Podcasts about article five

President Trump has been threatening to “take back” the Panama Canal since he regained power. In this episode, listen to testimony from officials serving on the Federal Maritime Commission who explain why the Panama Canal has become a focus of the administration and examine whether or not we need to be concerned about an impending war for control of the canal. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes Current Events around the Panama Canal March 5, 2025. the Associated Press. Sabrina Valle, Suzanne McGee, and Michael Martina. March 4, 2025. Reuters. Matt Murphy, Jake Horton and Erwan Rivault. February 14, 2025. BBC. May 1, 2024. World Weather Attribution. World Maritime News Staff. March 15, 2019. World Maritime News. July 29, 2018. Reuters. Panama Canal Treaty of 1977 U.S. Department of State. The Chinese “Belt and Road Initiative” Michele Ruta. March 29, 2018. World Bank Group. The Trump-Gaza Video February 26, 2025. Sky News. Laws Audio Sources Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation January 28, 2025 Witnesses: Louis E. Sola, Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) Daniel B. Maffei, Commissioner, FMC , Professor, Scalia Law School, George Mason University Joseph Kramek, President & CEO, World Shipping Council Clips 17:30 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Between the American construction of the Panama Canal, the French effort to build an isthmus canal, and America's triumphant completion of that canal, the major infrastructure projects across Panama cost more than 35,000 lives. For the final decade of work on the Panama Canal, the United States spent nearly $400 million, equivalent to more than $15 billion today. The Panama Canal proved a truly invaluable asset, sparing both cargo ships and warships the long journey around South America. When President Carter gave it away to Panama, Americans were puzzled, confused, and many outraged. With the passage of time, many have lost sight of the canal's importance, both to national security and to the US economy. 18:45 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): But the Panama Canal was not just given away. President Carter struck a bargain. He made a treaty. And President Trump is making a serious and substantive argument that that treaty is being violated right now. 19:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): President Trump has highlighted two key issues. Number one, the danger of China exploiting or blocking passage through the canal, and number two, the exorbitant costs for transit. 19:20 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Chinese companies are right now building a bridge across the canal at a slow pace, so as to take nearly a decade. And Chinese companies control container points ports at either end. The partially completed bridge gives China the ability to block the canal without warning, and the ports give China ready observation posts to time that action. This situation, I believe, poses acute risks to US national security. 19:50 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Meanwhile, the high fees for canal transit disproportionately affect Americans, because US cargo accounts for nearly three quarters of Canal transits. US Navy vessels pay additional fees that apply only to warships. Canal profits regularly exceed $3 billion. This money comes from both American taxpayers and consumers in the form of higher costs for goods. American tourists aboard cruises, particularly those in the Caribbean Sea, are essentially captive to any fees Panama chooses to levy for canal transits, and they have paid unfair prices for fuel bunkering at terminals in Panama as a result of government granted monopoly. Panama's government relies on these exploitative fees. Nearly 1/10 of its budget is paid for with canal profit. 21:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama has for years flagged dozens of vessels in the Iranian ghost fleet, which brought Iran tens of billions of dollars in oil profits to fund terror across the world. 21:40 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): And Chinese companies have won contracts, often without fair competition, as the infamous Belt and Road Initiative has come to Panama. China often engages in debt trap diplomacy to enable economic and political coercion. In Panama, it also seems to have exploited simple corruption. 32:40 Louis Sola: The Panama Canal is managed by the Panama Canal Authority, ACP, an independent agency of the Panamanian government. The ACP is a model of public infrastructure management, and its independence has been key to ensure a safe and reliable transit of vessels critical to the US and global commerce. 33:25 Louis Sola: In contrast, the broader maritime sector in Panama, including the nation's ports, water rights, and the world's largest ship registry, falls under the direct purview of the Panamanian government. 33:35 Louis Sola: Unfortunately, this sector has faced persistent challenges, including corruption scandals and foreign influence, particularly from Brazil and China. These issues create friction with the ACP, especially as it works to address long term challenges such as securing adequate water supplies for the canal. 33:55 Louis Sola: Although the ACP operates independently, under US law both the ACP and the government of Panama's maritime sector are considered one in the same. This means that any challenges in Panama's maritime sector, including corruption, lack of transparency, or foreign influence, can have a direct or indirect impact on the operations and long term stability of the canal. This legal perspective highlights the need for diligence in monitoring both the ACP's management and Panama government's policies affecting maritime operations. 34:30 Louis Sola: Since 2015, Chinese companies have increased their presence and influence throughout Panama. Panama became a member of the Belt and Road Initiative and ended its diplomatic relations with Taiwan. Chinese companies have been able to pursue billions of dollars in development contracts in Panama, many of which were projects directly on or adjacent to the Panama Canal. Many were no bid contracts. Labor laws were waived, and the Panamanian people are still waiting to see how they've been benefited. It is all more concerning that many of these companies are state-owned, and in some cases, even designated as linked to the People's Liberation Army. We must address the significant growing presence and influence of China throughout the Americas and in Panama, specifically. 35:20 Louis Sola: American companies should play a leading role in enhancing the canal's infrastructure. By supporting US firms, we reduce reliance on Chinese contractors and promote fair competition. 36:55 Daniel Maffei: Because the canal is essentially a waterway bridge over mountainous terrain above sea level, it does depend on large supplies of fresh water to maintain the full operations. Panama has among the world's largest annual rainfalls. Nonetheless, insufficient fresh water levels have occurred before in the canal's history, such as in the 1930s when the Madden Dam and Lake Alajuela were built to address water shortages. Since that time, the canal has undertaken several projects to accommodate larger, more modern ships. In the last couple of years, a trend of worsening droughts in the region, once again, has forced limits to the operations of the canal. Starting in June of 2023 the Panama Canal Authority employed draft restrictions and reduced the number of ships allowed to transit the canal per day. Now the Panama Canal limitations, in combination with the de facto closure of the Suez Canal to container traffic, has had serious consequences for ocean commerce, increasing rates, fees and transit times. 39:30 Daniel Maffei: Now, fortunately, Panama's 2024 rainy season has, for now, alleviated the most acute water supply issues at the canal, and normal transit volumes have been restored. That said, while the Panamanian government and Canal Authority have, with the advice of the US Army Corps of Engineers, developed credible plans to mitigate future water shortages, they also warned that it is likely that at least one more period of reduced transits will occur before these plans can be fully implemented. 41:55 Eugene Kontorovich: We shall see that under international law, each party to the treaty is entitled to determine for itself whether a violation has occurred. Now, in exchange for the United States ceding control of the canal which it built and maintained, Panama agreed to a special regime of neutrality. The essential features of this regime of neutrality is that the canal must be open to all nations for transit. That's Article Two. Equitable tolls and fees, Article Three. An exclusive Panamanian operation, Article Five. The prohibition of any foreign military presence, Article Five. Article Five provides that only Panama shall operate the canal. Testifying about the meaning of the treaty at the Senate ratification hearings, the Carter administration emphasized that this prohibits foreign operation of the canal, as well as the garrisoning of foreign troops. Now, Article Five appears to be primarily concerned about control by foreign sovereigns. If Panama signed a treaty with the People's Republic of China, whereby the latter would operate the canal on Panama's behalf, this would be a clear violation. But what if Panama contracted for port operations with a Chinese state firm, or even a private firm influenced or controlled in part by the Chinese government? The Suez Canal Company was itself, before being nationalized, a private firm in which the United Kingdom was only a controlling shareholder. Yet this was understood to represent British control over the canal. In other words, a company need not be owned by the government to be in part controlled by the government. So the real question is the degree of de jure or de facto control over a Foreign Sovereign company, and scenarios range from government companies in an authoritarian regime, completely controlled, to purely private firms in our open society like the United States, but there's many possible situations in the middle. The treaty is silent on the question of how much control is too much, and as we'll see, this is one of the many questions committed to the judgment and discretion of each party. Now turning to foreign security forces, the presence of third country troops would manifestly violate Article Five. But this does not mean that anything short of a People's Liberation Army base flying a red flag is permissible. The presence of foreign security forces could violate the regime of neutrality, even if they're not represented in organized and open military formations. Modern warfare has seen belligerent powers seek to evade international legal limitations by disguising their actions in civilian garb, from Russia's notorious little green men to Hamas terrorists hiding in hospitals or disguised as journalists. Bad actors seek to exploit the fact that international treaties focus on sovereign actors. Many of China's man made islands in the South China Sea began as civilian projects before being suddenly militarized. Indeed, this issue was discussed in the Senate ratification hearings over the treaty. Dean Rusk said informal forces would be prohibited under the treaty. Thus the ostensible civilian character of the Chinese presence around the canal does not, in itself, mean that it could not represent a violation of the treaty if, for example, these companies and their employees involved Chinese covert agents or other agents of the Chinese security forces. So this leads us to the final question, Who determines whether neutrality is being threatened or compromised? Unlike many other treaties that provide for third party dispute resolution, the neutrality treaty has no such provision. Instead, the treaty makes clear that each party determines for itself the existence of a violation. Article Four provides that each party is separately authorized to maintain the regime of neutrality, making a separate obligation of each party. The Senate's understanding accompanying to ratification also made clear that Article Five allows each party to take, quote, "unilateral action." Senator Jacob Javits, at the markup hearing, said that while the word unilateral is abrasive, we can quote, "decide that the regime of neutrality is being threatened and then act with whatever means are necessary to keep the canal neutral unilaterally." 46:35 Joseph Kramek: My name is Joe Kramek. I'm President and CEO of the World Shipping Council. The World Shipping Council is the global voice of liner shipping. Our membership consists of 90% of the world's liner shipping tonnage, which are container vessels and vehicle carriers. They operate on fixed schedules to provide our customers with regular service to ship their goods in ports throughout the world. 47:15 Joseph Kramek: As you have heard, using the Panama Canal to transit between the Atlantic and Pacific saves significant time and money. A typical voyage from Asia to the US or East Coast can be made in under 30 days using the canal, while the same journey can take up to 40 days if carriers must take alternate routes. From a commercial trade perspective, the big picture is this. One of the world's busiest trade lanes is the Trans Pacific. The Trans Pacific is cargo coming from and going to Asia via the United States. Focusing in a bit, cargo coming from Asia and bound for US Gulf and East Coast ports always transits the Panama Canal. Similarly, cargo being exported from US and East Coast ports, a large share of which are US Agricultural exports, like soybeans, corn, cotton, livestock and dairy also almost always transits the Panama Canal. The result is that 75% of Canal traffic originates in or is bound for the United States. 48:55 Joseph Kramek: We've talked about the drought in 2023 and the historic low water levels that it caused in Lake Gatún, which feeds the canal locks, a unique system that is a fresh water feed, as contrasted to an ocean to ocean system, which the French tried and failed, but which is actually active in the Suez Canal. These low water levels reduced transits from 36 transits a day to as low as 22 per day. Additionally, the low water levels required a reduction in maximum allowable draft levels, or the depth of the ship below the water line, which for our members reduced the amount of containers they could carry through the canal. This resulted in a 10% reduction in import volumes for US Gulf and East Coast ports, with the Port of Houston experiencing a 26.7% reduction. 51:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Are you aware of allegations from some vessel operators of disparate treatment such as sweetheart deals or favorable rebates by Panama for canal transits? Louis Sola: Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, we have become aware through some complaints by cruise lines that said that they were not getting a refund of their canal tolls. When we looked into this, we found a Panamanian Executive Order, Decree 73, that specifically says that if a cruise line would stop at a certain port, that they could be refunded 100% of the fees. And as far as I know, that's the only instant where that exists. 53:05 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): So Panama was the very first Latin American country to join China's Belt and Road Initiative, and right now, China is building a fourth bridge across the Panama Canal for car traffic and light rail. Chairman Sola, why should Chinese construction of a bridge near Panama City concern the United States? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, we all saw the tragedy that happened here in the Francis Scott Key Bridge incident and the devastation that had happened to Baltimore. We also saw recently what happened in the Suez Canal, where we had a ship get stuck in there. It's not only the construction of the bridge, but it's a removal of a bridge, as I understand it, called the Bridge of the Americas. It was built in 1961 and that would paralyze cargo traffic in and out of the canals. 53:55 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Panama also recently renewed the concessions for two container ports to a Chinese company, Hutchison Ports PPC. Of course, Chinese companies are controlled by the Communist Party. How does China use control of those ports for economic gain? Louis Sola: Mr. Chairman, I am a regulator, a competition regulator. And the Chinese ports that you're referring to, let me put them into scope. The one on the Pacific, the Port of Balboa, is roughly the same size as the Port of Houston. They do about 4 million containers a year. They have about 28 game tree cranes. The one on the Atlantic is the same as my hometown in Miami, they do about 1 million containers. So where Roger Gunther in the Port of Houston generates about $1 billion a year and Heidi Webb in Miami does about $200 million, the Panama ports company paid 0 for 20 years on that concession. So it's really hard to compete against zero. So I think that's our concern, our economic concern, that we would have. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Commissioner Maffei, anything to add on that? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, I do too also think it is important. I would point out that you don't have to stop at either port. It's not like these two ports control the entrance to the canal. That is the Canal Authority that does control that. However, I think it's of concern. I would also point out that the Panamanian government thinks it's of concern too, because they're conducting their own audit of those particular deals, but we remain very interested as well. 56:25 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): Would the facts discussed here be considered violations of the neutrality treaty in force right now between the United States and Panama? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think Senator, I think potentially they could, but it's impossible to say definitively without knowing more, in particular, about the degree of Chinese control and involvement in these companies. I think it's important to note that these port operation companies that operate the ports on both sides, when they received their first contract, it was just a few months before Hong Kong was handed over to China. In other words, they received them as British companies, sort of very oddly, just a few months before the handover. Now, of course, since then, Hong Kong has been incorporated into China, has been placed under a special national security regime, and the independence of those companies has been greatly abridged, to say nothing of state owned companies involved elsewhere in in the canal area, which raised significantly greater questions. Additionally, I should point out that the understandings between President Carter and Panamanian leader Herrera, which were attached to the treaty and form part of the treaty, provide that the United States can, quote, "defend the canal against any threat to the regime of neutrality," and I understand that as providing some degree of preemptive authority to intervene. One need not wait until the canal is actually closed by some act of sabotage or aggression, which, as we heard from the testimony, would be devastating to the United States, but there is some incipient ability to address potential violations. 58:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): If the United States determines that Panama is in violation of the treaty, what is the range of remedies the United States would have for that treaty violation? Eugene Kontorovich: So I think it may be shocking to people to hear today, but when one goes over the ratification history and the debates and discussions in this body over this treaty, it was clear that the treaty was understood as giving both sides, separately, the right to resort to use armed force to enforce the provisions of the treaty. And it's not so surprising when one understands that the United States made an extraordinary concession to Panama by transferring this canal, which the United States built at great expense and maintained and operated to Panama, gratis. And in exchange, it received a kind of limitation, a permanent limitation on Panamanians sovereignty, that Panama agreed that the United States could enforce this regime of neutrality by force. Now, of course, armed force should never be the first recourse for any kind of international dispute and should not be arrived at sort of rationally or before negotiations and other kinds of good offices are exhausted, but it's quite clear that the treaty contemplates that as a remedy for violations. 1:03:20 Louis Sola: I believe that the security of the canal has always been understood to be provided by the United States. Panama does not have a military, and I always believed that there's been a close relationship with Southern Command that we would provide that. And it would be nice to see if we had a formalization of that in one way or another, because I don't believe that it's in the treaty at all. 1:05:05 Daniel Maffei: While we were down there, both of us heard, I think, several times, that the Panamanians would, the ones we talked to anyway, would welcome US companies coming in and doing a lot of this work. Frankly, their bids are not competitive with the Chinese bids. Frankly, they're not that existent because US companies can make more money doing things other places, but even if they were existent, it is difficult to put competitive bids when the Chinese bids are so heavily subsidized by China. 1:06:10 Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX): What would China's incentive be to heavily subsidize those bids to undercut American companies and other companies? Daniel Maffei: Yeah, it's not a real short answer, but Senator, China's made no secret of its ambitious policies to gain influence of ports throughout the globe. It's invested in 129 ports in dozens of countries. It runs a majority of 17 ports, that does not include this Hong Kong company, right? So that's just directly Chinese-owned ports. So it has been a part of their Belt and Road strategy, whatever you want to call it, the Maritime Silk Road, for decades. So they believe that this influence, this investment in owning maritime ports is important to their economy. 1:07:05 Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): In 2021, Hutchison was awarded those two ports, Port Balboa and Port Cristobal, in a no-bid award process. Can you tell me, does the United States have any authority or recourse with the Panama Canal Authority under our current agreement with Panama to rebid those terminal concession contracts. And perhaps Mr. Kantorovich, that's more in your purview? Louis Sola: Senator, both of those ports were redone for 25 years, until 2047, I believe. And they have to pay $7 million is what the ongoing rate is for the Port of Houston- and the Port of Miami-sized concessions. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And it can't be rebid until after that date? Louis Sola: Well, I believe that that's what the comptroller's office is auditing both of those ports and that contract. That was done under the previous Panamanian administration. A new administration came in, and they called for an audit of that contract immediately. 1:20:10 Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Are the companies now controlling both sides of the Panama Canal, the Chinese companies, subject to the PRC national security laws that mandate cooperation with the military, with state intelligence agencies. Does anyone know that? Eugene Kontorovich: They're subject all the time. They're subject to those laws all the time by virtue of being Hong Kong companies. And you know, they face, of course, consequences for not complying with the wishes of the Chinese government. One of the arguments -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Wouldn't that be a violation of the treaty? And isn't that a huge risk to us right now that the Chinese -- Eugene Kontorovich: That is a threat to the neutrality -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): If they invaded Taiwan, invaded the Philippines, they could go to these two companies saying, Hey, shut it down, make it hard, sink a ship in the canal. And wouldn't they be obligated to do that under Chinese law if they were ordered to by the PLA or the CCP? Eugene Kontorovich: I don't know if they'd be obligated, but certainly the People's Republic of China would have many tools of leverage and pressure on these companies. That's why the treaty specifically says that we can act not just to end actual obstructions to the canal. We don't have to wait until the canal is closed by hostile military action. Thatwould be a suicide pact, that would be catastrophic for us, but rather that we can respond at the inchoate, incipient level to threats, and then this is up to the president to determine whether this is significantly robust to constitute -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): So aren't we kind of walking up to the idea of a suicide pact, because we've got two big Chinese companies on both ends of the Panama Canal, who, if there's a war in INDOPACOM, Taiwan that involves us and China, these companies would be obligated to do the bidding of the Chinese Communist Party and PLA? I mean, are we kind of walking up to a very significant national security threat already? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, certainly, there's a threat. And I think what makes the action of the Chinese government so difficult to respond to, but important to respond to, is that they conceal this in sort of levels of gray without direct control. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Let me ask you on that topic, as my last question, Professor, let's assume that we find out. And again, it wouldn't be surprising. I think you can almost assume it that these two companies have Chinese spies or military officials within the ranks of the employees of the companies. Let's assume we found that out, somehow that becomes public. But I don't think it's a big assumption. It's probably true right now. So you have spies and military personnel within the ranks of these two companies that are controlling both ends of the Panama Canal for you, Professor, and Chairman Sola, wouldn't that be a blatant violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty, if that were true, which probably is true? Eugene Kontorovich: Yeah, I do think it would be a clear violation. As former Secretary of State, Dean Ross said at the ratification hearings, informal forces can violate Article Five as well as formal forces. Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): Is there any evidence of Chinese spies or other nefarious Chinese actors embedded in these companies? Louis Sola: Senator, we have no information of that. That's not under the purview of -- Sen. Dan Sullivan (R-AK): But you agree that would be a violation of Article Five of the neutrality treaty? Louis Sola: I do. 1:26:25 Daniel Maffei: Senator Sullivan was talking about Hutchison Ports. That's actually the same company that runs terminals on both ends of the canal. I am concerned about that. However, if we want to be concerned about that, all of us should lose a lot more sleep than we're losing because if there are spies there, then there might be spies at other Hutchinson ports, and there are other Hutchinson ports in almost every part of the world. They own the largest container port in the United Kingdom, Felix Dow, which is responsible for nearly half of Britain's container trade. They control major maritime terminals in Argentina, Australia, the Bahamas, Germany, Indonesia, Mexico, Myanmar, the Netherlands, South Korea and Tanzania. If owning and managing adjacent ports means that China somehow has operational control or strategic control over the Panama Canal, they also have it over the Suez, the Singapore Straits, the Mediterranean Sea and the English Channel. 1:35:45 Louis Sola: The fees that I think we are looking at, or have been looked at, the reason that we went there was because of the auctioning of the slots. And so what Panama did is they had a smaller percentage, maybe 20% allocation, and then they moved it up to 30% and 40% because it became a money maker for them. So as they were doing -- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, let me interject here. The auctioning of the slots gives these the right to skip the queue? Louis Sola: Yes, ma'am. Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): Okay, so just for the record there. Continue. Louis Sola: So the auctioning of the slots. Under maritime law, it's first come first serve, but Panama has always put a certain percentage aside, and they started to put more and more. So we got a lot of complaints. We got a lot of complaints from LNG carriers that paid $4 million to go through, and we got a lot of complaints from agriculture that didn't have the money to pay to go through, because their goods were gonna go down. So if you look at the financial statements -- I'm a nerd, I look at financial statements of everybody -- the canal increased the amount of revenue that they had from about $500 million to $1.8 billion in the last three years just because of those fees. So this is what is very concerning to us. 1:39:20 Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN): Do you know of any instances where the United States has been singled out or treated unfairly under the neutrality treaty in the operation of the canal? Daniel Maffei: I do not. I would add that one of the reasons why saying the US is disproportionately affected by raises in Canal fees and other kinds of fees at the canal is because the United States disproportionately utilizes the canal. 1:44:55 Louis Sola: We have a US port there, SSA, out of Washington State that I actually worked on the development of that many years ago, and helped develop that. That used to be a United States Navy submarine base, and we converted that. As far as the two ports that we have, they're completely different. One is a major infrastructure footprint, and also a container port that's moving 4 million containers a year. That's really phenomenal amount. That's more than Miami, Fort Lauderdale, and you've probably got to get Tampa and a little bit of Jacksonville in there to get that type of volume. And on the other side, we have a very small port, but it's a very strategic port on the Atlantic. So how are the operations done?I don't know how they don't make money. I mean, if you want to come right down to it, if they've been operating the port for 20 years, and they say that they haven't made any money, so they haven't been able to pay the government. That's what concerns me is I don't believe that we're on a level playing field with the American ports. 1:58:50 Eugene Kontorovich: I think the charges and fees are less of an issue because they don't discriminate across countries. We pay more because we use more, but it's not nationally discriminatory. 1:59:00 Eugene Kontorovich: The presence of Chinese companies, especially Chinese state companies, but not limited to them, do raise serious issues and concerns for the neutrality of the treaty. And I should point out, in relation to some of the earlier questioning, the canal, for purposes of the neutrality treaty, is not limited just to the actual locks of the canal and the transit of ships through the canal. According to Annex One, paragraph one of the treaty, it includes also the entrances of the canal and the territorial sea of Panama adjacent to it. So all of the activities we're talking about are within the neutrality regime, the geographic scope of the neutrality regime in the treaty. 2:00:30 Daniel Maffei: I actually have to admit, I'm a little confused as to why some of the senators asking these questions, Senator Blackburn, aren't more concerned about the biggest port in the United Kingdom being run by the Chinese. Petraeus in the port nearest Athens, one of the biggest ports in the Mediterranean, is not just run by a Chinese-linked company, it's run directly by a Chinese-owned company, and I was there. So you're on to something, but if you're just focusing on Panama, that's only part. 2:01:45 Louis Sola: About a year ago, when we were having this drought issue, there was also a lot of focus on Iran and how they were funding Hamas and the Houthis because they were attacking the Red Sea. What the United States has found is that Iranian vessels are sometimes flagged by Panama in order to avoid sanctions, so that they could sell the fuel that they have, and then they can take that money and then they can use it as they wish. Panama, at the time, had a very complicated process to de-flag the vessels. There was an investigation, there was an appeals process. By the time that OFAC or Treasury would go ahead and identify one of those vessels, by the time that they were doing the appeals and stuff like this, they've already changed flags to somewhere else. So when we went to Panama, we met with the Panamanian president, and I must say that we were very impressed, because he was 30 minutes late, but he was breaking relations with Venezuela at the time because the election was the day before. We explained to him the situation. The very next day, we met with the maritime minister, with US embassy personnel and Panama actually adjusted their appeals process so to make it more expedient, so if the United States or OFAC would come and say that this Iranian vessel is avoiding sanctions, now we have a process in place to go ahead and do that, and 53 vessels were de-flagged because of that. 2:06:05 Sen. John Curtis (R-UT): Is there any reason that China can't watch or do whatever they want from this bridge to get the intel from these containers? And does that concern anybody? Louis Sola: Well, it definitely concerns Southern Command, because they've brought it up on numerous occasions that there could be some sort of surveillance or something like that on the bridges. 2:20:30 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): We segregate ourselves artificially in a way that they do not. We segregate ourselves. Let's talk about military. Let's talk about intelligence. Let's talk about economics. They don't. China doesn't work that way. It's a whole of government approach. They don't draw a delineation between an economics discussion and a military one. And their attack may not look like Pearl Harbor. It may look like an everyday ship that decides, you know, it pulls into the locks and blows itself up. And now the locks are non-functional for our usage, and we can't support an inter ocean fleet transfer, and our ability to defend it, as you referred to Chairman, is now inhibited by the fact that we no longer have the military infrastructure around the canal that we did just as recently as 1999. 2:21:10 Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): So from a commercial perspective, do the shipping companies have concerns over the security of the narrow waterways? We've the Strait to Malacca, we've got the Suez Canal, we've got Gibraltar, we've got Panama. Is that a concern that's thrown around in the boardrooms of the largest shipping corporations in the world? Joseph Kramek: Senator, I think it's something they think about every day. I mean, really, it's drawn into sharp relief with the Red Sea. It was what I call a pink flamingo. There's black swans that just come up and there's pink flamingos that you can see, but you don't act. But no one really thought a whole lot that one of the most important waterways in the world could be denied, and moreover, that it could be denied for such a sustained period. The good news is that -- Sen. Tim Sheehy (R-MT): And denied, I might add, by a disaffected non-state actor of Bedouins running around with rocket launchers, who also managed to beat us in a 20 year war in Afghanistan. My point to saying all this is we're just debating operational control of the canal, yet it seems very clear to all of us that a very simple act can debilitate the canal and eliminate our ability to use it in a matter of minutes with no warning, and we have no ability to intervene or stop that. To me, that means we do not have operational control of the canal. 2:30:40 Daniel Maffei: I will say that certainly we need to look at other kinds of ways to get US companies in positions where they can truly compete with the Chinese on some of these things. Blaming it all on Panama really misses the point. I've seen the same thing in Greece, where Greece didn't want to give the concession of its largest port to a Chinese company, but because of its financial difficulties, it was getting pressure from international organizations such the IMF, Europe and even maybe some of the United States to do so. So I just ask you to look at that. 2:31:20 Daniel Maffei: Panamanians are making far more on their canal than they ever have before. That's not necessarily a bad thing, as long as it's going to the right place. But where they're really making the money is on these auctions, and that is why it remains a concern of mine and I'm sure the chairman's. That is where we are looking at, potentially, using our authority under Section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act where we could, if we can show that it is a problem with the foreign trade of the US, it's interfering with foreign trade of the US, there are certain things that we can do. Senate Foreign Relations Committee January 15, 2024 Clips 4:01:40 Marco Rubio: The thing with Panama on the canal is not new. I visited there. It was 2016. I think I've consistently seen people express concern about it, and it's encapsulized here in quote after quote. Let me tell you the former US ambassador who served under President Obama said: "the Chinese see in Panama what we saw in Panama throughout the 20th century, a maritime and aviation logistics hub." The immediate past head of Southern Command, General Laura Richardson, said, "I was just in Panama about a month ago and flying along the Panama Canal and looking at the state owned enterprises from the People's Republic of China on each side of the Panama Canal. They look like civilian companies or state owned enterprises that could be used for dual use and could be quickly changed over to a military capability." We see questions that were asked by the ranking member in the house China Select Committee, where he asked a witness and they agreed that in a time of conflict, China could use its presence on both ends of the canal as a choke point against the United States in a conflict situation. So the concerns about Panama have been expressed by people on both sides of the aisle for at least the entire time that I've been in the United States Senate, and they've only accelerated further. And this is a very legitimate issue that we face there. I'm not prepared to answer this question because I haven't looked at the legal research behind it yet, but I'm compelled to suspect that an argument could be made that the terms under which that canal were turned over have been violated. Because while technically, sovereignty over the canal has not been turned over to a foreign power, in reality, a foreign power today possesses, through their companies, which we know are not independent, the ability to turn the canal into a choke point in a moment of conflict. And that is a direct threat to the national interest and security the United States, and is particularly galling given the fact that we paid for it and that 5,000 Americans died making it. That said, Panama is a great partner on a lot of other issues, and I hope we can resolve this issue of the canal and of its security, and also continue to work with them cooperatively on a host of issues we share in common, including what to do with migration. 4:38:35 Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT): Now, President Trump has recently talked a little bit about the fact that there are some questions arising about the status of the Panama Canal. When we look to the treaty at issue, the treaty concerning the permanent neutrality and operation of the Panama Canal, we're reminded that some things maybe aren't quite as they should be there right now. Given that the Chinese now control major ports at the entry and the exit to the canal, it seems appropriate to say that there's at least an open question. There's some doubt as to whether the canal remains neutral. Would you agree with that assessment? Marco Rubio: Yes. Here's the challenge. Number one, I want to be clear about something. The Panamanian government, particularly its current office holders, are very friendly to the United States and very cooperative, and we want that to continue, and I want to bifurcate that from the broader issue of the canal. Now I am not, President Trump is not inventing this. This is something that's existed now for at least a decade. In my service here, I took a trip to Panama in 2017. When on that trip to Panama in 2017 it was the central issue we discussed about the canal, and that is that Chinese companies control port facilities at both ends of the canal, the east and the west, and the concerns among military officials and security officials, including in Panama, at that point, that that could one day be used as a choke point to impede commerce in a moment of conflict. Going back to that I -- earlier before you got here, and I don't want to have to dig through this folder to find it again, but -- basically cited how the immediate past head of Southern Command, just retired general Richardson, said she flew over the canal, looked down and saw those Chinese port facilities, and said Those look like dual use facilities that in a moment of conflict, could be weaponized against us. The bipartisan China commission over in the House last year, had testimony and hearings on this issue, and members of both parties expressed concern. The former ambassador to Panama under President Obama has expressed those concerns. This is a legitimate issue that needs to be confronted. The second point is the one you touched upon, and that is, look, could an argument be made, and I'm not prepared to answer it yet, because it's something we're going to have to study very carefully. But I think I have an inkling of I know where this is going to head. Can an argument be made that the Chinese basically have effective control of the canal anytime they want? Because if they order a Chinese company that controls the ports to shut it down or impede our transit, they will have to do so. There are no independent Chinese companies. They all exist because they've been identified as national champions. They're supported by the Chinese government. And if you don't do what they want, they find a new CEO, and you end up being replaced and removed. So they're under the complete control of their government. This is a legitimate question, and one that Senators Risch had some insight as well. He mentioned that in passing that needs to be looked at. This is not a joke. The Panama Canal issue is a very serious one. 4:44:30 Marco Rubio: In 2016 and 2017 that was well understood that part of the investments they made in Panama were conditioned upon Panama's ability to convince the Dominican Republic and other countries to flip their recognition away from Taiwan. That happened. Jen Briney's Recent Guest Appearances Travis Makes Money: Give and Take: Music by Editing Production Assistance

In this 20-min podcast: -With incumbent re-election rates consistently above 96%, USTL President Philip Blumel reminds us we will not have real, competitive elections until we have Term Limits! -Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana gives his farewell address and reveals the reason he is leaving Congress. -The number of U.S. Term Limits Pledge Signers continues to grow on Capitol Hill as does pressure for Congressional Term Limits via Article Five. -Sen. Bernie Sanders suggests his time in office is short and two other distinguished members of Congress take geriatric fall damage as the sands of time run out on the old guard. Stay up to date on the latest Term Limits news! Subscribe for free on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can shop for hats, t-shirts, bumper stickers, and more at http://termlimits.com/store Has your local state Representative or Senator committed themselves to defend Term Limits? See if they are listed, and if not, ask them to sign the pledge at http://termlimits.com/pledge Help U.S. Term Limits fight to place TERM LIMITS on all members of Congress by donating at http://termlimits.com/donate. We will not stop until TERM LIMITS is enacted on ALL members of Congress, NOT JUST THE PRESIDENT!! To check on the status of the Term Limits movement in your state, go to http://termlimits.com/TakeAction

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit zeteo.comWhat does an end to the war in Ukraine look like? Who will draw the short straw when the dust settles? And has the risk of nuclear war increased since the Biden administration allowed Ukraine to strike inside of Russia with US missiles?These questions and many more are at the core of this debate on ‘Mehdi Unfiltered' between the Quincy Institute's Eurasia Program Director Anatol Lieven, an author on Russian and Ukraine, and the McCain Institute's Executive Director Evelyn Farkas, a former Pentagon official under President Obama. “The only peace deal that's going to hold while Vladimir Putin is in the Kremlin,” says Farkas, who supports Ukraine joining NATO, is one “that includes a security guarantee for Ukraine… that he won't view any peace deal as a ceasefire and attack later.” A fair argument to make, but a dangerous one according to Lieven. “Article Five is regarded as critical to the security of Europe… by extending it to a country that we've already said that we won't defend, we're not strengthening the effect of Article Five, we're disastrously weakening it.”Mehdi asks both guests whether the United States has any credibility insisting on sanctions against Russia over its occupation of Ukraine, given ongoing and unconditional US support for Israel in occupied Gaza.“I think if you are addressing each policy separately, you just say to yourself, ‘what is the right thing to do in each scenario?'” says Farkas. “You need to look at each on its merits and see whether it aligns with U.S. interests and values.” Lieven has a very different view, and sums it up in a few words. “This is technically called hypocrisy, and that is how it is seen in the rest of the world.” If you are a paid subscriber, you can watch the full debate above to hear why Farkas believes we should take Putin “at his word”, and why Lieven believes time is of the essence for Ukrainian sovereignty.Free subscribers can watch the first two minutes for free, so do please consider becoming a paid subscriber today and financially supporting Zeteo's journalism.

Peace is not simply an absence of war. Fr. Mike breaks down the Catechism's teachings about peace as the "work of justice and the effect of charity.” We learn that to cultivate true peace, we must do more than avoid anger, hatred, and harm to our neighbor; we must actively work toward becoming agents of peace. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2302-2306. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

The Catechism looks at matters relating to scientific research, bodily integrity, and the dead with the lens of the dignity of the human person. Fr. Mike helps us navigate the Catechism's teachings by acknowledging science and technology as a good while emphasizing restrictions and conditions to ensure respect for the dignity of persons. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2292-2301. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

We begin exploring the fifth commandment: “you shall not kill”. The Catechism reminds us that human life is sacred, and we must not take the life of another innocent human. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus takes this commandment even further as he calls us to avoid anger, hatred, and vengeance in addition to loving our enemies. By forgiving and extending to others the same love and mercy we are willing to extend to ourselves, we are respecting the dignity of that person. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2258-2262. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Monday, October 7th, 2024This week we'll be playing recordings from our live shows! Today's is from August 24th at The Triple Door in Seattle! Allison and Dana discuss Biden's debate performance, the modernization of the Columbia River Treaty, and are joined on stage by Andy McCabe to talk about presidential immunity, Russian assassination plots in Europe, FBI naming conventions and answer some audience questions. Helix is offering up to 20% off all mattress orders AND two free pillows for our listeners! Go to https://www.helixsleep.com/dailybeans.A Special Thanks to The Triple Door SEATTLE, WA for having us!Stories:Summary of the Agreement in Principle to Modernize the Columbia River Treaty Regime (state.gov)Supreme court immunity ruling to cause new delay in Trump 2020 election case (Hugo Lowell | The Guardian)Exclusive: US and Germany foiled Russian plot to assassinate CEO of arms manufacturer sending weapons to Ukraine (CNN)Guest:Andy McCabeAndrew McCabe isn't on social media, but you can buy his bookThe Threat: How the FBI Protects America in the Age of Terror and TrumpHarris Social Media Toolkit Harris Campaign Social Media Toolkit (kamalaharris.com)Give to the Kamala Harris Presidential Campaign Kamala Harris — Donate via ActBlue (MSW Media's Donation Link)See What's On Your Ballot, Check Your Voter Registration, Find Your Polling Place, Discover Upcoming Debates In Your Area, And Much More! Vote411.orgCheck Your Voter Registration! vote.orgCheck out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comCheck out the first 2 episodes of Trump's Project 2025: Up Close and Personal.https://trumpsproject2025pod.com/A Special Excel Training From Generation Data for Daily Beans Listeners!Saturday, October 12 · 10am - 1pm PDTgenerationdata.org/daily-beansThere is a new “Harris For President” Patreon tier:https://www.patreon.com/muellershewrote/membershipHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill https://muellershewrote.substack.comhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

A new MP3 sermon from Christ Reformed Baptist Church is now available on SermonAudio with the following details: Title: Article: Five Questions Regarding the NKJV Subtitle: Article Speaker: Jeff Riddle Broadcaster: Christ Reformed Baptist Church Event: Podcast Date: 8/23/2024 Bible: 2 Thessalonians 2:7 Length: 32 min.

Something stunning is happening right now in North Korea. Something that is beyond the comprehension of our legacy media, and is, in a very real way, changing the world like never before! Learn what's happening in North Korea and how it promises to change the world order in ways that will absolutely blow your mind!   -- Stay Connected to Dr. Steve moving forward on the new Turley Talks Platform at: https://fight.turleytalks.com Try Liver Health Formula by going to GetLiverHelp.com/Turley and claim your FREE Blood Sugar Formula gift. That's https://GetLiverHelp.com/Turley   *The content presented by our partners may contain affiliate links. When you click and shop the links, Turley Talks may receive a small commission.* Highlights: “Already, the two nations signed a mutual defense pact that functions like Article Five of the NATO charter that requires each nation to come to the other's aid in case of military attack.” “With Russia's help, North Korea is fast turning from a renegade nation isolated by the international community to a highly relevant nation embraced by and assimilated into the new emerging international community.”  Timestamps: [01:38] Vladimir Putin's visit in North Korea [03:20] Russia and North Korea's relationship is the result of the West's sanction [05:26] The most important takeaway from this summit between Putin and Kim Jong Un -- Thank you for taking the time to listen to this episode.  If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and/or leave a review. FOLLOW me on X (Twitter): https://twitter.com/DrTurleyTalks Click here to partner with us and defy liberal culture! https://advertising.turleytalks.com/sponsorship Sign up for the 'New Conservative Age Rising' Email Alerts to get lots of articles on conservative trends: https://turleytalks.com/subscribe/.

We're in a Norwegian valley, high above the Arctic Circle. It's late afternoon in early March and a group of over a dozen infantry Marines are standing around an American and Norwegian chaplain. It's windy, cold. The Marines hold laminated prayer cards in dense gloves, some are shifting back and forth to stay warm. A radio chatters in the background with reports from the front. “That symbol – that cross – came to signify that Rome could force people to obey out of fear, obedience out of fear of being raised upon that cross,” a Marine chaplain said. “And Christ says, I will destroy the fear of death and dying. I myself will be raised upon that cross in order to evoke life and hope.” Article Five of the NATO agreement – if one is attacked, all are attacked – is a provision that binds these NATO countries together. The last – and only – time it has been invoked was in the aftermath of 9/11 when “NATO rallied in support of the USA,” according to Vice Adm. Doug Perry, commander of Joint Force Command - Decades later, he said the alliance was now more relevant than ever because of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. We spent time with the Marines miles above the Arctic Circle in Norway as part of the largest NATO exercise in the region since 1988. We spoke to Norwegians, Swedes and Finns as well – all nations that contributed to America's fight in Afghanistan, all nations that lost troops to it, too. Now, those countries are on the brink of an uncertain future. In this episode: Norwegian Chaplain, LT Kathleen Laboa, MONTAGE, Drew F. Lawrence, American Chaplain, Former President Donald Trump, Ville, Vice Adm. Doug Perry, HM2 Zachery Matthews, Marine Sergeant

This episode is a recording of Stephen Witmer's STS article "⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Five Ways for Rural Ministry to Look Ahead.⁠" We pray this article from the archives is a blessing and an encouragement to you. You can find more STS Articles at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.smalltownsummits.com/articles⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. For more information on Small Town Summits, please visit our website here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.smalltownsummits.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To partner with us financially, give here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.smalltownsummits.com/give⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To see more details regarding next steps and financial needs, ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠view this PDF⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. To volunteer your time and talents, email us here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠SmallTownSummits@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ To stay up to date on how to pray, subscribe to our newsletter here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.smalltownsummits.com/contact

Peace is not simply an absence of war. Fr. Mike breaks down the Catechism's teachings about peace as the "work of justice and the effect of charity.” We learn that to cultivate true peace, we must do more than avoid anger, hatred, and harm to our neighbor; we must actively work toward becoming agents of peace. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2302-2306. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

The Catechism looks at matters relating to scientific research, bodily integrity, and the dead with the lens of the dignity of the human person. Fr. Mike helps us navigate the Catechism's teachings by acknowledging science and technology as a good while emphasizing restrictions and conditions to ensure respect for the dignity of persons. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2292-2301. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

We begin exploring the fifth commandment: “you shall not kill." The Catechism reminds us that human life is sacred, and we must not take the life of another innocent human. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus takes this commandment even further as he calls us to avoid anger, hatred, and vengeance in addition to loving our enemies. By forgiving and extending to others the same love and mercy we are willing to extend to ourselves, we are respecting the dignity of that person. Today's readings are Catechism paragraphs 2258-2262. This episode has been found to be in conformity with the Catechism by the Institute on the Catechism, under the Subcommittee on the Catechism, USCCB. For the complete reading plan, visit ascensionpress.com/ciy Please note: The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains adult themes that may not be suitable for children - parental discretion is advised.

Dave Wise joins the show to discus his article, "Five Days to Remember" where he his hunting buddies stumbled upon a War of 1812 camp that had never been hunted. Hear the amazing story of the relics they recovered.

Officials are working around the clock to figure out how the missile landed in Poland. It struck a village near Ukraine's border, killing two people. Poland is considering invoking article four, which would allow NATO members to consult with allies. National's Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Gerry Brownlee, told Lloyd Burr there is a possibility article five could be imposed. "It is the agreement that if any one member of NATO is attacked, they are all attacked and they will all respond collectively. That is a very big call."See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Article five outlines a collective defence of a vulnerable NATO member and considers an attack against any NATO member an attack against all NATO members.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

"You shall not kill."What constitutes a "just war"? Is it permissible to accumulate weapons of mass destruction?In this mini episode, we wrap up our discussion of the fifth Commandment.This episode covers Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pts 2258-2330).Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:Gaudium et SpesTerrence Malick, A Hidden LifeAnthony Doerr, All the Light We Cannot SeeMarkus Zusak, The Book ThiefAnne Frank, The Diary of a Young GirlIan Serraillier, The Silver SwordViktor Frankl, Man's Search for MeaningEddie Jaku, The Happiest Man on EarthLeo Tolstoy, War and Peace (I mean if you WANNA read it)

Dan Hoffman, former CIA Moscow station chief, discusses President Biden feeding into the Putin's narrative of nuclear war and allowing the longtime Russian President to fearmonger. Hoffman says the does not think it will "influence Ukraine's will to fight. And we saw that the Nazis do that, you know, to the UK, and it didn't alter their will to fight either, and I think Putin knows that.” The retired spy comments that Putin is "trying to play to his own ultra-nationalist base that is wondering why this special military operation that Putin claimed would would topple Kyiv's government in days hasn't succeeded.” Hoffman says that Putin is using an idea called "historical placement, meaning, when you look at a leader, for example, George Herbert Walker Bush fought in the Second World War and looked at Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, in terms of that war and said, we're not going to appease Saddam, just as you know, we failed when we appeased Hitler. And in the case of President Biden, Putin looked at Biden said, here's a guy who was just about 20 years old during the Cuban Missile Crisis. I'm going to play on the President's fear of what President Biden has said, World War Three Armageddon, that's giving Putin kind of adding throwaway to Putin's rhetorical brinkmanship.” Hoffman says if he were giving advice to the White House, he say "please, Mr. President, message discipline, don't do that, talk about it privately, but don't act like this is something you're concerned about publicly, because you're gonna give Vladimir Putin what he wants and we just need to tell the Russians that if they would have launched a tactical nuclear weapon, we would respond forcefully, that's Article Five, using a nuclear weapon on European soil. But we don't need to, to kind of subject ourselves to the fear mongering, you know, that Putin is, is trying to impose upon us."See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

"You shall not kill."Is abortion ever morally permissible? What about euthanasia? What does the Church teach about people who have committed suicide?In this episode we continue our discussion of the fifth Commandment. This episode covers Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pts 2258-2330). Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Logic".The Catholic Encyclopedia, "Suicide".Catholic Answers, 20 Questions: Abortion.Ethics Finder. (there are SO MANY great resources on this website) C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain. Gaudium et SpesPope Francis, "Misericordia et misera"THIS ARTICLE IS SO GOOD AND CLEAR: Michael Egnor, "If a Fetus Isn't a Human Being, What Is It?"Colin B. Donovan, STL "End of Life Decisions: Ordinary versus Extraordinary Means"Among the Lilies, "Healing after an abortion"Fr. Nicanor Austriaco, O.P., "When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence", YouTube.Maureen L. Condic, "When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence"Bishop Robert Barron "Bishop Barron on Atheism and Assisted Suicide"Fr Mike Schmitz, "Talking About Suicide"Fr Mike Schmitz, "Hope in the Face of Suicide" Ascension Presents, "God's Mercy and Suicide"Ellie Egan, "Testimony of Hope"Stephanie Sugiaman, "It's not too much pain but too little love that makes people ask for euthanasia"Death and Donuts "The Agony & Ecstasy Of A Life After Death"

"You shall not kill." Is it wrong to kill someone in self-defense? What about the death penalty? Why is hatred a sin against this commandment?  In this episode we cover the fifth Commandment.  This episode covers Part Three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pts 2258-2330).  Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:Matthew Chapter 15Matthew Chapter 5Peter Kreeft, Catholic Christianity: A Complete Catechism of Catholic Beliefs Based on the Catechism of the Catholic ChurchPope Francis, Address of His Holiness Pope Francis in the Meeting Promoted by the Pontifical Council for Promoting the New Evangelization. Pope JPII, Evangelium VitaeCriminal: France. "Caroline." Netflix.Fr. Sebastian Walshe, O. Praem, "The Grace of Deathbed Conversions."St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 64: Murder."Find an Ethical Manufacturer"St Josemaria Escriva, The Way, Point 370Maria Vision USA, "How tragedy led to my conversion | Matthew Harte"Pints with Aquinas, "The State of Catholicism in Ireland w/ Mattie Harte"Bishop Robert Barron, "Our Catholic President and the Most Pressing Moral Issue of Our Time"

Notwithstanding Donald Trump's dangerous cult, another threat looms for American democracy. An under the radar movement is seeking a so-called article five constitutional convention. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/elk-grove-news/support

Looking at the current state of affairs in our nation, talking about Article Five of the Constitution of the United States of America, and the Convention of States. Where you can find us; Brighteon.com/channel/billmoss Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/BSeXR1st.p9zU/ Rumble: Https://rumble.com/c/c-291321 Where to Listen to American Patriot News on Celestial Radio. Anchor.fm: https://anchor.fm/bill-moss0 Breaker: https://www.breaker-audio/american=patriot=newsrch/American%20Patriot%20News On Google Podcast: Search for: American Patriot News Pocket Cast: https://pca.st/hw7p2U0r Radio Public: https://radiopublic.com/American-Patriot-News-GADAV4https://anchor.fm/s/601b68a8/podcast/rss Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/search/American%20Patriot%20News and many other stations on celestrial radio --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/bill-moss0/message

In this episode Representative Tammy Nichols joins me again as the co host in Kirsten's absence (she's traveling). We sit down with Shawn Meehan who is a founding member of Guard the Constitution project and Nevada GOP resolution Committee Chair to discuss the article 5 convention. Prior to this we discuss some of the big resolutions being presented later this week at the GOP convention, and challengers to the incumbent leadership. This is an episode worth tuning into.  Our website: www.idahospodcast.com Our Sponsors: Statecraft Consulting: https://statecraftconsulting.com/ Faith Outdoors https://www.faithoutdoorsid.com/ Silo Hill Media www.silohillmedia.com #idpol #idleg #idgop  --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/whatshappeningidaho/support

The United States says it stood firmly behind Lithuania and NATO commitments to defend it after Russia warned its neighbour over restrictions on rail transit. State Department spokesman Ned Price says their commitment to NATO's Article Five on the part of the United States is ironclad Lithuania says that it would restrict the rail transit of goods sanctioned by the EU into Kaliningrad, an isolated Russian enclave on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between Lithuania and Poland. Russia warned that it would certainly respond to the hostile actions.

Nina Jankowicz quits after DHS Chief Mayorkas puts her board on hold and Joe has decided that he needs to do more for the Convention of States and has president Mark Meckler back on to tell him directly. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How come so few people are cured when they receive this sacrament? Why does God allow us to experience sickness and suffering? Does this sacrament actually do anything, or is it just symbolic?In this episode, we discuss the Anointing of the Sick. This episode covers Part Two, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (pts 1499-1532).Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:The Gospel of Mark, Chapter 2The Gospel of John, Chapter 5The Gospel of Matthew, Chapter 8The Letter of St James, Chapter 5C.S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain.Leo J. Trese, The Faith Explained.Pope Paul VI, Sacrum Unctione Infirmorum: Apostolic Constitution on the Sacrament of the Anointing of the Sick. Catholic Encyclopedia, "Extreme Unction"Catholic Answers, "The Anointing of the Sick"Catholic Answers, "What is the Difference Between Anointing of the Sick and Last Rites?"Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium. The Chosen, "The Chosen scene: Jesus heals the paralytic" SBSK, "Living in a Body of Open Wounds with Less than Half His Skin"SBSK, "Sofi's Strength (Stage 4 Pediatric Brain Cancer)"SBSK, "Facing a Terminal Illness with Strength and Love (Charcot Marie Tooth)"

Russia has invaded Ukraine in full force. This week, missiles, tanks and troops poured over the borders as explosions rocked the country, causing thousands of civilians to flee their homes and seek shelter. Biden's response? Swift … but not S.W.I.F.T.  The president announced he'd be leveling harsh sanctions against Russia's banking and tech sectors, but stopped short of putting American troops in Ukraine or cutting off Russia's access to the S.W.I.F.T banking system they send financial transactions through.  So, why is Putin even doing this, and where will he stop? Has Biden been tough enough? How far should the U.S. and NATO go to prevent an Article Five invocation? And can the E.U. hold together through the worst land conflict Europe has seen since World War II?  Guest host David Greene discusses with panelists Tim Carney, columnist at the Washington Examiner and senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, on the right; Mo Elleithee, executive director of Georgetown University's Institute of Politics and Public Service, on the left; and special guest Juliette Kayyem, professor of national security at Harvard University and former assistant secretary at the Department of Homeland Security.  Also: Former President Trump praised Putin as a “genius,” and expressed support for Russia's actions in Ukraine this week. Is that a deeper philosophy in the right, or just another Trump-ism? And how concerned should Americans really be about this war when they're just trying to get through the day amid an ongoing global pandemic? Our panelists discuss.  Finally: Juliette Kayyem makes the argument that our recovery from the pandemic SHOULD be political. But before you groan and turn off the episode, bear with us — because while Anthony Fauci's a great doctor, he's not an elected leader. So how can politicians turn science lessons into meaningful policy that balances risks with living life?

Brett explains the ins and outs of Article Five.  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been proposed by the United States Congress and sent to the states for ratification since the Constitution was put into operation on March 4, 1789. Twenty-seven of these, having been ratified by the requisite number of states, are part of the Constitution. The first 10 amendments were adopted and ratified simultaneously and are known collectively as the Bill of Rights. Six amendments adopted by Congress and sent to the states have not been ratified by the required number of states. Four of these amendments are still pending, 1 is closed and has failed by its own terms, and 1 is closed and has failed by the terms of the resolution proposing it. All 33 amendments are listed and detailed in the tables below. Article Five of the United States Constitution details the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. Amendments must be properly proposed and ratified before becoming operative. This process was designed to strike a balance between the excesses of constant change and inflexibility. An amendment may be proposed and sent to the states for ratification by either: The U.S. Congress, whenever a two-thirds majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives deem it necessary; or, A national convention, called by Congress for this purpose, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (34 since 1959). The convention option has never been used. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states (38 since 1959) by either (as determined by Congress): The legislatures of three-fourths of the states; or, State ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. The only amendment to be ratified through the state convention method thus far is the Twenty-first Amendment in 1933. That amendment is also the only one that explicitly repeals an earlier one, the Eighteenth Amendment (ratified in 1919), establishing the prohibition of alcohol. When a constitutional amendment is sent to the states for ratification, the Archivist of the United States is charged with responsibility for administering the ratification process under the provisions of 1 U.S.C. § 106b. Then, upon being properly ratified, the archivist issues a certificate proclaiming that an amendment has become an operative part of the Constitution. Beginning in the early 20th century, Congress has usually, but not always, stipulated that an amendment must be ratified by the required number of states within seven years from the date of its submission to the states in order to become part of the Constitution. Congress's authority to set a ratification deadline was affirmed in 1939 by the United States Supreme Court in Coleman v Miller (307 U.S. 433). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Deadlines. The practice of limiting the time available to the states to ratify proposed amendments began in 1917 with the Eighteenth Amendment. All amendments proposed since then, with the exception of the Nineteenth Amendment and the (still pending) Child Labor Amendment, have included a deadline, either in the body of the proposed amendment, or in the joint resolution transmitting it to the states. The ratification deadline "clock" begins running on the day final action is completed in Congress. An amendment may be ratified at any time after final congressional action, even if the states have not yet been officially notified. In Dillon v Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court upheld Congress's power to prescribe time limitations for state ratifications and intimated that clearly out of date proposals were no longer open for ratification. Granting that it found nothing express in Article 5 relating to time constraints, the Court yet allowed that it found intimated in the amending process a "strongly suggest" argument that proposed amendments are not open to ratification for all time or by States acting at widely separate times. The court subsequently, in Coleman v Miller (1939), modified its opinion considerably. In that case, related to the proposed Child Labor Amendment, it held that the question of timeliness of ratification is a political and non-justiciable one, leaving the issue to Congress's discretion. It would appear that the length of time elapsing between proposal and ratification is irrelevant to the validity of the amendment. Based upon this precedent, the Archivist of the United States proclaimed the Twenty-seventh Amendment as having been ratified when it surpassed the "three fourths of the several states" plateau for becoming a part of the Constitution. Declared ratified on May 7, 1992, it had been submitted to the states for ratification—without a ratification deadline—on September 25, 1789, an unprecedented time period of 202 years, 7 months and 12 days. Extensions. Whether once it has prescribed a ratification period Congress may extend the period without necessitating action by already-ratified States embroiled Congress, the states, and the courts in argument with respect to the proposed Equal Rights Amendment (Sent to the states on March 22, 1972, with a seven-year ratification time limit attached). In 1978 Congress, by simple majority vote in both houses, extended the original deadline by 3 years, 3 months and 8 days (through June 30, 1982). --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution, the nation's frame of government, may be altered. Under Article 5, the process to alter the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments, and subsequent ratification. Amendments may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a convention of states called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures. To become part of the Constitution, an amendment must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-quarters of the states or by ratifying conventions conducted in three-quarters of the states, a process utilized only once thus far in American history with the 1933 ratification of the Twenty-First Amendment. The vote of each state (to either ratify or reject a proposed amendment) carries equal weight, regardless of a state's population or length of time in the Union. Article 5 is silent regarding deadlines for the ratification of proposed amendments, but most amendments proposed since 1917 have included a deadline for ratification. Legal scholars generally agree that the amending process of Article 5 can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article 5, but there is some disagreement over whether Article 5 is the exclusive means of amending the Constitution. In addition to defining the procedures for altering the Constitution, Article 5 also shields three clauses in Article I from ordinary amendment by attaching stipulations. Regarding two of the clauses—one concerning importation of slaves and the other apportionment of direct taxes—the prohibition on amendment was absolute but of limited duration, expiring in 1808; the third was without an expiration date but less absolute: "no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate." Scholars disagree as to whether this shielded clause can itself be amended by the procedures laid out in Article 5. Text. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

Since the beginning of December, news outlets around the world have been covering a possible Russian invasion of Ukraine. In this episode, get the full back story on the civil war that has been raging in Ukraine since 2014, learn what role our government has played in the conflict, and hear Victoria Nuland - one of the highest ranking officials in the Biden administration's State Department - testify to the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee about the Biden administration's plans if Russia decides to use its military to invade Ukraine. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Support Congressional Dish via Patreon (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536. Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD231: Lights Out: What Happened in Texas? CD229: Target Belarus CD206: Impeachment: The Evidence CD186: National Endowment for Democracy CD167: Combating Russia (NDAA 2018) LIVE CD156: Sanctions – Russia, North Korea & Iran CD068: Ukraine Aid Bill CD067: What Do We Want In Ukraine? CD024: Let's Gut the STOCK Act Articles, Documents, and Websites Conflicted Congress. Insider. TurkStream. “Project: The Turkstream Pipeline.” Western Balkans Investment Framework. “Ionian-Adriatic Pipeline (IAP) Project Financing.” Amber Infrastructure Group. “About Us: Our People.” Three Seas. “Three Seas Story.” Three Seas. “Priority Projects.” State Property Fund of Ukraine. “Large Privatization.” State Property Fund of Ukraine. “How to buy.” State Property Fund of Ukraine. “Ukrainian Government Assets for Sale.” Stephanie. December 14, 2021. “Kiev mayor Klitschko warns of Russian invasion.” News in 24. Kenny Stancil. December 13, 2021. “Groups Move to Uncover Why Biden Held Huge Drilling Sale That DOJ Said Was Not Required.” Common Dreams. The Kremlin. December 7, 2021. “Meeting with US President Joseph Biden.” Maxine Joselow and Alexandra Ellerbeck. December 6, 2021. “Biden is approving more oil and gas drilling permits on public lands than Trump, analysis finds.” The Washington Post. Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies. November 23, 2021. “The US-Russia Confrontation Over Ukraine.” Consortium News. International Monetary Fund (IMF). November 22, 2021. “IMF Executive Board Completes First Review Under Stand-By Arrangement for Ukraine, Approves Extension of the Arrangement, Press Release No. 21/342.” Nathan Rott. November 17, 2021. “The Biden administration sold oil and gas leases days after the climate summit.” NPR. Anatol Lieven. November 15, 2021. “Ukraine: The Most Dangerous Problem in the World.” The Nation. John Vandiver and Alison Bath. November 12, 2021. “US Actions in Ukraine Backfiring as Risk of Russian Invasion Grows, Analysts Say.” Military.com Andrew E. Kramer. November 3, 2021. “Weapons Tracing Study Implicates Russia in Ukraine Conflict.” The New York Times. Anton Troianovski and Julian E. Barnes. November 2, 2021. “U.S.-Russia Engagement Deepens as C.I.A. Head Travels to Moscow.” The New York Times. Anton Troianovski and David E. Sanger. October 31, 2021. “Rivals on World Stage, Russia and U.S. Quietly Seek Areas of Accord.” The New York Times. David E. Sanger. October 25, 2021. “Ignoring Sanctions, Russia Renews Broad Cybersurveillance Operation.” The New York Times. Artin DerSimonian. October 19, 2021. “Ice breaking? Russia waives ban on Victoria Nuland.” Responsible Statecraft. Andrew E. Kramer. October 18, 2021. “Russia Breaks Diplomatic Ties With NATO.” The New York Times. Mark Episkopos. October 16, 2021. “Victoria Nuland's Mission to Moscow.” The National Interest. Reuters. September 10, 2021. “Russia and Belarus launch 'hot phase' of huge war games.” Antony Blinken. August 20, 2021. “Imposition of Sanctions in Connection with Nord Stream 2.” U.S. Department of State.](https://www.state.gov/imposition-of-sanctions-in-connection-with-nord-stream-2/) Paul Belkin and Hibbah Kaileh. July 1, 2021. “In Focus: The European Deterrence Initiative: A Budgetary Overview, IF10946.” Congressional Research Service. Henrik B. L. Larsen. June 8, 2021. “Why NATO Should Not Offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans. War on the Rocks. NATO. April 26, 2021. “Boosting NATO's presence in the east and southeast.” David E. Sanger and Andrew E. Kramer. April 15, 2021. “U.S. Imposes Stiff Sanctions on Russia, Blaming It for Major Hacking Operation.” The New York Times. The White House. April 15, 2021. “FACT SHEET: Imposing Costs for Harmful Foreign Activities by the Russian Government.” The White House. April 15, 2021. “Executive Order on Blocking Property with Respect to Specified Harmful Foreign Activities of the Government of the Russian Federation.” Reutuers. April 13, 2021. “NATO, not Russia, will decide if Ukraine joins, Stoltenberg says.” Vladimir Isachenkov. April 9, 2021. “Kremlin says it fears full-scale fighting in Ukraine's east.” AP News. Civil.ge. January 20, 2021. “Secretary-designate Blinken Says NATO Door Shall Remain Open to Georgia.” Hans M. Kristensen and Matt Korda. January 12, 2021. “Nuclear Notebook: United States nuclear weapons, 2021.” The Bulletin. Andrew Feinberg. January 9, 2021. “Two years after his infamous phone call with Trump, Zelensky comes to Washington.” The Independent. David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Julian E. Barnes. January 2, 2021. “As Understanding of Russian Hacking Grows, So Does Alarm.” The New York Times. David E. Sanger, Nicole Perlroth and Eric Schmitt. December 14, 2020. “Scope of Russian Hacking Becomes Clear: Multiple U.S. Agencies Were Hit”. The New York Times. Mark Episkopos. November 11, 2020. “Ukraine's Power Play on Minsk.” The National Interest. Government Accountability Office. October 21, 2020. “Crude Oil Markets: Effects of the Repeal of the Crude Oil Export Ban, GAO-21-118.” Anthony B. Cavender, Thomas A. Campbell, Dan LeFort, Paul S. Marston. December 23, 2015. “U.S. Repeals Longstanding Ban on Export of Crude Oil.” Pillsbury Law. Robert Parry. July 15, 2015. “The Ukraine Mess That Nuland Made.” Truthout. Robert Parry. March 19, 2015. “Ukraine's Poison Pill for Peace Talks.” Consortium News. “Full text of the Minsk agreement” February 12, 2015. Financial Times. NATO. May 8, 2014. “Article 23.” Bucharest Summit Declaration Seumas Milne. April 30, 2014. “It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war.” The Guardian. David Morrison. Updated May 9, 2014. “How William Hague Deceived the House of Commons on Ukraine.” HuffPost. US Energy Information Administration. March 15, 2014. “16% of Natural Gas Consumed in Europe Flows Through Ukraine.” Energy Central. Robert Parry. February 27, 2014. “Cheering a ‘Democratic' Coup in Ukraine.” Common Dreams. “Ukraine crisis: Transcript of leaked Nuland-Pyatt call.” February 7, 2014. BBC News. Adam Taylor. December 16, 2013. “John McCain Went To Ukraine And Stood On Stage With A Man Accused Of Being An Anti-Semitic Neo-Nazi.” Insider. Brian Whelan. December 16, 2013. “Far-right group at heart of Ukraine protests meet US senator.” Channel 4 News. Guardian staff and agencies. December 15, 2013. “John McCain tells Ukraine protesters: 'We are here to support your just cause.'” The Guardian. International Monetary Fund (IMF). October 31, 2013. “Statement by IMF Mission to Ukraine, Press Release No. 13/419.” Carl Gershman. September 26, 2013. “Former Soviet States Stand Up to Russia. Will the U.S.?” The Washington Post. Amanda Winkler. November 14, 2011. “'60 Minutes' Exposes Congressional Insider Trading.” The Christian Post. Images USAID and Ukraine Privatization Fund Bills S.1605 - National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 Sponsor: Sen. Scott, Rick [R-FL] Audio Sources President Biden White House Departure December 8, 2021 President Biden briefly stopped and spoke with reporters as he departed the White House for an event in Kansas City, Missouri. He began by addressing the Omicron variant, saying that the Pfizer vaccine is showing encouraging results against the COVID-19 variant. When asked about Russian President Putin and Ukraine, President Biden said if Putin were to invade Ukraine, there “will be severe consequences.” He went on to say that putting U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine is currently “not in the cards.” close Report Video Issue Clips Biden: We hope by Friday, we're going to be able to say and announce to you that we're having meetings at a higher level, not just with us, but with at least four of our major NATO allies and Russia to discuss the future of Russia's concerns relative to NATO writ large. And whether or not we can work out any accommodations as it relates to bringing down the temperature along the eastern front. Biden: We have a moral obligation and a legal obligation to our NATO allies if they were to attack under Article Five, it's a sacred obligation. That obligation does not extend to NATO, I mean to Ukraine, but it would depend upon what the rest of the NATO countries were willing to do as well. But the idea of the United States is going to unilaterally use force to confront Russia invading Ukraine is not in the cards right now. Biden: Meeting with Putin. I was very straightforward. There were no minced words. It was polite, but I made it very clear, if in fact, he invades Ukraine, there will be severe consequences, severe consequences. Economic consequences, like none he's ever seen or ever had been seen in terms of ease and flows. He knows his immediate response was he understood that and I indicated I knew he would respond. But beyond that, if in fact, we would probably also be required to reinforce our presence in NATO countries to reassure particularly those on the Eastern Front. In addition to that, I made it clear that we would provide the defensive capability to the Ukrainians as well. Hearing on U.S. Policy Toward Russia Senate Committee on Foreign Relations December 7, 2021 Victoria Nuland, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, testified at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on U.S. policy toward Russia. She addressed President Biden's earlier call with Russian President Vladimir Putin and said that Russia would suffer severe consequences if it attacked Ukraine. Other topics included the use of sanctions if Russia invades Ukraine, the cooperation of NATO and U.S. allies, Russia's use of energy during conflict, and the Nord Stream 2 Pipeline 00:20 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): As we meet here today Russia is engaged in one of the most significant troop buildups that we have seen along Ukraine's border. To nyone paying attention, this looks like more than posturing, more than attention seeking. The Kremlin's actions clearly pose a real threat of war. 00:40 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I want to be crystal clear to those listening to this hearing in Moscow, Kiev and other capitals around the world. A Russian invasion will trigger devastating economic sanctions the likes of which we have never seen before. 00:59 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I proposed a suite of options last month in an amendment to the NDA. The Russian banking sector would be wiped out, sovereign debt would be blocked, Russia would be removed from the Swift payment system, sectoral sanctions would cripple the Russian economy. Putin himself as well as his inner circle would lose access to bank accounts in the West. Russia would effectively be cut off and isolated from the international economic system. Let me be clear, these are not run of the mill sanctions. What is being discussed is at the maximum end of the spectrum, or as I have called it the mother of all sanctions, and I hope that we can come together in a bipartisan way to find a legislative path forward soon, so that we can achieve that. 1:51 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): If Putin invades Ukraine the implications will be devastating for the Russian economy but also for the Russian people. 2:24 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): But is the Kremlin really ready to face a bloody, persistent and drawn out insurgency? How many body bags is Putin willing to accept? 6:03 Sen James Risch (R-ID): This is a clearly clearly bipartisan matter. 7:40 Victoria Nuland: First, let me review what we are seeing. Over the past six weeks, Russia has stepped up planning for potential further military action in Ukraine, positioning close to 100,000 troops around Ukraine's eastern and northern borders and from the south via the Crimean peninsula. Russian plans and positioning of assets also include the means to destabilize Ukraine from within, and an aggressive information operation and an attempt to undermine Ukrainian stability and social cohesion and to pin the blame for any potential escalation on Kiev, and on NATO nations including the United States. Russia's military and intelligence services are continuing to develop the capability to act decisively in Ukraine when ordered to do so, potentially in early 2022. The intended force, if fully mobilized, would be twice the size of what we saw last spring, including approximately 100 battalion tactical groups, or nearly all of Russia's ready ground forces based west of the Urals. We don't know whether President Putin has made a decision to attack Ukraine or to overthrow its government. But we do know he's building the capacity to do so. 10:42 Victoria Nuland: Since 2014 The United States has provided Ukraine with $2.4 billion in security assistance including $450 million this year alone 12:00 Victoria Nuland: Diplomacy remains the best route to settle the conflict in Donbas and address any other problems or grievances. The Minsk agreements offer the best basis for negotiations and the US is prepared to support a revived effort if the parties welcome that. 15:16 Victoria Nuland: You might have seen a press conference today that commission Chairwoman van der Laan gave in Brussels in which she made absolutely clear that the EU would also join in very consequential economic measures of the kind that they have not employed before. 23:26 Victoria Nuland: It's also important, I think, for President Putin to understand as the President conveyed to him today, that this will be different than it was in 2014. If he goes in you will recall then that our sanctions escalated somewhat gradually as he didn't stop moving. This time the intent is to make clear that the initial sanctions in response to any further aggressive moves in Ukraine will be extremely significant and isolating for Russia and for Russian business and for the Russian people. 24:51 Victoria Nuland: As you know, energy is the cash cow that enables these kinds of military deployments. So Putin needs the energy to flow as as much as the consumers need it. But more broadly, we have been counseling Europe for almost a decade now to reduce its dependence on Russian energy, including our opposition to Nord Stream 2 and our opposition to Nord Stream 1 and our opposition to to TurkStream and TurkStream 2 and to have come to find alternative sources of hydrocarbons but also to continue their efforts to go green and end their dependencies. 30:55 Sen. Todd Young (R-IN): President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have repeatedly indicated that they seek to deny any potential path to NATO membership for Ukraine and other Eastern European countries. Does the administration view this demand is a valid issue for negotiation? Victoria Nuland: No we do not and President Biden made that point crystal clear to President Putin today that the issue of who joins NATO is an issue for NATO to decide it's an issue for applicant countries to decide that no other outside power will or may have a veto or a vote in those decisions. 32:22 Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): Senator Portman and I offered an amendment to this year's NDAA in that vein to increase military assistance and raise the amount of assistance that could go to lethal weapons. 33:21 Victoria Nuland: But we will not be shy about coming to you as we as we need support and the bipartisan spirit here is really gratifying. 34:08 Victoria Nuland: At the NATO ministerial last week, there was a commitment among allies that we needed more advice and more options from our NATO military authorities with regard to the consequences of any move by Russia deeper into Ukraine and what that would mean for the eastern edge of the alliance and what it would mean about our need to be more forward deployed in the east. 34:44 Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH): Belarus now that it is seems to be totally within Russia's control also presents another front for the potential for Russia to invade Ukraine. Can you speak to whether we view what's happening in Belarus in that way? I know that Ukrainians view it that way because we heard that when we were in Halifax for the international security forum and met with some Ukrainian officials. Victoria Nuland: Well, as as you know, Senator, the situation in Belarus is just tragic and really concerning in many, many ways, which is why the administration along with the European Union in a multilateral way increased sanctions just last week, including blocking the sale to us or to Europe of one of the great sources of Lukashenko has money potash, etc, and sanction some dozens more Belarusians responsible for the violence and intimidation there and particularly now for the weaponization of migrants pushing you know, accepting them from third countries and then pushing them against the EU's border in a very cynical and dangerous way. But I think you're talking about the potential as Lukashenko becomes more and more dependent on the Kremlin and gives up more and more of Belarus is sovereignty, something that he told his people he would never do that Russia could actually use Belarusian territory to march on Ukraine and or mask, its forces as Belarusian forces. All of those -- Those are both things that that we are watching, and it was particularly concerning to see President Lukashenko would make a change in his own posture with regard to Crimea. He had long declined to recognize Russia Russia's claim on Crimea, but he changed tack a week ago which is concerning. 39:08 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): If there's one thing that Vladimir Putin aught to understand is how unified we are. I mean, there are many things that divide us politically in this country. But when it comes to pushing back on Russian aggression, supporting countries like Ukraine that are trying to develop their freedom, free themselves from their legacy of corruption from their former involvement with the Soviet Union, we are very strongly united. 39:56 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): What we impose on them and how and how harmful it would be to Russia, you know, unfortunately to Russian people. 40:36 Victoria Nuland: What we're talking about would amount to essentially isolating Russia completely from the global financial system with all of the fallout that that would entail for Russian business, for the Russian people, for their ability to, to work and travel and trade. 41:41 Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made, and if at all possible, prevent the Nord Stream 2 from ever being completed. Is that something that is being discussed with allies is that something's being contemplated? Victoria Nuland: Absolutely. And as if, as you recall from the July U.S.-German statement that was very much in that statement that if that any moves, Russian aggression against Ukraine would have a direct impact on the pipeline, and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): So again, direct impact is one thing, but I'm literally talking about rolling back the pipeline. Loosely define that but I mean, taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational. Victoria Nuland: I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine, our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI): Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but from ending it permanently. 44:28 Victoria Nuland: I think we can, and I know this is close to your heart as well, need to do better in our Global Engagement Center and in the way we speak to audiences around the world and particularly on these kinds of subjects. 55:04 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): But something different has happened in that country since what has been referred to as the Revolution of Dignity. I got the chance to be there on the Maidan during the midst of that revolution with you and Senator McCain. 58:56 Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT): The Three Seas Initiative is a really important initiative linking essentially the ring of countries that are either former republics or satellite states of the Soviet Union together. They're begging for US participation in their projects necessary to make them more energy independent of Russia. Isn't this an opportunity for the United States to step up and take some of these customers away from Russia's gas station? Victoria Nuland: Absolutely, as we have been doing with our support for more LNG terminals around Europe for many years, as we are doing now in our support for, you know, green alternatives, not just in the United States, but in Europe as well. And many, many US companies are involved with that. But that particular belt of three C's countries is absolutely crucial, as you've said. 1:11:19 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): I visited to Maidan in 2014. The tires were still smoldering and the Revolution of Dignity changed everything. You know, Ukraine decided to turn to us and to the West, and to freedom and democracy. And it was a momentous decision. They chose to stand with us. And now it's our turn to stand with them. And we've done that over the years. I mean, if you look at what happened with regard to the Ukraine security assistance initiative, which I co authored. Over the past six years, the United States has transferred defense articles, conducted training with Ukrainian military. We have been very engaged. 1:12:05 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): This week we have the NDAA likely to be voted on and likely it will include an increase in that lethal defensive funding. 1:12:14 Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH): What defensive weapons has Ukraine ask for and what is the State Department willing to provide them under an expedited process? 1:18:44 Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): My concern is this: if the United States and the West's response to a military invasion is sanctions, but no military response, obviously, we're providing military aid to Ukraine. And we've been generous in that way. But if we are not willing to help a Ukrainian military, that's 50,000 people matched up against Russia, I would think that China would conclude, boy, the West sure, I'm going to come to the aid of Taiwan, if we were to do something on Taiwan. Because China would conclude, we're much more militarily powerful than Russia is. And the status questions about Taiwan and sovereignty are a little bit murkier than those about Ukraine. And there's no NATO in the Indo Pacific, we have allies in the Indo Pacific but we don't have a NATO with a charter, with a self defense article. I think China would determine, if the West responds to a military invasion went as far as sanctions but no further, that the United States and other nations would be extremely unlikely to use military force to counter a military invasion of Taiwan. And I think Taiwan would likely conclude the same thing. So I'm very concerned about that. And I wonder, is that a fair concern that I have about how the Chinese and the Taiwanese would view the West's unwillingness to provide more significant military support to stop an invasion by Russia? Is my concern a fair one? Or is my concern overwrought? Victoria Nuland: Senator, in this setting, I would simply say that this is a moment of testing. And I believe that both autocrats around the world and our friends around the world will watch extremely carefully what we do, and it will have implications for generations. Sen. Tim Kaine (D-VA): And those and those implications could go far beyond Ukraine. Victoria Nuland: They could go well beyond Europe. Yes. 1:22:00 Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL): Then I would imagine that he's already been publicly messaging what his asks are. The first is that we would pull back NATO forces from anywhere near their western border. The second is to completely rule out the admission probably not just of Ukraine, but Georgia as a member of NATO. And the third is to stop arming Ukraine. Of those three conditions that he's publicly messaged already, would the United States agreed to any of those three? Victoria Nuland: All of those would be unacceptable. 1:41:11 Victoria Nuland: And in fact you could argue that in the Donbas he did take control of some 40% of Ukraine's coal reserves which were a major energy input 1:42:04 Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ): I hope the one thing that anyone in the world who is watching this hearing today takes away is that even on some of the most contentious issues of the day, on this one, there is overwhelming, broad, bipartisan support for Ukraine there is overwhelming bipartisan support for its territorial integrity, there is overwhelming bipartisan support for swift and robust action. And after conversations with some of the members of the committee, I look to galvanize that in some tangible way legislatively as we wait for the days ahead as to what may or may not happen. Ukrainian President Zelensky Meeting with Secretary Austin at the Pentagon August 31, 2021 Secretary Lloyd Austin: As you know sir, President Biden has approved a new $60 million security assistance package including Javelin anti-armor systems and more to enable Ukraine to better defend itself against Russian aggression. Secretary Lloyd Austin: Now this department is committed to strengthening our Strategic Defense Partnership. The US Ukraine strategic defense framework that Minister Tehran and I will sign today enhances our cooperation and advances our shared priorities, such as ensuring that our bilateral security cooperation continues to help Ukraine countering Russian aggression and implementing defense and defense industry reforms in support of Ukraine's NATO membership aspirations, and deepening our cooperation in such areas as Black Sea security, cyber defense and intel sharing. Russian President Putin Annual Call-In Program June 30, 2021 Russian President Vladimir Putin held his annual call-in question and answer session with citizens from around the country. During this 70-minute portion, he answered questions on relations with Ukraine, the European Union, and the United States, reiterating that whatever sanctions are imposed against Russia, his country's economy will prevail. Clips Putin: I have already said that it is impossible and it makes no sense to try to restore the Soviet Union by a number of reasons and looking at the demographic processes in a number of former Soviet republic, so it's unreasonable effort to do because we can face a lot of social problems that will be possible to resolve and some issues like the ethnic groups, in various regions, but what should we do about Russia itself without the geopolitical realities and about our internal development? Putin: Why is Ukraine not on the list of countries who are Russia's adversaries? Another question: are you going to meet with Zelensky? Well, why Ukriane is not on the list of adversaries? That's because I do not think that the Ukrainian people are our adversaries. I said it many times and I will say it again. The Ukrainians and Russians, that's one people, one nation. Putin: What I'm worried about is a fundamental thing. They are trying to open up military bases near or inside Ukraine. Making the territory of Ukraine, the territory that's close on the border with Russia a military platform for other countries is a threat to the security of Russia. And this is what worries us. This is what we have to think about. Discussion: Foreign Affairs Issue Launch with Former Vice President Joe Biden Council on Foreign Affairs January 23, 2018 Clips 00:06:15 Joe Biden: They cannot compete against a unified West. I think that is Putin's judgment. And so everything he can do to dismantle the post-World War II liberal world order, including NATO and the EU, I think, is viewed as in their immediate self-interest. 00:24:15 Haass: In the piece, the two of you say that there's no truth that the United States—unlike what Putin seems to believe or say, that the U.S. is seeking regime change in Russia. So the question I have is, should we be? And if not, if we shouldn't be seeking regime change, what should we be seeking in the way of political change inside Russia? What's an appropriate agenda for the United States vis-à-vis Russia, internally? 00:24:30 Biden: I'll give you one concrete example. I was—not I, but it just happened to be that was the assignment I got. I got all the good ones. And so I got Ukraine. And I remember going over, convincing our team, our leaders to—convincing that we should be providing for loan guarantees. And I went over, I guess, the 12th, 13th time to Kiev. And I was supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from Poroshenko and from Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor. And they didn't. So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I'm not going to—or, we're not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You're not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I'm telling you, you're not getting the billion dollars. I said, you're not getting the billion. I'm going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I'm leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you're not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time. Confirmation Hearing: Defense Secretary Confirmation Hearing Senate Armed Services Committee January 12, 2017 00:20:15 Sen. McCain: For seven decades, the United States has played a unique role in the world. We've not only put America first, but we've done so by maintaining and advancing a world order that has expanded security, prosperity, and freedom. This has required our alliances, our trade, our diplomacy, our values, but most of all, our military for when would-be aggressors aspire to threaten world order. It's the global striking power of America's armed forces that must deter or thwart their ambitions. Too many Americans, too many Americans seem to have forgotten this in recent years. Too many have forgotten that our world order is not self-sustaining. Too many have forgotten that while the threats we face may not have purely military solutions, they all have military dimensions. In short, too many have forgotten that hard power matters—having it, threatening it, leveraging it for diplomacy, and, at times, using it. Fairly or not, there is a perception around the world that America is weak and distracted, and that has only emboldened our adversaries to challenge the current world order. Daily Briefing: Nuland Tape Press Conference February 6, 2014. Jen Psaki, State Department Spokesperson 0:19 Reporter: Can you say whether you—if this call is a recording of an authentic conversation between Assistant Secretary Nuland and Ambassador Pyatt? Jen Psaki: Well, I'm not going to confirm or outline details. I understand there are a lot of reports out there, and there's a recording out there, but I'm not going to confirm a private diplomatic conversation. Reporter: So you are not saying that you believe this is a—you think this is not authentic? You think this is a— Psaki: It's not an accusation I'm making. I'm just not going to confirm the specifics of it. Reporter: Well, you can't even say whether there was a—that this call—you believe that this call, you believe that this recording is a recording of a real telephone call? Psaki: I didn't say it was inauthentic. I think we can leave it at that. Reporter: Okay, so, you're allowing the fact that it is authentic. Psaki: Yes. Reporter: “Yes,” okay. Psaki: Do you have a question about it? Phone Conversation: Nuland-Pyatt Leaked Phone Conversation February 4, 2014 Nuland: Good. So I don't think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea. Pyatt: Yeah, I mean I guess, in terms of him not going into the government, just sort of letting him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of, sort of, the process moving ahead, we want to keep the moderate Democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what Yanukovych is calculating on all this. Nuland: I think Yatz [Arseniy Yatsenyuk] is the guy with the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the guy. What he needs is Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] And Tyahnybok On the outside, he needs to be talking to them four times a week. You know, I just think Klitsch [Vitali Klitschko] Going in he's going to be at that level working for Yatsenyuk it's just not gonna work. Pyatt: We want to get someone out here with and international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. And then the other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych. We'll probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things fall into place. Nuland: So on that piece, Jeff, I wrote the note, Sullivan's come back to me saying “you need Biden,” and I said probably tomorrow for an attaboy and get the deeds to stick, Biden's willing. Pyatt Great. Press Conference: Senator John McCain on Ukraine at the Atlantic Council C-SPAN December 19, 2013. 00:16:45 McCain: If Ukraine's political crisis persists or deepens, which is a real possibility, we must support creative Ukrainian efforts to resolve it. Senator Murphy and I heard a few such ideas last weekend—from holding early elections, as the opposition is now demanding, to the institution of a technocratic government with a mandate to make the difficult reforms required for Ukraine's long-term economic health and sustainable development. Decisions such as these are for Ukrainians to make—no one else—and if they request our assistance, we should provide it where possible. Finally, we must encourage the European Union and the IMF to keep their doors open to Ukraine. Ultimately, the support of both institutions is indispensable for Ukraine's future. And eventually, a Ukrainian President, either this one or a future one, will be prepared to accept the fundamental choice facing the country, which is this: While there are real short-term costs to the political and economic reforms required for IMF assistance and EU integration, and while President Putin will likely add to these costs by retaliating against Ukraine's economy, the long-term benefits for Ukraine in taking these tough steps are far greater and almost limitless. This decision cannot be borne by one person alone in Ukraine. Nor should it be. It must be shared—both the risks and the rewards—by all Ukrainians, especially the opposition and business elite. It must also be shared by the EU, the IMF and the United States. All of us in the West should be prepared to help Ukraine, financially and otherwise, to overcome the short-term pain that reforms will require and Russia may inflict. Discussion: Beyond NAFTA and GATT C-SPAN April 20, 1994 Arthur Dunkel, Director General of the UN 26:00:00 Dunkel: If I look back at the last 25 years, what did we have? We had two worlds: The so-called Market Economy world and the centrally planned world; the centrally planned world disappeared. One of the main challenges of the Uruguay round has been to create a world wide system. I think we have to think of that. Secondly, why a world wide system? Because, basically, I consider that if governments cooperate in trade policy field, you reduce the risks of tension – political tension and even worse than that.” Cover Art Design by Only Child Imaginations Music Presented in This Episode Intro & Exit: Tired of Being Lied To by David Ippolito (found on Music Alley by mevio)

Amending the Constitution The procedure for amending the Constitution is outlined in Article Five (see above). The process is overseen by the archivist of the United States. Between 1949 and 1985, it was overseen by the administrator of General Services, and before that by the secretary of state. Under Article Five, a proposal for an amendment must be adopted either by Congress or by a national convention, but as of 2020 all amendments have gone through Congress. The proposal must receive two-thirds of the votes of both houses to proceed. It is passed as a joint resolution, but is not presented to the president, who plays no part in the process. Instead, it is passed to the Office of the Federal Register, which copies it in slip law format and submits it to the states. Congress decides whether the proposal is to be ratified in the state legislature or by a state ratifying convention. To date all amendments have been ratified by the state legislatures except one, the Twenty-first Amendment. A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 states). There is no further step. The text requires no additional action by Congress or anyone else after ratification by the required number of states. Thus, when the Office of the Federal Register verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the nation's frame of government. This certification is published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification process has been successfully completed. Ratified amendments. The Constitution has twenty-seven amendments. Structurally, the Constitution's original text and all prior amendments remain untouched. The precedent for this practice was set in 1789, when Congress considered and proposed the first several Constitutional amendments. Among these, Amendments 1 thru 10 are collectively known as the Bill of Rights, and Amendments 13 thru 15 are known as the Reconstruction Amendments. Excluding the Twenty-seventh Amendment, which was pending before the states for 202 years, 225 days, the longest pending amendment that was successfully ratified was the Twenty-second Amendment, which took 3 years, 343 days. The Twenty-sixth Amendment was ratified in the shortest time, 100 days. The average ratification time for the first twenty-six amendments was 1 year, 252 days; for all twenty-seven, 9 years, 48 days. --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

How can we be sure that the Resurrection really occurred? How was Jesus' Resurrection different to Lazarus'? Why do we say Christ 'descended into hell' in the Creed?In this episode, we discuss Christ's Resurrection, and what it means for us as Christians today.This episode covers Part One, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five of the Catechism.Contact the podcast: crashcoursecatholicism@gmail.com.Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/crashcoursecatholicism/.....References and further reading/listening/viewing:On Christ's descent into hell:1 Peter 4:6.Luke 16:22-23On the Resurrection:1 Corinthians 15:20-27Peter Kreeft, Evidence for the Resurrection. The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Resurrection of Jesus Christ”. St. Thomas' Aquinas. Summa Theologiae. Part Three, Question 53.Bishop Barron's videos on the Resurrection (there are so many and they're all so good but these are my favs):Easter Homily 2020. What does the Resurrection Actually Mean? The Terror of the Grave and the Truth of the Resurrection. On the Resurrection of Jesus. On the Meaning of the Resurrection. On His glorified body and the promise of new life:Catholic Answers. What Was Christ's Resurrected Body Made Of? Tolkein, J.R.R. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers. Book Three, Chapter V, “The White Rider”. Here's a cool YouTube clip of the Gandalf the White reveal from the movie. Watch from around 1:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lhHDXimoLc Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. Chapter Four.

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". This concept views the Constitution as stable from the time of enactment and that the meaning of its contents can be changed only by the steps set out in Article Five. This notion stands in contrast to the concept of the Living Constitution, which asserts that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the context of current times and political identities, even if such interpretation is different from the original interpretations of the document. Living constitutionalists sometimes argue that we cannot apply an original understanding of the Constitution because the document is too old and too cryptic. Proponents of originalism argue that originalism has historically been the primary method of legal interpretation in America from the time of its founding until the time of the New Deal, when competing theories of interpretation grew in prominence. Originalism was used by proponents of segregation to argue in opposition to civil rights legislation during the 1960s. Originalism is an umbrella term for interpretative methods that hold to the "fixation thesis", the notion that an utterance's semantic content is fixed at the time it is uttered. Originalists seek one of two alternative sources of meaning: The original intent theory, which holds that interpretation of a written constitution is (or should be) consistent with what was meant by those who drafted and ratified it. This is currently a minority view among originalists. Alfred Avins and Raoul Berger (author of Government by Judiciary) are associated with this view. The original meaning theory, which is closely related to textualism, is the view that interpretation of a written constitution or law should be based on what reasonable persons living at the time of its adoption would have understood the ordinary meaning of the text to be. Most originalists, such as Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett, are associated with this view. Such theories share the view that there is an identifiable original intent or original meaning, contemporaneous with the ratification of a constitution or statute, which should govern its subsequent interpretation. The divisions between the theories relate to what exactly that identifiable original intent or original meaning is: the intentions of the authors or the ratifiers, the original meaning of the text, a combination of the two, or the original meaning of the text but not its expected application. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

On today's episode: Morning waking time seems to be related to risk of depression. Giraffes have high blood pressure, but they don't seem to care! Zombie fires are lurking in boreal forests! All that and more today on All Around Science. LINKS: ARTICLE: Morning waking time seems to be related to risk of depression ARTICLE: Heads up! The cardiovascular secrets of giraffes ARTICLE: Five years after Fort McMurray fire, researchers warn of wildfire risk from peatlands THEME MUSIC by Andrew Allen https://twitter.com/KEYSwithSOUL http://andrewallenmusic.com

We continue the series of lessons about the Apostles' Creed by addressing Article 5. This article confesses the following regarding Jesus: “The third day He rose again from the dead.”

New Parents: Five Tips Dental Hygienists Should Be Sharing By Anaika Forbes-Grant, RDH, BSDH, MSDH Original article published on Today's RDH: https://www.todaysrdh.com/new-parents-five-tips-dental-hygienists-should-be-sharing/ Podcast audio article sponsored by Philips Oral Care. Be the first to know the latest from Philips when you join their email list at http://philipsoralhealthcare.com/. Get information about special promotions and new products, practice-building tips, and resources to help you empower patients to practice healthy routines at home. Get daily dental hygiene articles at https://www.todaysrdh.com Follow Today's RDH on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TodaysRDH/ Follow Kara RDH on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/DentalHygieneKaraRDH/ Follow Kara RDH on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/kara_rdh/

Amending the Constitution. The procedure for amending the Constitution is outlined in Article Five. The process is overseen by the archivist of the United States. Between 1949 and 1985 it was overseen by the administrator of General Services, and before that by the secretary of state. Under Article Five, a proposal for an amendment must be adopted either by Congress or by a national convention, but as of 2020 all amendments have gone through Congress. The proposal must receive two-thirds of the votes of both houses to proceed. It is passed as a joint resolution, but is not presented to the president, who plays no part in the process. Instead, it is passed to the Office of the Federal Register, which copies it in slip law format and submits it to the states. Congress decides whether the proposal is to be ratified in the state legislature or by a state ratifying convention. To date all amendments have been ratified by the state legislatures except one, the Twenty-first Amendment. A proposed amendment becomes an operative part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (currently 38 of the 50 states). There is no further step. The text requires no additional action by Congress or anyone else after ratification by the required number of states. Thus, when the Office of the Federal Register verifies that it has received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and has become part of the nation's frame of government. This certification is published in the Federal Register and United States Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to Congress and to the nation that the ratification process has been successfully completed. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/law-school/support

Experiencing church for the first time as a twenty year old young man was quite the experience. I’ve been a part of brush arbor revivals, where you go out into a field and gather some sticks and build a structure to have a church service in. I’ve been in church services where they couldn’t find anyone to play the piano or... Read the full article at https://www.pastorresources.com/five-elements-of-a-great-worship-experience/ Written by Travis Stephens I am a husband, father, and executive pastor of a small town church that went big. I have a passion for helping pastors grow themselves and the churches they serve. You can find out more about me and my ministry at http://travisstephens.me Read by http://www.homesuitehomestudio.com/

Things often don’t go according to plan. In this episode, featuring a feverish and frustrated Jen Briney, learn about the shamefully rushed process employed by the Democrats to pass their top priority bill, H.R. 1, through the House of Representatives. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Click here to contribute monthly or a lump sum via PayPal Click here to support Congressional Dish for each episode via Patreon Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: 5753 Hwy 85 North, Number 4576, Crestview, FL 32536 Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes CD129: The Impeachment of John Koskinen Bill Outline: HR 1 For The People Act of 2019 Govtrack - Full Text Official title: “To expand American’s access to the ballot box, reduce the influence of big money in politics, and strengthen ethics rules for public servants, and for other purposes.” Short Title: For the People Act of 2019 Sponsor: Rep. John Sarbanes (MD-3) First co-sponsor: Nancy Pelosi Referred to 10 committees: House Administration House Intelligence (Permanent Select) House Judiciary House Oversight and Government Reform House Science, Space, and Technology House Education and the Workforce House Ways and Means House Financial Services House Ethics House Homeland Security Division A: Voting TITLE I: ELECTION ACCESS Subtitle A: Voter Registration Modernization “Voter Registration Modernization Act of 2019" Part 1: Promoting Internet Registration Sec. 1001: Every State Has to Allow Us To Register to Vote Online Requires every State to allow residents to register to vote online and be given an online receipt of their completed voter registration application Signatures can be electronic as long as the individual has a signature on file with a State agency, including the DMV. People who don’t have signatures on file can submit handwritten signatures through digital means or sign in person on Election Day. Signatures will be required on Election Day for people who registered to vote online and have not previously voted in a Federal election in that state. Sec. 1002: Every State Has To Allow Us To Update Our Registration Online States must allow registered voters to update their registrations online too Sec. 1003: Voter Information Online Instead Of Regular Mail Tells states to include a space for voters to submit an email address and get voting information via email instead of using regular mail (we may need that to be “in addition to”) Prohibits our emails from being given to anyone who is outside the government. The State will have to provide people who opted for emails, at least 7 days before the election, online information including the name and address of the voter’s polling place, that polling place’s hours, and which IDs the voter may need to vote at that polling place. Sec. 1004: 'Valid Voter Registration' Form Definition Defines what is a “valid voter registration form”: The form is accurate and the online applicant provided a signature. Sec. 1005: Effective Date: January 1, 2020. Part 2: Automatic Voter Registration “Automatic Voter Registration Act of 2019" Sec. 1012: Automatic Registration of Eligible Voters Every State will have to create and operate a system for automatically registering everyone eligible to vote “for Federal office in the State”. The States will have 15 days to register a person to vote after getting updated voter information from another agency. Sec. 1015: "Voter Protection and Security in Automatic Registration" Declining automatic registration can’t be used as evidence “In any State or Federal law enforcement proceeding" States will have to keep records of all changes to voter records, including removals and updates, for 2 years and make those available for public inspection. Gives the Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology the power to write the rules for how States can use voter information to deem a person ineligible and to write privacy and security standards for voter registration information Voter registration information “shall not be used for commercial purposes.” Sec. 1016: Corrections to Voter Information Can Be Done on Election Day Voters in all States would be able to update their address, name, or political party affiliation in person on Election Day, and they could vote using the corrected information using a regular ballot, not a provisional ballot. Sec. 1017: The Federal Government Will Pay to Make The Changes Authorizes $500 million for 2019, available until it’s gone. Sec. 1021: Effective Date - January 1, 2021 Part 3: Same Day Voter Registration Sec. 1031: Voters Can Register At the Polling Place On Election Day System would have to be in place by November 2020 Part 4: Conditions on Removal on Basis of Interstate Cross-Checks Sec. 1041: Requirements To Use Cross Check To Remove Voters Prohibits States from using interstate crosscheck systems to remove people from voter rules until the State receives the voter’s full name, including their middle name, date of birth, and last 4 digits of their social security numbers and if the State has documentation verifying the voter is no longer a resident of the State. Interstate cross checks can not be used to remove voters from rolls within six months of an election Effective date: Six months after enactment Part 7: Prohibiting Interference with Voter Registration Sec. 1071: Fines and Prison For Interference in Voter Registration People who prevent another person from registering to vote, or attempt to prevent another person from registering, “shall be fined” or imprisoned for up to five years, or both. Effective date: Elections on or after enactment Subtitle B: Access to Voting for Individuals With Disabilities  Subtitle C: Prohibiting Voter Caging  Sec. 1201: Prohibits Removal of Names Based Solely on Caging Lists State/local election officials will not be allowed to deny a voter registration if the decision is based on a voter caging document, an unverified match list, or an error on a registration that is not material to the citizen’s eligibility to vote. Challenges to voter registration by non-election officials will only be allowed if the person has personal knowledge documented in writing and subject to an attestation under penalty of perjury. Penalties for knowingly challenging the eligibility of someone else’s voter registration with the intent to disqualify that person is punishable by a fine and/or one year in prison for each violation. Subtitle D : Prohibiting Deceptive Practices and Preventing Voter Intimidation - “Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2019" Sec. 1302: Prohibits Lying To Prevent People From Voting Makes it illegal to communicate by any means false information regarding the time and place of an election, the voter’s registration status or eligibility, or criminal penalties for voting within 60 days of an election if the communication has the intent of preventing another person from voting. Makes it illegal, within 60 days of an election, to communicate by any means false information regarding an endorsement by a person or political party that didn’t actually happen. Penalties: A fine of up to $100,000, five years in prison, or both. The penalties are the same for attempts to lie to people to prevent them from voting. Subtitle E: Democracy Restoration - “Democracy Restoration Act of 2019" Sec. 1402: Voting Rights Extend to Ex-Cons “The right of an individual who is a citizen of the United States to vote in any election for Federal office shall not be denied or abridged because that individual has been convicted of a criminal offense unless such individual is serving a felony sentence in a correctional institution or facility at the time of the election." Sec. 1408: Effective for any election held after enactment Subtitle F: Promoting Accuracy, Integrity, and Security Through Verified Permanent Paper Ballot - “Voter Confidence and Increased Accessibility Act of 2019” Sec. 1502: Requires Paper Ballots for All Federal Elections Requires all voting systems to use individual paper ballots that are verified by the voter before their vote is cast which “shall be counted by hand or read by an optical character recognition device or other counting device” The paper ballots must be preserved as the official ballots and will be counted by hand for recounts and audits If there is a difference between the electronic vote count and the hand count of paper ballots, the hand count of paper ballots will be the final count. Subtitle H: Early Voting Sec. 1611: Every State Must Allow Early Voting for 15 Days Every State will be required to allow citizens to vote in Federal elections during the 15 days preceding the election, with polls open for at least 4 hours per day except on Sundays. Effective Date: Elections after January 1, 2020 Subtitle I: Voting by Mail Sec. 1621: Vote By Mail National Standards States can’t count absentee ballots until they match the signature on the ballot to the signature on the State’s official list of registered voters States must provide ballots and voting materials at least 2 weeks before the election Effective date: Elections held on or after January 1, 2020 Subtitle J: Absent Uniformed Services Voters and Overseas Voters Subtitle K: Poll Worker Recruitment and Training Sec. 1801: Federal Employees As Poll Workers Employees of Federal agencies will be allowed to be excused from work for up to 6 days in order to work in polling places on Election Day and for training. Subtitle L: Enhancement of Enforcement Subtitle M: Federal Election Integrity Sec. 1821: Head of Elections Can’t Campaign for Elections They Oversee It will be illegal for a chief State election administration official to take part in a political campaign “with respect to any election for Federal office over which such official has supervisory authority” Subtitle N: Promoting Voter Access Through Election Administration Improvements  Sec. 1902: Notification for Polling Place Changes States must notify voters at least seven days in advance if the State has changed their polling place to somewhere other than where they last voted Effective January 1, 2020 Sec. 1903: Election Day Holiday The Tuesday after the first Monday in November 2020 and each even-numbered year after that will be treated as a legal public holiday Encourages, but does not require, the private sector to give their workers the day off for elections Sec. 1904: Sworn Written Statements to Meet ID Requirements If a State requires an ID to vote, a person may vote if they provide, in person, a sworn written statement signed under penalty of perjury attesting to their identity and that they are eligible to vote, unless they are first time voters in the State. Effective for elections occurring on or after enactment Sec. 1905: Postage Free Ballots Absentee ballots will not require postage The Post Office will be reimbursed by States for the lost revenue TITLE II: ELECTION INTEGRITY Subtitle E: Redistricting Reform - “Redistricting Reform Act of 2019” Sec. 2402: Independent Commissions for Redistricting Congressional redistricting must be done by an independent redistricting commission established in the State or by a plan development and enacted into law by a 3 judge court of the US District Court for the District of Columbia Sec. 2411: Creating the Independent Redistricting Commissions The Commissions will be made up of 15 members from the “selection pool” (see Sec. 2412) 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 belonging to the political party with the second most registered voters in the State 5 members will be selected randomly from the 12 who are not affiliated with the two largest political parties The Chair must be a member of the group that is not affiliated with the largest two parties in the State and will be selected via a majority vote of the commission The State can not finalize a redistricting plan unless the plan gets a vote from someone in each of the three membership categories and it passes with a majority of the commission voting yes. Contractors for the commission can be required to provide their political contribution history Sec. 2412: Eligibility for the Independent Commission “Selection Pool” To qualify, the individual must... Be registered to vote Either be with the same political party or with no political party for the previous 3 years Submits an application including a declaration of their political party, if they belong to one, and a commitment to impartiality. An individual is disqualified if the individual or an immediate family member within the 5 years preceding their appointment... Holds public office or is a candidate for public office Serves as an officer of a political party or as a political party consultant Is a registered lobbyist Is an employee of an elected public official, a contractor with the legislature of a State, or a donor who gives more than $20,000 to candidates for public offices. The selection pool will have 36 individuals made up of... 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals affiliated with the political party with the second largest percentage of registered voters in the State 12 individuals who are not affiliated with either of the two largest political parties The selection pool must be approved by the State’s Select Committee on Redistricting Inaction is a rejection of the selection pool Sec. 2413: Criteria for New Districts Districts must be created using this criteria in this order: Districts must comply with the Constitution, including the requirement that the equalize total population Districts must comply with the Voting Rights Act and all Federal laws Districts can’t be drawn in a way that dilutes the ability for minority communities to elect candidates Districts must minimize the division of neighborhoods, counties, municipalities, and school districts “to the extent practicable” Districts may not be drawn to favor or disfavor any political party The commission may not consider the political party affiliation or voting history of the district’s population or the resident of any member of the House of Representatives when drawing the district maps All meetings must be held in public, must take comments into consideration and they must publish information, including video archives, about their meetings on a public website Sec. 2431: Authorizes payments to States of $150,000 per district to help pay for the redistricting process Subtitle F: Saving Voters from Voter Purging -“Stop Automatically Voiding Eligible Voters Off Their Enlisted Rolls in States Act” - “Save Voters Act”  Sec. 2502: Restricting Voter Roll Purges States can’t use the failure of a voter to vote or the voter’s failure to respond to a notice as the basis for removing their name from the voter rolls TITLE III: ELECTION SECURITY Subtitle A: Financial Support for Election Infrastructure Part 1: Voting System Security Improvement Gains Part 2: Grants for Risk-Limiting Audits of Results of Elections Part 3: Election Infrastructure Innovation Grant Program Subtitle B: Security Measures Subtitle C: Enhancing Protections for United Stated Democratic Institutions Subtitle D : Promoting Cybersecurity Through Improvements in Election Administration Subtitle E: Preventing Election Hacking Division B: Campaign Finance TITLE IV: CAMPAIGN FINANCE TRANSPARENCY Subtitle B: DISCLOSE Act - “Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections Act”  Part 1: Regulation of Certain Political Spending Sec. 4101: Foreign Owned Corporations Count as “Foreign Nationals” Makes it illegal for a corporation, LLC, or partnership which is more than 5% owned by a foreign government or 20% owned by foreign individual to directly or indirectly make a contribution in connection with a Federal, State, or local election or a contribution to a political party. It’s also illegal for Americans to accept or solicit a contribution from “foreign nationals” (amends 52 U.S.C 30121(b)) Effective 180 days after enactment, regardless of if regulations are done Part 2: Reporting of Campaign-Related Disbursements Sec. 4111: Corporations Must Report Donations Any corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization (other than 501(c)3 “charities”) that make campaign contributions totaling more than $10,000 in the 2 year election cycle must file a statement containing the name of the donating organization, the business address, a list of that business or corporations’ controlling owners, and the name/address of the person who received each donation of more than $1,000. If the corporation, LLC, or tax exempt organization pays for a public communication, they must report the name of any candidate identified and whether the communication was in support or opposition to that candidate. Subtitle C: Honest Ads - “Honest Ads Act” Sec. 4205: Disclosure of Sources of Online Political Ads Extends political ad disclosure laws to internet and other digital communication Sec. 4207: Disclosures Must Be Clear Ads must include a statement telling us the name of the person who paid for the communication in a way that is not difficult to read or hear Sec. 4208: Public Record of Online Political Ads * Requires online platforms to create and make available online for public inspection a complete record of requests to purchase political advertisements if they purchase more than $500 worth in one calendar year Subtitle D : Stand by Every Ad - “Stand By Every Ad Act" Subtitle E: Secret Money Transparency Sec. 4401: IRS Can Investigate Dark Money Groups Again Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the IRS that prevented them from making sure tax exempt organizations aren’t using their funds for political expenditures Subtitle F: Shareholder Right-to-Know Sec. 4501: SEC Can Enforce Shareholder Disclosure Laws Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress on the Securities and Exchange Commission that prevented them from enforcing laws related to corporations informing shareholders about the corporations political activity. Subtitle G: Disclosure of Political Spending by Government Contractors Sec. 4601: Contractors Can Be Forced to Disclose Donations Repeals the restriction enacted by the 115th Congress that prevented requiring government contractors to report their political spending Subtitle H: Limitation and Disclosure Requirements for Presidential Inaugural Committees - “Presidential Inaugural Committee Oversight Act" TITLE V: CAMPAIGN FINANCE EMPOWERMENT Subtitle B: Congressional Elections - “Government By the People Act of 2019” Part 1: My Voice Voucher Pilot Program Sec. 5101: Voucher Pilot Program The Federal Election Commission will create an pilot program and select 3 states to operate it Sec. 5102: Pilot Program Details State’s will provided individuals who request one a “My Voice Voucher" worth $25 Individuals can give their voucher dollars, in $5 increments, to qualified candidates for Congress. Part 2: Small Dollar Financing of Congressional Election Campaigns Sec. 5111: 6x Matching of Small Dollar Donations Payments will be 600% of the amount of small dollar contributions received by the candidate during the Small Dollar Democracy qualifying period Small dollar contribution is between $1 and $200 Limit: The total amount of payments made to a candidate may not be more than 50% of the average of the “20 greatest amounts of disbursements made by the authorized committees of any winning candidate for the office of Representatives in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress during the most recent election cycle, rounded to the nearest $100,000.” Candidates can get an additional payment of up to $500,000 during the period between 60 days and 14 days before the election, which doesn’t count towards the total limit. Candidates are eligible if they can get 1,000 people to make a small dollar contribution and if the candidate can raise at least $50,000. Eligible candidates can’t take more than $1,000 total from any individual. Eligible candidates can’t use more than $50,000 in personal funds. Will be funded by a “Freedom of Influence Fund" Sec. 5112: Coordination with Parties Sec. 5114: Effective starting in 2024 elections Subtitle C: Presidential Elections - “Empower Act of 2019" Part 1: Primary Elections Part 2: General Elections Part 3: Effective Date Subtitle D : Personal Use Services as Authorized Campaign Expenditures - “Help America Run Act” TITLE VI: CAMPAIGN FINANCE OVERSIGHT Subtitle A: Restoring Integrity to America’s Elections Sec. 6002: Changes to FEC make up Subtitle B: Stopping Super PAC-Candidate Coordination Division C: Ethics TITLE VII: ETHICAL STANDARDS Subtitle B: Foreign Agents Registration Sec. 7101: New Department of Justice Investigation Unit Will be dedicated to enforcing the Foreign Agents Registration Act Subtitle C: Lobbying Disclosure Reform Sec. 7201: Expands Definition of “Lobbyist” To include people who provide “legislative, political, and strategic counseling services, research, and other background work” as lobbyists in terms of disclosure requirements Effective upon enactment Subtitle D : Recusal of Presidential Appointees Sec. 7301: Recusal of Appointees Any officer or employee appointed by the President must recuse themselves from any matter involving the President who appointed the officer or employee or that President’s spouse. TITLE VIII: ETHICS REFORMS FOR THE PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT, AND FEDERAL OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES Subtitle A: Executive Branch Conflict of Interest Sec. 8002: Prohibits Private Sector Payments for Entering Government Private companies can’t provide bonus payments, pensions, retirement, group life/health/accident insurance, profit-sharing, stock bonus, or other payments contingent on accepting a position in the U.S. Government. Sec. 8003: Slowing the Revolving Door Executive Branch employees can’t use their government position to “participate in a particular matter” if they know a company they worked for in the last two years has a financial interest. Penalty: Fine and/or 1 year in prison. Penalty for willful violation: Fine and/or up to 5 years in prison Civil penalties: The greater of $100,000 per violation or the amount the person received or was offered for conducting the violation Sec. 8004: Waiting Period For Procurement Officers To Work for Contractors A former official responsible for a government contract can not accept payments from any division, affiliate, or subcontractor of the chosen contractor for 2 years after awarding the contract. A government employee can not award a contract to his or her former employer for 2 years after they leave the company. Sec. 8005: Lobbying Job Waiting Period Senior level Executive Branch employees have to wait 2 years before they can be paid to influence their former colleagues Subtitle B: Presidential Conflicts of Interest Subtitle C: White House Ethics Transparency Subtitle D : Executive Branch Ethics Enforcement Subtitle E: Conflicts for Political Fundraising Sec. 8042: Disclosure of Certain Types of Contributions People who are nominated to high level Executive Branch offices will have to disclose their contributions to political organizations, 501(c)4’s, and 501(c)6’s. Subtitle F: Transition Team Ethics Subtitle G: Ethics Pledge for Senior Executive Branch Employees TITLE IX: CONGRESSIONAL ETHICS REFORM Subtitle A: Requiring members of Congress to Reimburse Treasury for Amounts Paid as Settlements and Awards Under Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 Subtitle B: Conflicts of Interest Sec. 9101: Members Can’t Be on For-Profit Boards of Directors Changes the House Rules so that members of the House of Representatives will not be allowed to serve on the board of "any for-profit entity" while serving in the House of Representatives. Sec. 9103: Prohibition Above Can Be Changed via House Rules Subtitle C: Campaign Finance and Lobbying Disclosure - “Connecting Lobbying and Electeds for Accountability and Reform Act” “CLEAR Act" Sec. 9202: Separate Reports for Lobbyist Donations Report submitted by political campaigns will have to report which donations are made by registered lobbyists in a separate statement (amends 52 U.S.C. 30104(b)) Sec. 9203: Effective 90 Days After Enactment Subtitle D : Access to Congressionally Mandated Reports Sec. 9303: Online Portal for Congressionally Mandated Reports Portal will create, within one year of enactment, an online portal providing free public digital access to all congressionally mandated reports Reports will be available within 30 days of their submission to Congress TITLE X: PRESIDENTIAL AND VICE PRESIDENTIAL TAX TRANSPARENCY Sec. 10001: Presidential and Vice Presidential Tax Return Disclosure Requires candidates for President and Vice President to submit their tax returns for the last 10 taxable years to the Federal Election Commission within 15 days of declaring their candidacy The chairman of the Federal Election Commission must make the candidates’ tax returns, with personal information redacted, publicly available Effective upon enactment    Additional Reading Article: 10 things you might not know about HR 1 by Lindsey McPherson and Kate Ackley, Roll Call, March 6, 2019. Article: Conservative expert privately warned GOP donors that a voting rights bill would help Democrats by Lee Fang and Nick Surgey, The Intercept, February 27, 2019. Article: House Democrats forge ahead on electoral reform bill by Zach Montellaro, Politico, February 26, 2019. Markup: H.R. 1, For the People Act of 2019, February 26 ,2019. Article: House Democrats officially unveil their first bill in the majority: a sweeping anti-corruption proposal by Ella Nilson, Vox, January 4, 2019. Article: One state fixed its gerrymandered districts, the other didnt. Here's how the election played out in both by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, November 9, 2018. Article: 6 takeaways from Georgia's 'Use It Or Lose It' voter purge investigation by Johnny Kauffman, NPR, October 22, 2018. Article: Registration is a voter-suppression tool. Let's finally end it by Ellen Kurz, The Washington Post, October 11, 2018. Report: Purges: A growing threat to the right to vote by Jonathan Brater, Kevin Morris, Myrna Pérez, and Christopher Deluzio, Brennan Center for Justice, July 20, 2018. Article: How Maryland Democrats pulled off their aggressive gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 28, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania Supreme Court draws 'much more competitive' district map to overturn Republican gerrymander by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, February 20, 2018. Article: Pennsylvania redistricting decision gives Democrats a boost by Bill Barrow and Mark Scolforo, AP News, February 6, 2018. Article: How redistricting became a technological arms race by Vann R. Newkirk II, The Atlantic, October 28, 2017. Article: Government by Goldman by Gary Rivlin and Michael Hudson, The Intercept, September 17, 2017. Article: The most gerrymandered states ranked by efficiency gap and seat advantage by Daniel McGlone and Esther Needham, Azavea, July 19, 2017. Article: Here are the first 10 members of Trump's voting commission by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, July 6, 2017. Article: 3 Trump Cabinet officials will still be receiving millions from corporate America by Jeff Stein, Vox, February 3, 2017. Article: Trump adviser Gary Cohn's $285 million Goldman Sachs exit raises eyebrows by Matt Egan, CNN Business, January 27, 2017. Article: The IRS gives up on fighting 'dark money' by Editorial Board, The Washington Post, February 19, 2016. Article: How Crossroads GPS beat the IRS and became a social welfare group by Robert Maguire, OpenSecrets.org, Febraury 12, 2016. Blog: Congress uses PATH to cut IRS off from Section 501(c)(4) social welfare regulations, Wagenmaker & Oberly, December 30, 2015. Article: This is the best explanation of gerrymandering you will ever see by Christopher Ingraham, The Washington Post, March 1, 2015. Article: Five 501(c)(3) groups that might have broken the law by Lee Fang, The Nation, May 21, 2013. Article: The voter-fraud myth by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, October 29, 2012. Article: Justice Dept. accused of partisan voter-roll purge by Pam Fessler, NPR, October 11, 2007. Resources Congressional Budget Office: H.R. 1, Estimated Effects on Direct Spending and Revenues Federal Election Commission: Using Campaign Funds for Personal Use How Stuff Works: PACs vs. Super PACs Research: All About Redistricting - Who draws the lines? Website: The Redistricting Majority Project Website: RepresentUs Sound Clip Sources Short Film: Unbreaking America: A NEW Short Film about Solving the Corruption Crisis, RepresentUs, YouTube, February 27, 2019. Full Committee Markup: H.R. 1, The For the People Act of 2019, Committee on House Administration, February 26, 2019. Youtube Video Hearing: For the People: Our American Democracy, Committee on House Administration, February 14, 2019. Youtube Video Witnesses: Chiraag Bains - Director of Legal Strategies at Demos Wendy Weiser - Director of the Democracy Program at the Brennen Center for Justice at the NYU School of Law Fred Wertheimer -President of Democracy 21 Kym Wyman - Secretary of State of Washington Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, Senior at Dodge City High School in Kansas and plaintiff in LULAC & Rangel-Lopez v. Cox Peter Earle - Wisconsin Civil Rights Trial Lawyer Brandon Jessup - Data Science and Information Systems Professional and Executive Director at Michigan Forward David Keating - President at the Institute for Free Speech Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "Strengthening Ethics Rules for the Executive Branch", Committee on Oversight and Reform, February 6, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Scott Amey - General Counsel, Project on Government Oversight Karen Hobert Flynn - President of Common Cause Rudy Mehrbani - Spitzer Fellow and Senior Counsel, Brennen Center for Justice Walter Schaub Jr - Senior Advisor, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington Bradley Smith - Chairman at the Institute for Free Speech Sound Clips: 17:30 Rep. Elijah Cummings (D - MD) Title eight includes a bill that I introduced called the executive branch ethics reform act. It would, it would ban senior officials from accepting "golden parachute" payments from private sector employers in exchange for their government service. This would have prevented Gary Cohn from receiving more than $100 million in accelerated payments from Goldman Sachs while leading the Trump administration's efforts to slash corporate taxes. 19:00 Cummings Title eight also would make clear that Congress expects the president to divest his business holdings just as every single president since Jimmy Carter has done and place them in an independent and truly blind trust. 28:00 Rep. Jim Jordan (R - OH) In 2013 we learned that the IRS targeted conservative for their political beliefs during the 2012 election cycle systematically for a sustained period of time. They went after people for their conservative beliefs, plan in place, targeted people. They did it. The gross abuse of power would have continued, if not for the efforts of this committee. 2014 the Obama Administration doubled down and attempted to use the IRS rule making process to gut the ability of social welfare organizations to participate in public debate. Congress has so far prevented this regulation from going into effect, but HR 1 would change that. 28:30 Jordan Furthermore, this bill would roll back another critical victory for privacy and free speech secured just last summer following efforts by this committee and others, the IRS changed its policy as it relates to schedule B information. Schedule B contains personal information like names, addresses, and the amounts donated to nonprofit entities. Even though this information is supposed to remain private under current law, states and federal government have leaked these personal details in the past. In changing its policies, the IRS noted that there had been at least 14 breaches resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of schedule B information just since 2010. The result was everyday Americans receiving death threats and mail containing white powder. All because someone disagreed with what they believe and who they gave their hard earned money to. 59:00 Walter Schaub HR 1 addresses big payouts to incoming officials. These golden parachutes raise concerns about an employee appointees loyalty to a former employer. When former Treasury Secretary Jack Lew left Wall Street to join the State Department, he received a large bonus in his employment agreement. Let him keep that bonus specifically because he landed at a high level government job. 1:04:00 Bradley Smith Subtitle B of title six is called Stopping Super PAC and candidate coordination. The sponsors and drafters are either being intentionally disingenuous here or are they simply do not understand what has been put into their own legislation. Nothing in subtitle B, nothing limits. It's reached a super PACs. It applies to every union trade association, advocacy group and unincorporated association in the country. It applies to planned parenthood and right to life, to the NAACP and the ACLU to the national federation of Independent Business and to the Brady Campaign for gun safety. It even applies to individual citizens who seek to participate in public discussion. Nothing. This cannot be said often enough limits it to super PACs through the interplay of its definitions of coordination and coordinated spenders. The laws treatment, uh, traditional treatment of coordinated spending as a contribution to a candidate and current contribution limits in the law. Subtitle be, will actually have the effect of banning, not limiting, but actually banning a great deal of speech that was legal even before the Supreme Court's decision in citizens United versus FEC and Buckley v Vallejo. 1:39:00 Smith I would only add that I think that the disclosure provisions are often worse than people think because they're defining as political activity things that have never been defined as political before. And you run the risk of a regulation swallowing up the entire, uh, discourse in which public, uh, engages. So I would only say that I think the provisions are worse than people think and that they're often hidden through the complex interrelationship of different positions. Well, one, one example would be if an organization, uh, for example, were to hire somebody who had previously been an intern, a paid intern for a member of Congress, that organization would then be prohibited from making any communications that were deemed to promote a tax support or oppose a that candidate. And that vague term could apply to almost anything praising the candidate for introducing a bill, uh, criticizing the congressman for opposing a bill, whatever it might be. Jordan Wow. That put the whole consultant business in this town out of business, it seems to me. Smith It's not just the consulting business. Oh, of course. It puts out of business all of the interest groups and all of the civic groups that people belong to. 1:43:00 Cummings One year ago today when my mother's dying bed at 92 years old, former sharecropper, her last words were, do not let them take our votes away from us. They had fought, she had fought and seen people harmed and beaten, trying to vote. Talk about inalienable rights. Voting is crucial, and I don't give a damn how you look at it. There are efforts to stop people from voting. That's not right. This is not Russia. This is the United States of America, and I will fight until the death to make sure every citizen, whether they're Green party, whether they're Freedom Party, whether they're Democrat, whether you're Republican, whoever has that right to vote. 1:46:00 Karen Hobert Flynn Election day registration is a perfect antidote to a purge so that you can show up on election day. If you see that there's a problem, then you can register to vote and vote on that day. 2:19:00 Rep. Kelly Armstrong (R - ND) North Dakota is the only state in the country without voter registration. We have voting. We have counties that vote exclusively by mail, and we currently have no excuse, absentee ballot, absentee voting. We have, we allow felons to vote immediately upon release from prison. Um, our poll workers are almost exclusively volunteers across the entire state. So in short, we have the, the best and easiest vote voting, voting booth access in the entire country, and we are incredibly proud of that. 2:23:00 Armstrong North, we, and this might be a little change, but it's really important to the voters in North Dakota. So we, uh, we start our absentee or early voting process, I think for military deployed overseas, it says early as August. And we have, as I said, no excuse absentee ballots. But what we require is that our ballots are postmarked the day before the election. And in North Dakota, we really, really try to make sure the election is over on election day. Um, north Dakotans don't understand how an election can change by 12, 13, 14,000 votes in the two to three weeks after an election day. Now I'm not in the business and telling people in California or somewhere else how to do their voting laws, but that just is something that is not appropriate here. And this would require ballots to be postmarked up until election day, correct? That's correct. 2:24:00 Rep. John Sarbanes (D-MD) I wish Mr. Meadows were still here because I'm delighted that he's thinking of stepping into the small donor matching system that has proposed an HR 1. Because when you step into that system, you step into a system that is owned by the people. This is why it's in the bill because the public is tired of feeling like their elections, their system, their government, their democracy is owned by special interests, big corporations, Wall Street, oil and gas industry, super PACs, lobbyists, everybody. But then this is the power move. They want to own their democracy again. 2:27:00 Sarbanes Somebody said, why are we hooking all these things together? Voting ethics, campaign finance, because the people have told us, if you just do one and you don't do the others were still frozen out. The system is still rigged. You fix the voting stuff, but if you go to Washington and nobody's behaving themselves, that doesn't solve the problem or you fix the ethics part, but we're still, the system is still owned by the big money in the special interests because they're the ones that are underwriting the campaigns. Then we're still left out. The system is still rigged. You got to do all of these things together to reset the democracy in a place where it respects the average citizen out there. Who right now is sitting in their kitchen, they're looking at the TV screen there. They're hearing about billionaires and super PACs who are making decisions inside conference rooms somewhere on K Street that affect their lives and all they're saying is we want back in. We're tired of sitting out here with our nose is pressed against the window looking in on the democracy that we have no impact on. That's why we're linking all of these things together to reset the table. So the special interests aren't the ones that are calling the shots. 2:29:00 Sarbanes The provisions of transparency in this bill are targeted to mega donors who give more than $10,000 who right now are hidden behind this Russian doll kind of structure where you can't see who it is, who's behind the curtain, who's putting all this money into campaigns. The public wants to know that that's reasonable. 2:38:00 Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) And I'm deeply troubled at what appears to be a Russian engagement through 501(c)(4)s in this country, whether it's the NRA or, um, other, uh, nonprofits that are created for the express purpose here in the United States to lobby on behalf of Russia as it related to the Magnitsky Act. Um, so right now there is no limitation on how much money can be contributed by a foreign government entity to a 501(c)(4). Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that is, yes. Speier And there is no disclosure required as well. Is that correct? Hobert Flynn I believe that's right. Speier So in your estimation, would it be prudent for us to one, limit the amount of contributions that a foreign individual can make to a 501(c)(4), and two, that all of that be subject to disclosure? Hobert Flynn Yeah, I think, I think it would be very important. Um, you know, there are limits. There are bans on foreign nationals giving money in campaign contributions, and I think we should be looking at those kinds of limits for, um, and it's certainly disclosure for, um, contributions to 501(c)(4)s. 2:56:00 Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) You hear so much attack on political action committees, PACs, Mr. Smith, or maybe you'd be best one to answer this. I don't know, maybe I don't want us to answer it. Where do political action committees get their money? Smith Political action committees get their money from individuals. Traditional PACs do. Now Super PACS as they're called, can take money from corporations and unions, but they are not able to contribute directly to candidates. Sort of coordinate anything with candidates. Gibbs I appreciate that. Uh, make the point. Um, because I, I got attacked because I take political action money, but it comes from businesses in my district. A lot of it, it comes from associations. You know, everybody has somebody lobbying for them in DC. I mean, if you're, if you're a member, of a retirement association, any organization, you've got a lobbyist here. 2:57:00 Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Let's play a game, let's play a lightening round game. I'm going to be the bad guy, which I'm sure half the room would agree with anyway. And um, and I want to get away with as much bad things as possible, ideally to enrich myself and advance my interest even if that means putting, uh, putting my interests ahead of the American people. So, um, Mrs Holbert Flynn. Oh, and by the way, I have listed all of you as my co conspirators, so you're going to help me legally get away with all of this. So Mrs Herbert Flynn, I want to run, if I want to run a campaign that is entirely funded by corporate political action committees, is that, is there anything that legally prevents me from doing that? Hobert Flynn No. Ocasio-Cortez Okay. So there's nothing stopping me from being entirely funded by corporate PACs, say from the fossil fuel industry, the healthcare industry, big Pharma. I'm entirely 100% lobbyists PAC funded. Okay. So let's see. I'm a really, really bad guy and let's see, I've have some skeletons in my closet that I need to cover it up so that I can get elected. Um, Mr. Smith, is it true that you wrote this article, this opinion piece for the Washington Post entitled These Payments to Women Were Unseemly? That doesn't mean they were illegal. Smith Well, I can't see the piece but I wrote a piece or that headline in the post's so I assume that's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. So green-light for hush money, I can do all sorts of terrible things. It's totally legal right now for me to pay people off and that is considered speech. That money is considered speech. So I use my special interest, dark money funded campaign to pay off folks that I need to pay off and get elected. So now I'm elected, now I'm in, I've got the power to draft, lobby and shape the laws that govern the United States of America. Fabulous. Now is there any hard limit that I have, perhaps Mrs Herbert Flynn? Is there any hard limit that I have in terms of what legislation I'm allowed to touch? Are there any limits on the laws that I can write or influence? Especially if I'm a based on the special interest funds that I accepted to finance my campaign and get me elected in the first place. Herbert Flynn There's no limit. Ocasio-Cortez So there's none. So I can be totally funded by oil and gas that can be totally funded by big Pharma come in. Right. Big Pharma laws and there's no limits to that whatsoever. Herbert Flynn That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, so awesome. Now, uh, now Mr Mehrabani, the last thing I want to do is get rich with as little work possible. That's really what I'm trying to do as the bad guy. Right? So is there anything preventing me from holding stocks say in an oil or gas company and then writing laws to deregulate that that industry and cause you know, that could potentially cause the stock value to soar and accrue a lot of money in that time, Rudy Mehrbani You could do that. Ocasio-Cortez So I could do that. I could do that. Now with the way our current laws are set up. Yes? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Okay, great. Okay. So my last question is, or one of my last questions, I guess I'd say is, is it possible that any elements of this story apply to our current government in our current public servants right now? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez So we have a system that is fundamentally broken. We have these influences existing in this body, which means that these influences are here in this committee shaping the questions that are being asked of you all right now. Would you say that that's correct, Mr Mehrbani or Mr Shaub? Mehrbani Yes. Ocasio-Cortez Alright. So one last thing, Mr Shaub, in relation to congressional oversight that we have, the limits that are placed on me as a congress woman compared to the executive branch and compared to say, the president of the United States, would you say that Congress has the same sort of standard of accountability? Are there, is there more teeth in that regulation in Congress on the president? Or would you say it's about even or more so on the federal? Schaub Um, in terms of laws that apply to the president, there's just almost no laws at all that applied to the president. Ocasio-Cortez So I'm being held and every person in this body is being held to a higher ethical standard than the president of the United States. Schaub That's right. Cause or some committee ethics committee rules that apply to you. Ocasio-Cortez And it's already super legal as we've seen for me to be a pretty bad guy. So it's even easier for the president of the United States to be one, I would assume. Schaub That's right. Ocasio-Cortez Thank you very much. 3:04:00 Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX) Uh, and when we think about what we're dealing with, with respect to a campaign finance, uh, are you familiar with doxing? Smith In the sense of outing people online that you're referring to? Yes, generally. Roy So for example, are you familiar with a Twitter account called every Trump donor, which tweeted out one by one, the names, hometowns, occupations, employers, the people who contribute as little as $200 to the president's campaign, each tweet, following a particular formula. My point being in the question for you is, when we talk about campaign disclosures, are we aware of the negative impacts that you have on forcing American citizens and exercising their free speech to have that information be disclosed? Whether that's good policy or not might be debatable, but is there, are there negative consequences to that with respect to free speech given you're an expert on free speech? Smith There are, and there are definitely studies that have shown that disclosure does tend to decrease participation. Now, that doesn't mean as you point out that it's not worth it, but it certainly has costs. And so we have to be careful on how broad we would let that disclosure become. 3:11:00 Scott Amey The law is created that has cooling off periods. And so there's no cooling off period of one year or two year or a permanent bans. HR 1 would move a lot of those to two years I think, which would be beneficial. And there's even disagreement in our community whether one year or two, you know, what is the appropriate time to kind of cool off so that your contacts aren't there. But this is also something that President Trump brought up when he was a candidate. He talked about, uh, I think it was Boeing at the time, but he went on record saying that people who give contracts should never be able to work for that defense contractor. This isn't a bipartisan, this is a bipartisan issue. This is something we can resolve. The laws are already on the books. We just need some extensions in some tweaking of those to improve them and allow people to cool off and not be able to provide a competitive advantage to their new employer or favor them as they're in office and they're walking out the door. Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) And so you do believe that extending this cooling off period and strengthening these prohibitions would protect the integrity of the process and helped to reign in these flagrant abuses. Amey 100% in one of the nice things with HR 1 is there is an extension of a cooling off period for people coming into government service. Currently it exists and it's uh, it's one year. This will move it to two and I think that's a probably better place to be in. You shouldn't be handling issues that involve your former employer or clients. Pressley One final question. How might these cozy relationships between government officials and corporate leaders or private contractors help to boost profits for these prison and detention centers? Amey Well, certainly they go with a lot of information, uh, when, when they go over to the private sector. But it also allows them to get back into their former office and within their former agency and call on them. Access as, as you were just pointing out, access is everything in this town. And so if you can get your phone calls answered, if you can get emails read, if you get meetings at that point, that can, not only with members of Congress, but with agency heads that can determine who gets contracts. I mean, it does trickle down from the top and we need to make sure that we prevent as many like actual and also appearances of conflicts of interest as we can. 3:17:00 Rep. Carol D. Miller (R-WV) What impact would the passage of this legislation have on those groups that are not political but may put out policy oriented communications? Smith It would be very curious and I've given a number of examples in the written testimony. I just say that I should add to this of course that the bill includes personal liability for officers and directors of some of these organizations. So you need to almost have to be crazy to let your organization get anywhere close to this promote support attack opposed standard. And again, what does that mean as I suggested? Well, you know, again, uh, government union might take out an ad maybe in a month, right? Or three weeks from now saying don't let president Trump, we shouldn't have to pay because he wants his wall in Mexico, you know, so, so tell them to reopen the government. Is that an attack on president Trump? I think that's the kind of thing that, that folks would not know and would make people very hesitant to run that kind of ad. Miller So it is a personal risk as well. Smith Yes. Yes. Not only risk. Plus it would be a risk, by the way, as well, to the tax status of some of the organizations involved in many of these organizations might have some type of tax status. 501(c)(3) organizations would have to be very careful because if they engage in speech that is now defined as political speech, 501(c)(3) organizations can't engage in political speech. They would jeopardize their tax exempt status. So that's another reason that these organizations would stay far clear of commenting on any kind of public issue. Video: H.R. 1: A Democrat Political Power Grab, Senator Mitch McConnell, YouTube, January 30, 2019. Video: Video Tweeted by Senator Mitch McConnell, January 29, 2019. Hearing: Full Committee Hearing on the "For the People Act of 2019", House Committee on the Judiciary, January 29, 2019. YouTube Video Witnesses: Christian Adams- President and General Counsel, Public Interest Legal Foundation Vanita Gupta - President and Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference one Civil and Human Rights Sherrilyn Ifill - President and Director-Counsel, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund Adav Noti - Chief of Staff, Campaign Legal Center Sarah Tubervillie - Director of the Constitution Project, Project on Government Oversight Hans von Spakovsky - Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation Sound Clips: 10:45 Rep. Chris Collins (R-NY) The official title of this bill is The For The People Act. This bill though is not for the people. It's not for everyday citizens. This bill siphons power from state legislatures, local elected officials and voters, and seeds, power to Washington lawmakers, unelected federal judges and lawyers. This bill is in particular for the unelected elites. It's for the people who don't answer directly to the voters. Contrary to it's name, this bill takes power away from the people and it does this by violating the constitution, by trampling over both the spirit and the letter of our most fundamental laws. 32:00 Sherrilyn Ifill Well before the midterm election, in fact, Georgia officials began placing additional burdens on voters, particularly black and Latino voters, by closing precincts and purging. Over half a million people from the voter rolls the voter purge, which removed 107,000 people, simply because they did not vote in previous elections and respond to a mailing was overseen by the Republican candidate for governor Brian Kemp, who was also the secretary of state. LDF and a chorus of others called on him to recuse himself from participating in the election. But he refused. 1:08:00 Ifill I think, I think the problem we have is that you know, when we begin talking about the powers between the federal and the state government as it relates to elections, it is of course critical that we look to the constitution and that we look to the articles of the constitution that govern elections. But what we have left out of the conversation at least to this moment is the reordering of the relationship between the federal and state government that came with the passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and the 14th and 15th amendments in particular. The 14th amendment guaranteeing equal protection of laws under, the 15th Amendment prohibiting the denial of the right to vote based on race. National origin includes enforcement clauses that gives this body, the United States Congress, the power to enforce the rights that are articulated in those amendments to the constitution. And it is those amendments to the constitution that provided this body the right, for example, to pass laws like the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for which all the same arguments that are being made today about the power of the states, about interference, about what the federal government is allowed to do and not allowed to do were raised and overcome. So the federal government actually does have the power when there is evidence and when they are enforcing the rights under the 14th and 15th, amendments to actually, your word would be interfere, but to engage robustly, in the protection of the voting rights of racial minorities. 1:15:00 Vanita Gupta There are over 13,000 election jurisdictions in our country, and elections can be run in a multitude of ways, but it is clear that Congress has the authority to make sure that civil rights are not violated in the course of running these elections. And that there are, there are equitable national standards to guide how this has done. And that is exactly what HR 1 does. 1:26:00 Ifill Let me use as an example. Texas has voter I.D. law from your own state the voter I.D. law that Texas imposed after the Shelby decision as a voter I.D. law that they had attempted to get pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision and pre-clearance was denied, in other words they were not allowed to make that law, become real because of the pre-clearance requirement. After Shelby, the Attorney General, decided that they were going to move forward with that law. It was imposed. We sued. We challenged that law and we won. But in the three years that it took us to litigate that case during that time Texas elected a United States senator in 2014. All 36 members of the Texas delegation to the U.S. House of Representatives, the governor, the lieutenant governor, the attorney general, the comptroller, various statewide commissioners, four justices of the Texas Supreme Court. Candidates for special election in the state Senate State Boards of Education 16 state senators all 150 members of the statehouse over 175 state court trial judges and over 75 district attorneys. We proved at trial that more than half a million eligible voters were disenfranchised by the I.D. law. We were ultimately successful in challenging but it was too late for those elections and this was a scheme that had been denied pre-clearance. This is the kind of thing that undermines confidence in our electoral system and that threatens our democracy. What excuse can we have as a nation for disenfranchising over half a million voters from all of the elections I just described. 1:35:00 Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) Where are the states, Ms. Ifill, that have most of the states that have prohibitions on people having the APP for you to vote if they've committed a felony? Ifill Well, they have been all over the country, but certainly there was a concentration in the south. As you may know, some of the history of these laws emanated, at the turn of the 19th century, I guess the turn of the 20th century, after southern states received back their power, they pass new constitutions. This is after the civil war and after reconstruction around 1900 and we saw the expansion of ex felon voting restrictions in state constitutions during that period, when there was a very robust effort to try and disenfranchise, at that point, newly freed slaves who had been free for several decades. 2:05:00 Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-AZ) It contains a provision where federal tax dollars from hardworking middle class families and single mothers would be lining the pockets of politicians to pay for nasty TV ads and robo calls and paying for politicians, personal childcare and healthcare. Under this bill, it's estimated that at least $3.9 billion of taxpayer dollars would line the pockets of house congressional candidates based on estimates from Bloomberg and an estimated $6.25 billion with line the pockets of presidential candidates based on the formula in this bill and the 2016 election, for a total of $10.1 billion of taxpayer dollars. To me, this is an outrageous, outrageous use of taxpayer dollars. 2:23:00 Hans Von Spakovsky This provision of HR 1 says that if a commission is not established, or if it doesn't adopt a plan, then, the redistricting lines for Congress will be drawn up by a three judge federal court. Now, yeah, the courts get involved, federal courts get involved and redistricting, but they only get involved when there has been a violation of the voting rights act because there's been discrimination in drawing the lines or because the equal protection doctrine of the 14th amendment, one person, one vote, has been violated because the districts aren't equal enough and that's appropriate. And courts do that. But this bill would give the judicial branch the ability to draw up lines when there's, there's been no such violation. And so they're, in essence, you're taking a power of the constitution gives to the legislative branch and you're giving it to the judicial branch. 2:52:00 Gupta Well, our recourse used to be that changes in local voting patterns would be reported to the Justice Department and there would be recourse for the Justice Department to ensure that racial discrimination was not animating these changes and preventing people from exercising their franchise. As we said, in 2013, the United States supreme court gutted that key tool of the voting rights act. And it is why HR 1 is such an important, uh, act in order to restore the voting rights act and to restore the ability of the Justice Department and federal courts to actually prevent these kinds of nefarious actions from taking place before elections. Uh, litigation is crucial and groups that have risen to the challenge to, to file section two cases, but they are time intensive and they occur after elections after people have already been disenfranchised and can take years to come to adjudication during which elections are taking place. And so that is why, uh, it is incumbent and unnecessary for Congress to restore the provisions of the voting rights act. Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA) So HR 1 will help protect the rights of my American citizens to vote before the election. Gupta HR 1, yes, expresses a commitment to restoring the voting rights act, and, uh, and that is what we hope to achieve in this congress. It is HR 1 also contains a slew of protections that have become proxies for racial discrimination around list maintenance and unwarranted voter purging. Hr 1 seeks to remedy those so that, uh, so that people can have their rights guaranteed before elections take place. 3:25:00 Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-CA) And I have to tell you after that, being in Congress for six years, uh, I have come to find that there are so many issues that uh, my republican colleagues and I agree on and that the American people agree that we've reached consensus on it and that ranges from reducing gun violence to addressing climate change, to finding healthcare solutions. But my constituents ask and people I encounter across the country always ask, if we've reached consensus where 90% of Americans think we should have background checks. Majority of Americans believe that climate change is happening. 90% of Americans think we should have the Dream Act. Why can't you guys even vote on these issues? And I've concluded that it's the dirty maps and the dirty money. It is rigged gerrymandered maps where politicians from both parties protect their friends and the status quo and it's the outside unlimited nontransparent money, where Republican colleagues have told me, I am with you on this issue -and I've had someone say this to me - I am afraid about how I'm going to be scored, meaning that these outside groups, we'll give scores based on how you vote and if you're not with them, they'll primary you with more money in an unlimited way. And then that's poisoning our politics and preventing us from reaching consensus. 3:27:00 Swalwell I want to start with Miss Ifill, and if it's OK I want to call you Professor Ifill because I don't know if you remember you were my civil procedure professor at the University of Maryland. You wouldn't remember me I remember you. I was not a standout student at all but Miss Ifill according to your testimony Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act would have prevented some of the voter suppression schemes that we have encountered over the past five years. And I was hoping you could articulate some of those schemes today. Ifill Yeah just a few of them. Earlier I spoke about Texas's voter I.D. law, an I.D. law that had been denied pre-clearance prior to the Shelby decision. Two hours after the Shelby decision the attorney general of Texas tweeted out his intention to resuscitate that law which he did. And we spent three years litigating it. We ultimately prevailed, but in the ensuing three years there were elections for all kinds of offices a law that clearly could not have survived pre-clearance. Just in 2018 we were on the ground in Georgia on election day doing election protection work in Grady County, the polling place had been changed two weeks prior to the election. A notice had been placed in a very small community newspaper but otherwise there was not real notice provided to the community and so people arrived at the old polling place and community residents had to spend the day standing outside the old polling place directing people to the place of the new polling place that had not been properly identified Under Section 5, the moving of a polling place is the kind of thing that you had to submit to pre-clearance and have it approved by the Justice Department before it could be implemented. Now there are a number of people that day who could drive to the new polling place but there were a number of people who had just taken off work and had a limited amount of time to vote and could not dri

Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai speaks about how his campaign is growing as he runs for the U.S. Senate from the state of Massachusetts against Elizabeth Warren. Dr. Shiva shares the fact that Elizabeth Warren who is a lawyer-lobbyist and has no science degrees sup..

How can the States Fix the Federal Government A Convention of States and Article V of the Constitution. Washington is gigantic, corrupt, and unaccountable. Can it be fixed? Learn more about the Convention of States and Article V of the Constitution. Jim DeMint, former Senator from South Carolina, explains. The federal government has become a lumbering giant. With each passing year, it gets bigger and scarier. In 1965, Washington was 761 billion dollars big. In 2016... it was 3.5 trillion – five times the size. If the government spent only the money it collected in taxes, that would be one thing. But it always spends more­­—which is why we’re $20 trillion dollars in debt. That’s 13 zeroes. Count ‘em: Thirteen. But the crazy spending isn’t even the worst of it. Washington is involved in every part of our lives. Think about anything you do, from driving your car to buying your groceries to mowing your lawn. Whatever it is—your education, your job, your health— the government has its hands on your shoulder, if not on your throat. As a congressman and senator for 14 years, I know this only too well. So, how do we cut this giant down to size? Is it even possible? Yes. And the amazing thing is, the answer is right in front of us. The Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, foresaw the situation we find ourselves in today. They wrote into the Constitution a way to repair Washington...not from the inside, because that will never happen but from the outside, where it might. It’s right there in Article 5. Most people are familiar with the first part: “The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution...” All 27 Amendments we have now started this way. Congress proposed them and at least three-quarters of the states ratified them. But is this the only way to amend the Constitution? Well, let’s read the next clause: It says that Congress, “…on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments...” Did you catch that? Congress must call a convention to amend the Constitution if two-thirds of the states—that’s 34 states—demand it. The time has come to demand it. The time has come to propose amendments that will restore meaningful limits on federal power and authority. The time has come for a convention of states. Here’s how it would work: Once the 34 states call a convention, all 50 states send a delegate to represent their interests. For any constitutional amendments proposed, each state gets one vote. And an amendment only passes out of the convention and to the states for ratification if a majority of the states’ delegates vote in the affirmative. In this scenario, Congress has no say. It is completely in the hands of the states, which means it’s a whole lot closer to the hands of the people. We’ve never once amended the Constitution this way—but that doesn’t mean we can’t. But, you might ask, doesn’t this open the door to rewriting the entire Constitution? Antonin Scalia, the late Supreme Court justice, acknowledged this risk but regarded it as a “minimal” and “reasonable” one. Why? Because to be ratified, a proposed amendment would need the approval of 38 states. That’s a high bar. Thirty-eight states would never agree to something radical like abolishing freedom of speech. “The Founders,” Scalia said, “knew the Congress would be unwilling to give attention to many issues the people are concerned with, particularly those involving restrictions on the federal government’s own power... [so] they provided the convention [of states] as a remedy.” This should not be a partisan, left/right, Democrat/Republican issue. This should be a "who controls your life" issue: you or the government? Today, politicians can turn your life upside down on a whim, kind of like King George in 1775. Being at the mercy of distant, disconnected rulers was why the American Revolution was fought in the first place! But we don’t need a revolution. We have Article Five. So, what amendments might a Convention of States propose to limit Washington’s power? Term limits, for one. No one should be in Congress for 20 or 30 years. The only people who disagree have been in Congress for 20 or 30 years. And how about a limit on taxes, spending, and borrowing? Since you began this video, the national debt has gone up $8.4 million dollars. Here’s one more idea: A constitutional amendment that Congress can't exempt itself from the laws it passes—something it’s done dozens of times, from insider trading to Obamacare. Now, I don’t believe a Convention of States will solve all of America’s problems. But the Founders put it in the Constitution for a reason. They knew a time would come when Washington would become so big, and so intrusive, that only we the people could cut it down to size. That time is now. I’m Jim DeMint for Prager University.

Jack Latimore is a Goori man of the Birpai nation. He's a journalist and researcher who covers indigenous affairs, media, culture and politics and his work has appeared in The Guardian, Indigenous X, Koori Mail, The Citizen, medium, SBS and Overland. In the past week we've marked Sorry Day and the 50th anniversary of the 1967 Referendum and witnessed 300 Indigenous leaders gather in Uluru for a summit on what constitutional recognition for Australia's First Peoples might look like. Here I ask Jack what he made of the summit's Statement from the Heart, how recognition and/or treaty could work and media representations of Indigenous peoples, from First Contact to Stan Grant to Bill Leak's cartoons.  Listen To Love is on Audible Problematic is coming to Edinburgh Fringe 2017 SAVE THE DATE: June 22nd for a charity gig for Refugee Legal at Howler Bar in Melbourne  @LatimoreJack @IndigenousXLtd jacklatimore.online Jack's writing for The Guardian Article: Noel Pearson's model for recognition wins support Article: Five factors that will shape the outcome for Recognise at Uluru  Article: Indigenous Leaders Call For A Treaty In The Landmark "Uluru Statement From The Heart" Article: Uluru forum to pursue Makaratta instead of symbolic recognition   Jack's piece on First Contact   Jack's piece on the ABC's Recognition: Yes Or No Jack's piece on Bill Leak's cartoon Nyunggai Warren Mundine's piece on Bill Leak's cartoon This week's Q&A: 1967 and Mabo - Moving Forward John Newfong on wikipedia Cause of the Week: Indigenous X (indigenousx.com.au), Seed Mob (seedmob.org.au) & Koorie Youth Council (yacvic.org.au)  

Let me tell you in 2 min about my #millennial-focused article detailing 5 ways to revitalize #Brentwood #READ: http://bit.ly/2dwjUDN We need more lighting in Brentwood We need to modernize police/community relations Creating opportunities for alumni to reinvest in the community A new community identity & common goals Owning our neighborhoods

High Level Leaks! Russian Incursions! NATO Dissolution! Election Collusion! Suspicious Business Activity by Political Son! This week's Season 3 Finale wrapped up with a global storyline, a little unexpected romance and silk blouses as far as the eye can covet.  Article 5 Filmed in DC Written by Barbara Hall Directed by Eric Stoltz     This episode managed to set up some new relationships and stroylines for the future—and pretty much steal some headlines rights from this weeks’ news— The dissolution of NATO Russian Collusion in an Election Suspicious Business activity by a Son in high places News Leaks by highly placed associates   The only thing missing was Pippa’s Wedding!    A really, really good show for Madam Secretary herself. A few scenes that had Emmy Nomination Submission written all over them—she was the star of the show.    The storylines:   Russian makes moves to unvade Bulgarioa. France aligns with Russia. Bess saves NATO   Henry is SAD.  And we are sad that his new gig doesn’t involve a tweed blazer with leather patches on the sleeves and a bull whip.    LOVE is in the air. Bess & Henry. Nadine & Mike B. and STEVIE & DMITRY!!!!!   Binders full of Blouses   Nadine’s date outfit goes to the office! Daisy—still with the cute dresses Bess had a knock-out collection of blouses this show. They pulled out all the silks!  Pin Mania  

George Friedman is interviewed by the Article Five Hour. Sign up for free updates on topics like this! Go here: hubs.ly/H06mXwR0

Today I'm fresh back from a trip to Podcast Midatlantic where I spoke on a panel about podcasting. On Sunday I had some time before I flew home so Rob Greenlee and I Went to see the Liberty Bell in Independence Hall in Philadelphia. There are some things that learned in this visit that I thought we could apply to podcast. - When there is no great entertainment, people will flock to ANYTHING. Case in point the Liberty Bell, an old large bell with a giant crack use to go on tour and people would FLOCK to see it. In today's society, the bar is set pretty low in regards to content so you can stand out pretty easy - The Liberty Bell was flawed. Yet, people came out in droves to see it Did it sound impressive? No, I watched a video, and no it didn't but what it did do was stand for something. People came to the event, but more importantly, wanted to pay tribute to it's ideals. The ideals of the liberty bell is what is strong and stirs emotions. It's not the technology. The creators of the Liberty Bell has never made a bell so large. It shows, x-rays show how there are cracks throughout the bell (and that's why you won't here it ring) when you ring the bell you only make it worse. The lack of knowledge didn't stop the creators from doing their best. In the end, I'm sure they felt they failed, but by creating something, they gave their audience a gift. - After a tour of independence hall (where a large amount of the early forming of America occurred), I learned how they all collaborated together to put together the declaration of independence. Article Five of the United States Constitution detailed the two-step process for amending the nation's frame of government. The constitution was put into place on March 4, 1789. If they had waited until it was perfect, the Constitution wouldn't have been adopted t until May 7 1992 (the date of the last amendments). As of 12/2014 approximately 11,539 proposals to amend the Constitution have been introduced in Congress since 1789. The point being you can "Amend" your podcastwhenever you want. - The bell first cracked when rung after its arrival in Philadelphia, and was twice recast by local workmen John Pass and John Stow, whose last names appear on the bell.  When I was there on 9/11/16 reflecting on 9/11 there were people there all over the world. There are probably millions of bells across the world. Some of them are bigger, sound better, and yet here people flock to see an old broken bell because of what itstood for Liberty. More Great Take Aways From Podcast Mid Atlantic I was greeted by Heather from Craflit who presented me with a custom t-shirt that has *psbs and my logo. What does PSBS stand for? Podcasting since before serial. Heather was just as cool in person as she is online. The fact that someone would go out of their way to make me a custom t-shirt was amazing. It these tings that leave me speechless. Heather is a truly amazing person. A mind like hers you don't find often in this world. Mich O'Neil from the solopreneur hour had a great top for interviewing people. How do you avoid having a seasoned guest come on your show and NOT spew the same lame answers? You put their answers in your introduction. You disarm them. Now they can't reference those "traditional answers" and they have to dig deeper into their bag of answers for something new. Mark Asquith from podcastwebsites.com took what I've been saying, "Ask your audience what that want" and sharpened it. Ask them what they NEED. Awesome. Jessica Kupfeman of She Podcasts who help people get sponsors through her www.jkmagency.com showed that people love an underdog. Poor Jess had lost her voice, but we were all pulling for her as she tried to present with her lack of pipes. Her content made up for the lack of tone and quality of voice. This works in person, I'm not sure it would work as a podcast. Your might have a perspective that nobody else has. On Sunday 9/11/16 I had breakfast with Rob Greenlee from Spreaker, and Heather Ordover from Craftlit. We kind of shared some thoughts on 9/11 as it was the 15 year anniversary. Heather's perspective was like no other I had ever heard in 15 years. Why? Because she lived it. The plane engine from the second plane fell on the roof of her school. At one point, she turned to see the second dust cloud as it covered her. Her husband knew she was in the cloud. He was watching it on TV. You are a unique person. Only you have your history, perspective, and experiences. It gave me goosbumps. Christian Lee and CJ - What My Son is Learning From Podcasting Chrisian Lee does a podcast with his 10-year-old son. It's called What are we watching. Chrisitan (a standup comic) was very entertaining and dropped some great knowledge including: His son is learning how to push on when technology lets your down. He is getting to talk to celebrities. Their podcast has lead to some conversations that were needed. They opened the doors to some much-needed conversations. He is comfortable with technology, and working in his school. He is building his confidence. Because of My Podcast: Jim Collison (Starts at 1:56 )Jim Collison does show for his job (how cool is that). Jim was recently given an award for his work on the podcast (demonstrating that his podcast is making him a more valuable employee), and when Jim goes out to meet his audience he is somewhat swarmed. Congrats to Jim. Dave and Jim do the Ask the Podcast Coach show every Saturday Morning at 10:30 AM EST at www.askthepodcastcoach.com/live Jim's show for his job are at Http://coaching.gallup.com Jim also is the man behind the Average Guy Network Dave Jackson Talking Podcast Success I appeared on episode 19 of the Podcast Fiend show talking podcast success Check it out at http://podcastfiend.com/show/19 Podcast Questions? Call them in 888-563-3228 Get Podcast Consulting Find an available time at www.schoolofpodcasting.com/schedule Get the Show Notes Delivered To You www.scoolofpodcasting.com/newsletter

THE MORAL BASIS FOR THE CONSTITUTION Dr. Jenna Ellis joins the show to discuss the Constitution and why it is important for individuals to learn about it in order to preserve their freedom and liberty. Is the Constitution's duty to ‘preserve and protect the rights granted by God' taken seriously by DC or is it just a historical document to give legislators and judges some guidance on how to rule over citizens? Dr. Tommy and Dr. Ellis discuss the Convention of the States Project that will use Article Five to help states and citizens reassert their sovereignty. and the founding fathers' differing opinions on the Bill of Rights. Why are the the 9th and 10th amendments included in the Constitution and are they followed today. What is http://LevinTV.com and are we in a ‘post-constitutional period' as Mark Levin proposes?   Jenna Ellis is an attorney, professor of law, and international speaker. She specializes in and teaches Constitutional Law. She also specializes in criminal defense practice and is a former deputy district attorney. Jenna is licensed in federal practice and has appeared in litigation on behalf of the U.S. Department of State and the Department of the Navy.   She is Professor of Legal Studies and Leadership in the School of Business and Leadership at Colorado Christian University and she also teaches Constitutional Law and other legal and worldview courses in the CCU College of Adult and Graduate Studies. Her book The Legal Basis for a Moral Constitution available at online retailers and her website, http://JennaEllis.org.

Article Five of the United States Constitution describes the process whereby the Constitution may be altered. Altering the Constitution consists of proposing an amendment or amendments and subsequent ratification. "The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate." Join us tonite as  Andy Schlafly (against) debates Michael Farris ( For) article 5 of the Constitution. This show sponsored by Ladylibertyinstitute Subscribe to our youtube channel here and watch the show here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1UiBqrjHtQ        

On this week's Sunday Morning Edition of The Conservative Watchtower I will be joined by Stay Mad Radio's David Graham. We will discuss the facts about an Article Five Convention of the states , and we will address many of the myths circulating about the process as well. It is time to to take a stand against the political ruling class, it is time to dispense with defeatism, this is not going to be an easy fight but it is a fight that must be fought. If you are ready to engage in the political fight for the soul of the nation then this is the show for you, if have already given up then please report to your bunker and await the end to come. I am living proof that there is a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning.

Tonight on the Prime Time edition of The Conservative Watchtower we will celebrate Constitution Day by continuing our discussion of how we can save our republic.  If you have accepted defeat at the hands of the political ruling class, if you just want to sit in a corner and wet yourself over the direction our nation has taken, then this is not the show for you. We will discuss history, philosophy and lay out the way forward, it is time for the conservative movement to take bold action, it is time to fight on our terms. If you are ready for the fight then join me in the Watchtower.

If you are not an entrenched leftist, then it has become obvious our nation is in deep trouble. The political ruling class is disconnected from the people they are supposed represent and it is all too evident that they are not going to change. Our government no longer enjoys the consent of the governed and it is our responsibility , or dare I say our sacred duty, to set this nation back on it's constitutional footing.  There is a way forward, and that way is the Article Five convention! Our founders gave us this great gift, for the very times in which we are living. It will not be easy, but it can be done and tonight we will discuss the convention process, we will try and dispel some of the myths that have surfaced about the convention process. I invite you to join the discussion. Welcome to the revolution!!!!