 7, 2004).

21 2003 and 2004 “ World Population Data Sheet” (Population Reference Bureau, 2003, 2004). See table 7, below.

tsc_17_4_elbel_table7_2.png

Definitions:

Rate of Natural Increase (RNI): “The birth rate minus the death rate, implying the annual rate of population growth without regard for migration. Expressed as a percentage.”
Total Fertility Rate (TFR): “The average number of children a woman would have assuming that current age-specific birth rates remain constant throughout her childbearing years (usually considered to be ages 15 to 49).”

The following statements from Carl Haub, author of the Population Reference Bureau World Population Data Sheets, were made on September 22, 2004 to Fred Elbel via telephone discussion. They are reprinted with permission:

“You can’t generally compare years between the Data Sheets. We recalculate the sheets each year. Thus, it is possible that they could show population declining in a country where it is known to be increasing.”

“Mexico is a really thorny problem. It is a really bad problem—we don’t really know their Total Fertility Rate. It’s somewhere between 2.5 and 3. Mexico has three agencies, chartered with different objectives (including reducing fertility) who report different rates… The (Mexican) Census was also a bit of a problem. They actually lied about the 1980 population.”

PRB uses the 2000 Mexican Census, projected to 2004 and including a net migration rate of -4.0 per 1,000. They estimate Mexico’s natural increase at 2.2 million.

Regarding the September 20, 2004 Time magazine article,22 “I can’t buy 3 million per year emigrating in total or from Mexico, especially on a net basis. In 10 years, that would be 30 million people. It must have been supplied by an anti-immigrant anti-immigration group.”

The U.S. Census does serious work on migration. They calculated Mexican migration at -4.2 per 1,000. You can find that on their website—it is very complete. Go to http://www.census.gov. Then select “I” from the “A-Z” selection. Then go to International and then to International database. View quick summary or detailed summary.

22 Laura Karmatz and Joan Levinstein, “Who Left the Door Open?,” Timemagazine (September 20, 2004).

The article states that 3 million illegal aliens each year enter into the United States. When questioned about this number, journalists Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele replied in the October 25, 2004 issue:

Although the figure of 3 million illegal aliens is an estimate, it is based on government formulas and interviews with border-patrol agents and other law-enforcement authorities. Anderson’s reference in a letter toTime to 350,000 illegals comes from Census Bureau data, which are widely acknowledged to be seriously flawed.

23 Population—Mexico, World Encyclopedia.

24 Steven A. Camarota, “5 Million Illegal Immigrants: An Analysis of New INS Numbers,” Immigration Review #28 (Center for Immigration Studies, Spring 1997).

On February 7, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) released its latest estimate for the size and growth of the illegal alien population in the United States, updating its 1994 report…

There were 170,000 new overstayers each year between 1982 and 1992 and 181,000 between 1992 and 1996. The number of new illegals who joined the illegal population by Entering Without Inspection (EWI) was 250,000 from 1982 to 1988 and 242,000 from 1988 to 1996.

The INS estimates that 41 percent of the illegal population are overstayers and 59 percent are EWIs. This is a change from the estimated 50-50 split in its previous study.

The illegal population is 54 percent Mexican.

25 INS: 7 million illegal immigrants in United States—Mexicans make up nearly 70 percent of total, figures show (CNN News, February 1, 2003).

26 John Price, “Tendencias—Latin America Market Report,” Info Americasnewsletter (June 2001).

The unprecedented growth of legal and illegal immigration to the US in the 1990s was dominated by flows from Latin America, which were the source of more than 70 percent of new legal immigrants and 90 percent of illegals. Mexico and Central America were the most important source countries.

27 “Overstay Tracking Is a Key Component of a Layered Defense,” Government Accounting [Accountability] Office (October 16, 2003).

Significant numbers of foreign visitors overstay their authorized periods of admission. The Department of Homeland Security estimates the resident overstay population at 2.3 million as of January 2000. Because the starting point for this estimate is the 2000 census, it does not cover short-term overstays who have not established residence here. It also omits an unknown number of potential long-term overstays from Mexico and Canada.

A recent DHS estimate put the January 2000 resident overstay population at 1/3 of 7 million illegal immigrants, or 2.3 million.

28 “2000 Census Shows that Illegal Alien Population Much Larger than Estimated by INS” (Federation for American Immigration Reform, February 6, 2001).

According to data from the 2000 Census, the size of the illegal alien population in the United States may be millions more than the estimates of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) have acknowledged…

“The size and scope of the illegal immigrant problem in the United States is a national scandal in more ways than one,” said Dan Stein, executive director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform. “The Northeastern study18 places the figure at nearly double any previous estimate of the size of the illegal population, indicating gross incompetence on the part of the government agencies charged with enforcing immigration laws. Equally as serious, if the Northeastern study proves to be accurate, it indicates a deliberate cover-up on the part of the government. It is inconceivable that official estimates could be that far off the mark unless someone was deliberately trying to mislead the American public,” charged Stein.

29 “U.S. Amnesties for Illegal Aliens” (www.NumbersUSA.com).

Census 2000 results indicate that 700,000 to 800,000 illegal aliens settle in the U.S. each year, with an estimated 8-11 million illegal aliens currently living in the United States

According to INS estimates released in October, 2000, the amnesties granted in 1986 as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act significantly contributed to an increase in illegal immigration as the relatives of newly legalized illegal immigrants came illegally to the United States to join their family members.

Congress has passed 7 amnesties for illegal aliens, starting in 1986.
1. Immigration and Reform Control Act (IRCA) Amnesty, 1986: A blanket amnesty for some 2.7 million illegal aliens
2. Section 245(i) Amnesty, 1994: A temporary rolling amnesty for 578,000 illegal aliens
3. Section 245(i) Extension Amnesty, 1997: An extension of the rolling amnesty created in 1994
4. Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act (NACARA) Amnesty, 1997: An amnesty for close to one million illegal aliens from Central America
5. Haitian Refugee Immigration Fairness Act Amnesty (HRIFA), 1998: An amnesty for 125,000 illegal aliens from Haiti
6. Late Amnesty, 2000: An amnesty for some illegal aliens who claim they should have been amnestied under the 1986 IRCA amnesty, an estimated 400,000 illegal aliens
7. LIFE Act Amnesty, 2000: A reinstatement of the rolling Section 245(i) amnesty, an estimated 900,000 illegal aliens

30 Social Security ‘Totalization’—Examining a Lopsided Agreement with Mexico (Center for Immigration Studies, September 2004).

“Tidal wave of Mexican immigration. Indeed, the last decade saw an unprecedented number of Mexicans cross the U.S. border. Between 1990 and 2000, their number doubled—from 4.2 million to 9.2 million, or 30 percent of the entire foreign-born population in the United States. Within this number, unauthorized Mexicans grew by more than 100 percent—from 2 million to 4.8 million, or 69 percent of all illegal aliens in the United States.

While perhaps embarrassed that 10 percent of its people have fled Mexico to earn a decent living, President Vicente Fox’s administration has embraced this reality. In fact, increasing the number of Mexicans working in the United States is among its highest foreign policy objectives.”

31 Ben Winograd, “Crossing the Border, again and again and again,” Tucson Citizen (November 5, 2004).

“By comparing the totals of individuals to apprehensions, the figures show that the percentage of illegal immigrants who are caught more than once has risen in the past three years. In the Tucson sector during fiscal 2002, roughly 1 in 4 apprehensions was an immigrant arrested earlier in the year. By 2004, the number had grown to 1 in 3.… Despite the recent rise in recidivism, repeat crossers were more common five years ago.”

32 Charlie LeDuff, “Holidays Inspire a Rush to the Border,” New York Times(December 23, 2004).

33 Telephone conversation between Richard Humphries and Michael Nicely, Chief, Tucson Sector, U.S. Border Patrol (August/September, 2004).

Humphries: “Chief Nicely, your agents in the Tucson Sector are arresting more than 1,000 illegals every 24 hours and you and I both know that, for every one they apprehend, at least 3 get away.”

Nicely: “It’s more like 7, Mr. Humphries.”

34 E-mail from retired Border Patrol Special Agent John Slagle (May 30, 2005):

“The average age we’ve seen and reported since 2002 in the Three Points Area [Arizona] has been late teens to late twenties, mostly males.”

35 Robert Justich and Betty Ng, CFA, “The Underground Labor Force Is Rising to the Surface,” Bear Stearns (January 3, 2005):

“Though we cannot conduct an independent census of the United States population, as investors, we need not accept the accuracy of the official census immigration statistics, which are widely recognized as incomplete. There are many ancillary sources of data that provide evidence that the rate of growth in the immigrant population is much greater than the Census Bureau statistics. School enrollments, foreign remittances, border crossings, and housing permits are some of the statistics that point to a far greater rate of change in the immigrant population than the census numbers. At the risk of appearing dogmatic or taking a leap of faith, we have applied the rate of growth from these other areas and have drawn several conclusions about the current immigration population:

1. The number of illegal immigrants in the United States may be as high as 20 million people, almost double the official estimates of 11.1 million of the March 2005 Current Population Survey and 11.5 million–12 million by the Pew Hispanic Center (Fact Sheet, April 5, 2006).

2. The total number of legalized immigrants entering The United States since 1990 has averaged 962,000 per year. Several credible studies indicate that the number of illegal entries has recently crept up to 3 million per year, triple the authorized figure.

3. Undocumented immigrants are gaining a larger share of the job market, and hold approximately 12 to 15 million jobs in the United States (8 percent of the employed)…”

36 U.S. Border Patrol Local 2544 (covering most of Arizona) stated on their website at http://www.local2544.org in July of 2005:

“There are currently 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in this country by many estimates, but the real numbers could be much higher and the numbers increase every day because our borders are not secure (no matter what the politicians tell you—don’t believe them for a second).”

About the author

Fred Elbel is a computer and political consultant. His career spans over 35 years in the computer industry in management, technical areas, financial, and consulting, in the United States and overseas. He has extensive experience in large-scale computer systems performance evaluation and capacity planning and has developed successful modeling application packages and methodologies. He has developed numerous environmental and immigration-related websites and regularly consults with nonprofit organizations on technical issues.

As an environmentalist, Elbel has spent considerable effort fighting to preserve Utah wilderness—particularly during the efforts of the 104th Congress to undermine wilderness designation. As a former director of SUSPS, he has worked for years to try to return the Sierra Club to a rational population policy that addressed mass immigration—the driving force behind U.S. population doubling this century.

Elbel was the media liaison for the original Minuteman Project in Arizona in 2005—the highly successful project that focused media attention from around the world on America’s porous borders. He is a former director of Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform. Elbel is co-chair of the Defend Colorado Now initiative effort that resulted in significant immigration reform legislation being signed into law in Colorado in 2006.

Tuesday, September 1
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Loras College Trump 25, Carson 18, Cruz 7, Walker 6, Fiorina 5, Bush 10, Rubio 4, Huckabee 4, Paul 2, Kasich 3, Christie 2, Jindal 1, Santorum 1, Perry 1, Graham 0 Trump +7
2016 Republican Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Trump 29, Carson 15, Bush 9, Cruz 6, Rubio 7, Walker 5, Fiorina 8, Kasich 6, Huckabee 5, Christie 2, Paul 1, Santorum 2, Perry 1, Jindal 0, Pataki 0 Trump +14
2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination PPP (D) Clinton 55, Sanders 20, Biden, O’Malley 4, Webb 3, Chafee 1 Clinton +35
Monday, August 31
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus Monmouth Trump 23, Carson 23, Cruz 9, Walker 7, Fiorina 10, Bush 5, Rubio 4, Huckabee 2, Paul 3, Kasich 4, Christie 1, Jindal 1, Santorum 2, Perry 1, Graham 0 Tie
Sunday, August 30
Race/Topic   (Click to Sort) Poll Results Spread
Iowa Republican Presidential Caucus DM Register Trump 23, Carson 18, Cruz 8, Walker 8, Fiorina 5, Bush 6, Rubio 6, Huckabee 4, Paul 4, Kasich 2, Christie 2, Jindal 2, Santorum 1, Perry 1, Graham 0 Trump +5

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/president/

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts Portfolio

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 519-524

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 510-518

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 500-509

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 490-499

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 480-489

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 473-479

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 464-472

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 455-463

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 447-454

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 439-446

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 431-438

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 422-430

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 414-421

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 408-413

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 400-407

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 391-399

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 383-390

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 376-382

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 369-375

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 360-368

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 354-359

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 346-353

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 338-345

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 328-337

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 319-327

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 307-318

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 296-306

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 287-295

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 277-286

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 264-276

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 250-263

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 236-249

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 222-235

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 211-221

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 202-210

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 194-201

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 184-193

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 174-183

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 165-173

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 158-164

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 151-157

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 143-150

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 135-142

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 131-134

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 124-130

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 121-123

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 118-120

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 113 -117

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Show 112

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 108-111

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 106-108

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 104-105

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 101-103

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 98-100

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 94-97

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 93

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 92

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 91

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 88-90

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 84-87

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 79-83

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 74-78

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 71-73

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 68-70

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 65-67

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 62-64

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 58-61

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 55-57

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 52-54

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 49-51

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 45-48

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 41-44

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 38-40

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 34-37

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 30-33

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 27-29

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 17-26

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 16-22

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 10-15

Listen To Pronk Pops Podcast or Download Shows 01-09

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

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

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

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 485 June 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 484 June 12, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 483 June 11, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 482 June 10, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 481 June 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 480 June 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 479 June 5, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 478 June 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 477 June 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 476 June 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 475 June 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 474 May 29, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 473 May 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 472 May 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 471 May 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 470 May 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 469 May 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 468 May 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 467 May 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 466 May 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 465 May 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 464 May 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 463 May 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 462 May 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 461 May 7, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 460 May 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 459 May 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 458 May 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 457 April 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 456: April 29, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 455: April 28, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 454: April 27, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 453: April 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 452: April 23, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 451: April 22, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 450: April 21, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 449: April 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 448: April 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 447: April 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 446: April 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 445: April 14, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 444: April 13, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 443: April 9, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 442: April 8, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 441: April 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 440: April 2, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 439: April 1, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 438: March 31, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 437: March 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 436: March 27, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 435: March 26, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 434: March 25, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 433: March 24, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 432: March 23, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 431: March 20, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 430: March 19, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 429: March 18, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 428: March 17, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 427: March 16, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 426: March 6, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 425: March 4, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 424: March 2, 2015

Story 1: Billionaires For Bush and Clinton — American People For Anyone Else — Nurse Ratchet Is Back — Money Cannot Buy You Love — It’s My Turn — Videos

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

~Herbert Spencer, 1850

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

~Jose Ortega y Gasset, 1922

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

~Henry L. Mencken, 1926

 

Election 2016 Presidential Polls

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

 

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

 

APRIL 7, 2015

Trends in Party Identification, 1939-2014

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

% of Americans who say they are …

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

presidents-budget Tax-foundation-Distribution-of-Federal-Taxes