Another stop on the Hate Trump Hissy-Fit Express is the decision by a couple hundred cities and some states to vote to bind themselves to the Paris climate accords.
This is a bad idea on multiple fronts. We’ve already explained why Trump was absolutely correct to pull the United States out of the environmentally worthless but constitutionally alarming agreement.
But there are plenty of reasons aside from the general awfulness of the Paris accords for these cities and states to not take this step.
It’s a violation at least of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution — the contract binding the states together in a union. Constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall recently wrote a piece explaining how states and cities cannot make contracts with foreign governments without breaking the contract of the Constitution between states — the Constitution that created the United States. While these laws and ordinances may not be a technical violation of the Constitution — they are voluntary — but they are passably close. They do bind the city or state to them as long as the political entity chooses to remain a part of them. Like any agreement between democratic nations, they can be annulled with a vote of the nation’s representatives.
Another thorny constitutional issue: Which laws will these cities and states see as supreme? What will the cities and states do if the rules guiding the accords conflict with federal law in some way? Or state law or city code, for that matter? Do the Paris accords take precedence, or federal law? Considering what we’ve seen in the flagrant disregard for constitutionally authorized federal law through the sanctuary city actions, the answer does not seem as obvious and hopeful as it should. Obviously, if the Paris accords are supreme — that is, if states and cities decide to violate federal law in order to adhere to their decision to bind themselves to the Paris agreement — then we do have a full-fledged breaking of the contract binding the states together. Unlike so much of the hyperbole surrounding every Trump tweet, this is an actual, true threat to the Union.
What is the cost of abiding by the Paris accords? Most cities are facing current and growing financial challenges stemming from overly generous benefits, unfunded pensions, ignored infrastructure and the future diminishment of the tax base through ongoing technological disruption. The Paris accords are costly. Even in the rosiest scenarios, the costs are steep upfront but supposedly made up over time through energy savings. Whether those savings will ever materialize or not is another question — our money is on “not,” based on virtually every historic promise of government. But since the sensationalized verbiage says that the planet is doomed if we don’t make these changes, then the costs are almost irrelevant. But if the doomsday predictions are off on climate change — and they have been so far — and the savings do not come through, then these cities and states are setting themselves up for major financial and services problems.
Let’s just clearly reiterate that all of this constitutional and financial risk is being promoted for an agreement that, by its own estimates, was not going to accomplish much in retarding the “global warming” threat. The risk-reward of the agreement itself, holding true even further for the cities and states binding themselves to it, was just never a wise endeavor — even if you accept that climate change is now anthropogenically driven and not part of a broader planetary cycle.
This leads us to the final point. This looks a lot like leftist cause enthusiasm married to an opportunity to poke Trump in the eye. In that respect, this is perfect for 2017 American Democrats. Not coincidentally, all the cities and states taking these positions are Democrat dominated.
This gives every appearance of being pure pettiness, now a staple of the Left in this country. These are adopted with regular, heavily politicized anti-Trump shots. We can be quite sure that if President Obama had said he didn’t think the cost-benefit ratio of this is good for America, none of these cities would have passed their own laws to follow it.
Given all this, it just seems to be more of the ongoing strategy to diminish and undermine the duly elected President of the United States at every possible opportunity — at the risk of the union of the United States and the financial security of the cities and states involved. It’s tempting to say the citizens of these cities and states deserve better, but a majority of them elected those leaders.
“The Mexican drug trade has left more than 50,000 bodies in its wake since 2006, and the cartels appear to be looking to expand their networks. With this in mind, the National Post’s graphics team takes a look at the flow of drugs across the continent,” Jonathon Rivait and Richard Johnson from the National Post report. Their analysis shows at least 1,000 U.S. cities reported the presence of at least one of four Mexican cartels in 2010. Tampa, Miami, Jacksonville and Orlando are among those cities. Tampa, Miami and Orlando reported the presence of multiple drug cartels with six reports of the Gulf Cartel or C.D.G. in Florida.
According to a February 2012 NARCONON NEWSarticle, “The discoveries of large drug shipments on submarines and fast boats in the Caribbean support the conclusion that South and Central American drug cartels are once again pointing their drug trafficking efforts at Florida.”
“Recent events have spurred concerns that Florida may once again become the target of Central or South American drug trafficking groups. Heightened drug trafficking activity in the Caribbean Sea and in the Dominican Republic point at the possibility that drug cartels are reclaiming their old trafficking channels and bringing their customary violence with them,” notes NARCONON NEWS.
Fast forward to 2017 and President Trump’s war against drug cartel gangs and narco-terrorists like MS – 13.
A new edition of The Glazov Gang features Jaeson Jones, a border security expert. Jaeson came on the show to discuss Cartels, Gangs and International Terrorist Groups vs. America, shining disturbing light on a dire threat we face, one that we raised in 2012.
Brad Johnson, a retired CIA Station Chief, focus on The “Lone-Wolf” Myth, where he unveils the inside story of how the Left is sabotaging our struggle with Jihad:
The map below was produced by the National Post and shows the infiltration routes and locations of drug cartels across the United States and Mexico:
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/narco-terrorism.jpg398638Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-06-29 06:54:392022-05-01 14:47:46VIDEO: Cartels, Gangs and International Terrorist Groups vs. America
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/geert-wilder-islam-quote.jpg360640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2017-06-29 05:46:252017-06-29 05:46:25VIDEO: Geert Wilders vs. Dutch Prime Minister Rutte on Islam
She failed to disclose a family relationship to an Iraqi terrorist. Ho hum! There was no American fatally affected.
I’m joking because in a story I read within the last day, but can’t remember where, a pro-more-refugees advocate qualified his comment about no refugees committing terror attacks to say—no US refugee committed a fatal terror attack on U.S. soil. That isn’t true, and, the main reason there aren’t more is that the cases have been foiled!
We learn that the Iraqi female liar will admit guilt today.
From AP at the Lincoln Journal Star (hat tip: Joanne). BTW, I searched and searched for any photos of the perpetrators, but found none.
ALEXANDRIA, Va. (AP) — A Virginia woman living in the U.S. as an Iraqi refugee for the last decade is scheduled to plead guilty Wednesday to federal charges after being charged with hiding her ties to the kidnapper of a U.S. contractor. [Translation—she lied on her refugee application and in her screening interviews!—ed]
Enas (eh-NAHS’) Ibrahim of Vienna was charged in March on allegations of visa fraud.
Prosecutors say Ibrahim, her husband and her husband’s brother all came to the U.S. and settled in the suburbs of the nation’s capital after receiving refugee status.
But prosecutors say the two men are brothers of Majid Al Mashhandani, who admitted participating in the 2004 kidnapping of U.S. contractor Roy Hallums.
Fraud, fraud and more fraud!
In addition to leaving out any reference to the Islamic terrorist brother because people told them in Iraq (who told them, a refugee contractor!) that they would be rejected from the refugee program if they revealed the terrorist brother, they FABRICATEDPERSECUTION STORIES FOR THEMSELVES.
Three Iraqi refugees were arrested Tuesday after illegally applying for citizenship, the Department of Justice announced.
Two of the refugees, Yousif Al Mashhandani, 35, of Vienna, Va., and Adil Hasan, 38, of Burke, Va., are biological brothers. Hasan’s wife Enas Ibrahim,32, was also arrested. The three refugees allegedly committed immigration fraud as they omitted the name of a terrorist relative on their refugee applications.
Yousif and Adil’s brother, Majid Al Mashhadani, was detained after he held an American citizen and other hostages for months in an underground bunker. When Yousif applied for citizenship in 2013, an FBI fingerprint analysis found a match on a document found at the underground bunker.
The applications the refugees filled out required them to detail family trees, and they all admitted to the FBI agents that they thought not including Majid would help them enter the U.S. The FBI also found that both Yousif and Adil had made up a kidnapping story involving a Shiite militia in order to claim persecution and admittance as refugees.
Yesterday, Project Veritas released the first video in our “American Pravda” series—catching a CNN producer bragging about how they’re spreading fake news for the sake of ratings.
Today, Project Veritas launched our second video—which shows liberal pundit (and former Obama aide) Van Jones admitting that the whole scandal is a “nothing burger,” despite the hours of time he and other CNN pundits have spent pushing the story.
As I said in my email earlier this morning, the response to the first video has been seismic.
President Trump tweeted about it twice, and his White House Deputy Press Secretary, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, said she would encourage “everybody across the country to take a look at it.”
By the afternoon, Project Veritas had made headlines in almost every major publication—everything from the Washington Post to Drudge Report.
Our team expects a similar response to today’s video. But, because of your support for Project Veritas, we wanted you to be among the first to see it—before anyone else.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/NOTHING-BURGER.jpg360640O'Keefe Media Grouphttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngO'Keefe Media Group2017-06-28 17:16:172017-06-28 17:18:22VIDEO: The second shoe drops on CNN…
As Republicans in the U.S. Congress are debating the pluses and minuses of their repeal and replacement legislation for Obamacare, the Democrats are accusing their colleagues of wanting “thousands of people to die.”
Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
It was The Agenda Project Action Fund that in 2011 released the video of a “Republican” pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off of a cliff. The Agenda Project Action Fund in 2016 endorsed Senator Bernie Sanders for President of the United States. The “thousands of people to die” rhetoric has been repeated on major news channels most recently by Senator Sanders and other Democrats, such as Senator Elizabeth Warren and Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi.
The scheme is to paint Republicans as murderers. It’s the “big lie.”
Master propagandist of the Nazi regime and dictator of its cultural life for twelve years, Joseph Goebbels wrote,
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Watch the below video to understand how a variety of Democrats, and media pundits, are repeating the “big lie” that “thousands will die”:
TRUTH: It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying.
Here are a few examples of policies and legislation supported by Democrats that are causing people to die:
A total of 111 people in California took their own lives using lethal prescriptions during the first six months of a law that allows terminally ill people to request life-ending drugs from their doctors, according to data released Tuesday.
A snapshot of the patients who took advantage of the law mirrors what’s been seen in Oregon, which was the first state to legalize the practice nearly two decades ago. Though California is far more diverse than Oregon, the majority of those who have died under aid-in-dying laws in both states were white, college-educated cancer patients older than 60.
The End of Life Option Act made California the fifth state in the nation to allow patients with less than six months to live to request end-of-life drugs from their doctors.
Illinois is in a fiscal meltdown, the state is bankrupt. In 2016 the Illinois Obamacare co-op became 16th to collapse. Americans for Tax Reform reported:
Sixteen Obamacare co-ops have now failed. Illinois announced that Land of Lincoln Health, a taxpayer funded Obamacare co-op, would close its doors, leaving 49,000 without insurance. The co-op now joins a list of 15 other Obamacare co-ops that have collapsed since Obamacare has been implemented. Failed co-ops have now cost taxpayers more than $1.7 billion in funds that may never be recovered.
Co-ops were hyped as not-for-profit alternatives to traditional insurance companies created under Obamacare. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) financed co-ops with startup and solvency loans, totaling more than $2.4 billion in taxpayer dollars. They have failed to become sustainable with many collapsing amid the failure of Obamacare exchanges.
Since September, 13 Obamacare co-ops have collapsed, with only seven of the original 23 co-ops remaining. Illinois’ Land of Lincoln co-op faced losses of $90 million last year and is suing the federal government for the deficit caused by Obamacare. Co-ops across the country have struggled to operate in Obamacare exchanges, losing millions despite receiving enormous government subsidies.
Tens of thousands of people in the Land of Lincoln are without healthcare. Illinois is ruled by Democrats.
St. Paul, MN, June 27, 2017 – Planned Parenthood abortionists in St. Paul, Minn. would “break the baby’s neck” if the child was born alive, according to a new video just released by Pro-Life Action Ministries. This would be a violation of both federal and Minnesota law.
Braun notes:
In the video, a former Planned Parenthood client says that when she went to Planned Parenthood earlier this year for a late-term abortion (at 22 weeks, 1 day), she asked the two abortionists, “If you guys were to take him out right now while he’s still, his heart rate is still, you know, going, what would you guys do?” According to the woman, one of the abortionists looked at the other one, then looked back at the client, “and she told me that we don’t tell women this, and a lot of women don’t even ask this question, but if we was to proceed with the abortion and the baby was to come out still alive and active, most likely we would break the baby’s neck.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/sanders-people-die.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-06-28 06:56:332017-07-20 19:14:58It’s Democrats who have embraced the policy of death and thousands of people are dying!
America and Europe are under full frontal assault, but it’s a silent war; attacking every vestige of Free Speech. MSM news outlets have been eerily silent; because they’re supplying the ammunition through their promotion of political correctness.
Americans have, for too long, taken their liberties and the right of freedom of speech for granted. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights was created by our founding Fathers for the purpose of equipping its populace with all of the freedoms that had been deprived of themselves; that they fought and died for.
Our European counterparts, unfortunately were never granted the same rights and opportunities as delineated in our Bill of Rights, therefore attacks on freedom of speech under the guise of ‘hate speech’ have reached a tipping point.
Recently, German police raided 36 homes over ‘hateful’ Face book posts. The NYT reports that the raid comes as the country debates a new social media law, cracking down on ‘hate speech.’ Prime Minister, Merkel, had previously met with Face book’s Zuckerberg to discuss cracking down on the criticism of Islam on social media and now citizens are being fined for their ‘hateful rhetoric.’ In Europe, at the present, has become illegal to criticize the migrants or Islam, resulting in fines or detainment.
The U.N., Organization of Islamic Conference, a group of 57 Muslim states has been attempting to enforce global blasphemy laws, as delineated in The Istanbul Process, has been working for over 15 years to prevent or limit criticism of Islam and the Prophet.
Now the enforcement of ‘blasphemy laws’ are closer than we would have imagined. Canada, recently detained a Christian, conservative author, lecturer, social media blogger, and Tea Party Patriot, ‘Wild Bill for America;’ and confiscated his I-pad upon arrival at their airport. Wild Bill was on his way to speak at an anti-Islam conference. He was arrested and detained for seven hours, the authorities read his I-Pad, retreated behind closed doors and concluded that he was ‘smuggling hate speech on his I-Pad!’ Therefore, he was arrested for hate speech that he never spoke. His I-Pad was being sent to Ottawa for forensic examination and possible tariff violation. The actions of the Canadian officers clearly were supporting Sharia Law, where there can be no criticism of Islam. Furthermore, their actions set a very dangerous precedent for their citizens and foreigners travelling to Canada. Will their laptops, books and briefcases be confiscated because of their religious or political beliefs based upon suspicion or notoriety?
America has been under censorship for ‘hate speech’ just like our counterparts, but to a lesser degree Face book and Twitter has blocked, shut down or taken posts down when the blogger’s rhetoric was interpreted as being hateful, especially toward Islam. On our universities conservative speakers have been boycotted and shut down by anarchy groups such as Antifa, BLM and Muslim Brotherhood front groups, SJP and MSA. Universities have even created ‘Free Speech Zones’ designed to regulate freedom of speech or expression.
The regulation of Free Speech through legislation is perhaps the most dangerous of all. In April, 2017, the US Senate passed Senate Resolution 118, “Condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious, or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the US.” What is disconcerting about this legislation is that it was drafted by a Muslim organization, EmagageUSA, formerly EmergeUSA, and the Muslim Public Affairs Council, MPAC.
Most recently, the House has introduced a bill, H Res. 257, “condemning hate crime and any other form of racism, religious or ethnic bias, discrimination, incitement to violence or animus targeting a minority in the U.S. This bill urges that the DOJ, FBI, Sate Dept. become involved in these efforts, therefore, law enforcement could enforce an alleged criminal act. Could this bill be a precursor to ‘Blasphemy Laws,’ where criticism of Islam could be punishable?
Americans must oppose any legislation that will result in the punishment of Free Speech.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/supression-of-free-speech-is-tyranny-sign.jpg290639Ruth Romanhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRuth Roman2017-06-28 05:25:202017-06-28 05:25:20Free Speech in The West on Life Support
Two weeks ago, entertainer extraordinaire Bill Cosby was handed a hung jury in his sexual assault trial in Norristown, Pa., a suburb of Philadelphia.
Regardless of what you think of Cosby and the allegations made against him, a jury of his peers spoke and they concluded that they couldn’t reach unanimous agreement on any of the three charges, thus a hung jury.
That should have been the end of the case and the end of the story. It should have been time for everyone to move on with their lives; it should have been a time for Cosby to get back on stage and do what he does best—to entertain and challenge America; especially Black America.
But that is not what happened on June 17th. Within minutes of Judge Steven T. O’Neill’s declaration of a mistrial, Montgomery County District Attorney Kevin Steele vehemently asserted that he would retry Cosby as soon as possible. By law, they have up to four months to make a final decision to retry.
Steele said, “We will reevaluate and review our case and will retry it and move as soon as possible.”
He went on to declare: “[Cosby’s accuser Andrea Constand] is entitled to a verdict in this case.”
Please allow me to interpret this for you. Steele means she is entitled to a verdict that “he” agrees with.
Constand was not entitled to a verdict; Cosby was entitled to a trial by a jury of her “peers,” nothing more, nothing less.
Those who follow my writings know that I rarely, if ever, invoke race into my arguments, but I would be remiss not to point out the issue of race in this particular case.
In 2015, Steele defeated former Republican Montgomery County District Attorney Bruce Castor in a very heated race. Steele made the veiled promise of a conviction of legendary entertainer Bill Cosby, the central issue in the election. In 2005, when Castor was the district attorney, he declined to prosecute Cosby in the rape allegation brought forward by Constand, because “there was insufficient evidence.”
So, Steele comes along in 2015 and says if you elect me, I will re-open the case against Cosby that was dropped nearly ten years ago.
According to the 2010 census, the county is 79 percent White non-Hispanic, 8.7 percent Black or African American, 6.4 percent Asian, and 4.3 percent Hispanic or Latino.
Republicans have a well-earned reputation for using race to scare White folks into voting for them and are rightfully called out on this practice, but I find it amazing when White, liberal Democrats use the same tactic, liberals, especially Black ones, get laryngitis.
So, Steele used a caricature of the world famous Black comedian to convince White voters in Montgomery County that he would save them from thuggish predators like Cosby, a blind philanthropist, who was once called “America’s Dad.”
Dog whistle rhetoric
Aren’t these the same dog whistles that Democrats accuse Republicans of using?
Look at the 2015 campaign TV commercial Steele ran against Castor using the allegations against Cosby. When I saw this ad two years ago, I was immediately transported back to 1990 when segregationist Republican Senator Jesse Helms ran his infamous “hands ad.”
In 1990, Harvey Gantt, mayor of Charlotte, N.C. was leading Helms in his reelection bid for the U.S. Senate. Gantt would have become the first Black senator in North Carolina’s history. As soon as Helms aired the hands ad, the race was, for all practical purposes, over.
There is absolutely no doubt that Helms’ ad was racist and meant to scare White folks to turnout for his reelection. Likewise, Steele did the same thing, but since he is a liberal, White Democrat, there was no public outcry.
Some political insiders have suggested that Steele’s ultimate goal is to run for governor of Pennsylvania; a conviction in the Cosby trial was critical stepping-stone to the governor’s mansion.
It’s all or nothing for Steele. Cosby, and by extension Blacks in Pennsylvania, are simply pawns in the game that the district attorney is playing to get what he wants politically.
The Congressional Black Caucus raised holy hell in 1990 denouncing the Helms’ TV ad; Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were both all over TV screaming racism; the NAACP and Urban League were sending out massive amounts of mail coming out against Helms and Republicans.
These folks and groups all “claim” to be for justice and equality for all, but I guess you have to add, “if” they agree with your politics. It is public knowledge that Cosby has opened his wallet to many civil rights groups lending his celebrity to various social causes for decades.
So, to all the Blacks who are running away from Cosby, like the plague, and have suddenly come down with a severe case of laryngitis, I say that today Bill Cosby has been tried and convicted in the White liberal court of public opinion, but ask yourself, who will stand up for you when it’s your turn?
EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Black Press USA.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Dog-Whistle-Politics-e1498641340610.jpg379640Raynard Jacksonhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRaynard Jackson2017-06-28 05:17:252017-06-28 05:19:48Democrats Play Dog Whistle Politics, Too. Just Ask Bill Cosby.
BIRMINGHAM, Ala./PRNewswire/ — After receiving threats and negative blowback from an AL.com article by Cameron Smith entitled “A few Baptists and a GOP candidate walk into an Alabama mosque…” which mentions his recent speech at an Alabama mosque, Dr. Randy Brinson, physician, lay minister and candidate for the Republican Senate seat formerly held by Jeff Sessions, spoke today about his recent visit to the Hoover Crescent Islamic Center.
Brinson’s Statement:
“I had been asked by several Birmingham doctors to visit the medical clinic on the same property as the Islamic Center. They’d heard about my plans for health care reform and wanted to speak with me about that, and my other campaign positions. After we’d spoken about this, I was invited to an Interfaith meeting that was being held that evening with members of Shades Mountain Baptist Church. Until they asked me to participate, I had no idea that the Interfaith meeting was going on.”
“God opened this door for me, and I used the opportunity He’d given me to extend an olive branch and share my faith in the love and mercy of Jesus Christ to everyone there. It was a tremendous opportunity to do what we’re told to do in Mark 16:15, to proclaim the gospel to the whole creation.”
“Some people won’t vote for me because I went to a mosque and spoke to 140 Muslims about Jesus, and that’s okay. I don’t regret taking advantage of a God-given circumstance to bear witness and give my testimony about what the Lord has done in my life. If sharing my faith costs me this election, then so be it. I know what’s important, and first and foremost, that’s my salvation through Jesus Christ,” Brinson said.
If you think a masjid might be intimidating to a few Baptists, imagine what it would be like for a few Muslims to spend time with 4,000 Baptists on Sunday morning in Alabama. In fact, Taufique’s estimate of the entire Muslim population in the greater Birmingham area is about the same size as my church’s membership roll.
[ … ]
But here’s the amazing part, we also discussed our clear theological conflicts. Their belief in the oneness of Allah is wholly incompatible with the Christian belief that Jesus was fully man and fully God. For Christians, Jesus’s divinity, death and resurrection is a necessary element for salvation. Muslims believe we will all stand before Allah on the Day of Judgment and to be measured against the Six Articles of Faith and our deeds during our lives.
The central tenets of one faith are heresy to the other. Neither the Baptists nor the Muslims in attendance made any attempt to downplay the disagreement or modify our respective theologies to make others more comfortable. It simply wasn’t necessary. Neither Christian nor Muslim likely won converts over the course of the evening, but we did take a critical step towards building friendships. [Emphasis added]
Brinson has a long history of faith-based activities. Apart from nearly 30 years at Taylor Road Baptist Church and countless mission trips, he has been involved in Christian music since 1999, when he brought WAY-FM to Montgomery. In 2003, he and his wife Pam formed Redeem the Vote to engage more people of faith in the political process. In 2006, he became head of the Christian Coalition of Alabama, and in 2008 was a senior advisor to Governor Mike Huckabee’s presidential campaign.
Brinson stepped down as head of Redeem the Vote and the Christian Coalition earlier this year to run for the Senate seat previously held by Jeff Sessions.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Dr.-Randy-Brinson.jpg360640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2017-06-28 04:51:182017-06-28 04:59:04Republican U.S. Senate Candidate Brinson brings the words of Jesus to a Mosque
As with international terrorists, transnational gangs exploit immigration failures.
Failures of the immigration system are, once again, behind headline-making news reports. Last week two Congressional hearings were conducted into what has become America’s most pernicious and violent transnational gang, MS-13 that now operates in some 40 states.
Illustration by Graham Smith
I am very familiar with MS-13, I began investigating them nearly 25 years ago early into my assignment at the Organized Crime, Drug Enforcement Task Force following my promotion to INS Senior Special Agent.
Back then the number of the members of MS-13 in New York was small, consequently and the impact they had was also relatively small.
The immigration policies of the Clinton and Bush administrations certainly did not help law enforcement. However, the greatest influx of MS-13 gang members is directly related to the flood of Unaccompanied Minors from Central America during the latter part of the Obama administration.
On April 28, 2017 Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at the federal building in Central Islip where the Congressional field hearing would be held nearly two months later. His speech, and his message, was reported by CBS news, Attorney General Sessions To Gangs: ‘We Are Targeting You.’
Yet the enforcement of our immigration laws by the Trump administration and by Attorney General Sessions has been frequently attacked by the media and by politicians, especially the “leaders” of Sanctuary Cities.
That “pipeline” crosses the U.S./Mexican border and is operated by members of drug cartels and transnational gangs.
It is important to read the prepared testimony of Subcommittee Chairman Peter Kingwho focused on how the flood of unaccompanied minors from Central America flooded America with young and violent gang members who are now recruiting more gang members in our schools.
Here is the brief description of that hearing, and its predication, as posted on the official Congressional website:
This field hearing will examine the threat posed by transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), particularly Mara Salvatrucha 13 (MS-13) and the extent to which this violent gang is able to circumvent border security measures to gain entry into the U.S. Since January 2016, there have been 17 murders linked to MS-13 in Suffolk County alone. The hearing will feature testimony from the stakeholders related to the interaction and cooperation between Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to combat MS-13. Additionally, testimony will be provided by community members directly impacted by these TCOs. The two panels reflect the broad cross section of the community required to respond to the threat posed by MS-13 and other TCOs on Long Island and across the nation.
Here is an excerpt from Chairman Grassley’s statement:
This organization has been dubbed the world’s “most dangerous gang,” and some say it could be a terrorist organization. But, you wouldn’t expect anything less from a group whose motto is “kill, rape, and control.”
Unfortunately, over the past two years, this terrifying motto has become a vicious reality for many communities across our nation. So far this year, the gang has been publicly linked to dozens of high-profile killings, rapes, and assaults across the country, from the Washington D.C. metro area to Houston, Texas.
Undoubtedly, there are many more that simply haven’t been reported.
The mainstream media that reported on these hearings all but avoided mentioning that multiple failures of the immigration system have enabled these violent criminals to enter the United States and that Border Security Is National Security.
The “journalists” also blithely ignore that Sanctuary Cities: Where Hypocrisy Rules, often harbor and shield criminal aliens from detection by immigration law enforcement personnel.
In point of fact, Opponents of Border Security and Immigration Law Enforcement Aid Human Traffickers. The most effective way to attack the human smugglers, who facilitate the entry of transnational gang members such as MS-13 is to have ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents work closely with local police and other law enforcement agencies to gain access to smuggled aliens who could then provide actionable intelligence to enable ICE and the Border Patrol to identify, locate and ultimately arrest human traffickers and dismantle their operations.
Shielding illegal aliens from detection by ICE also shields gang members and smugglers. It is nearly impossible to identify human traffickers without interviewing the aliens whom they smuggled into the United States.
Illegal aliens who cooperate with law enforcement authorities can be granted visas that enable them to remain in the United States and legally work- to encourage such individuals to come forward without fear.
As an INS special agent my law enforcement colleagues, on the local, state of federal level, often told me that the granting of such visas to illegal aliens provided far more important intelligence that could any other incentive.
If mayors of Sanctuary Cities were truly concerned about doing what is compassionate, they should issue public service announcements, urging illegal aliens to come forward if they have significant information that could aid ICE agents in identifying and ultimately arresting criminals including human traffickers living in their communities to safeguard those who live in those ethnic immigrant communities, where these transnational criminals live and ply their “trades.”
This would simply be an extension of “If you see something, say something.” (If you know something say something!)
Those mayors should require their respective police departments to work closely with ICE agents rather than prevent them from working with those agents.
Yet this fact is utterly ignored by the media and by many politicians. In fact the media often portray mayors of “Sanctuary Cities” as heroes who shield illegal aliens from immigration agents who, according to the narrative, are the “bad guys.”
Here is an expert from that report that appeared in Government Executive:
According to ICE, there have been 19 recorded assaults on ICE personnel in 2017 through May 22, compared to 24 incidents in all of 2016. (Senators) Johnson and McCaskill also requested data since 2010, what DHS and ICE have done already to protect employees, and whether assailants have been prosecuted.
Thomas Homan, ICE’s acting director, at a congressional hearing last week blamed the media and immigrant groups for putting officers at risk by promoting false or misleading reports about the nature of their jobs. His employees, Homan said, have been “unfairly vilified for simply trying to do their jobs.”
“People have the right to protest, but ICE officers also have rights,” Homan told a House Appropriations Committee panel. “They have a right to enforce the law safely and return to their families at the end of the day.”
Homan promoted the controversial practice of making immigration arrests at courthouses, noting it helped with safety for his officers because they could be certain the detainees did not have any weapons on them. He decried as untrue any reports that ICE employees were making arrests at schools or hospitals. ICE officers, he said, should be celebrated for keeping communities safe rather than depicted as inhumane or callous.
As to the supposedly “controversial practice of making immigration arrests in courthouses,” arrest operations are inherently dangerous. Individuals, especially those who face severe consequences for their crimes, can become extremely violent in an effort to evade law enforcement. Sociopathic criminals including those who are addicted to narcotics, may react irrationally when confronted by law enforcement.
Generally everyone entering a courthouse is carefully screened for weapons.
A courthouse is often the best place to take a defendant into custody. I speak from many years of experience.
It is particularly ironic and, indeed, vexing that there are judges and lawyers (who are “officers of the court”) who oppose federal law enforcement officers executing lawfully issued warrants in a building dedicated to the Constitution and to the principles of the rule of law and justice.
Furthermore, when an arrest goes badly on the street or a building, and a gunfight ensues, innocent civilians as well as agents and the defendant, are placed in extreme mortal danger.
No rational, reasonable or compassionate person would rather risk innocent lives rather than facilitate the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws that have absolutely nothing to do with race, religion, ethnicity, but have everything to do with public safety, national security and the well being of America and Americans.
Considering the foregoing, I am compelled to remind you that the ENLIST Act (H.R. 60) would undermine national security and public safety, providing gang members with access to military training and military bases. When “Compassion” Endangers National Security: The landmines of illegal aliens entering military service.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ms-13.jpg374640Michael Cutlerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMichael Cutler2017-06-28 04:29:272017-06-28 04:29:27America’s Gang Crisis: Congressional Hearing Focus on MS-13
An alliance of Central European countries led by Hungary has pledged to work together to stem the flow of illegal migrants into Europe.
It is refreshing to see countries in Central Europe finally stand up and defend their borders, and reject the suicidal immigration policies that have led other European countries into massive crime, debt and escalating jihad attacks.
Delegations to the Central European Defence Cooperation have declared themselves “united against mass illegal migration”; which is tantamount to saying that they are “united against the hijrah.”
An additional difficulty with unvetted migrants swarming Western borders has been contagious illnesses. A Yemini asylum seeker with tuberculosis who visited a kindergarten class in Germany several times is said to have possibly infected up to “18 children and four adults with the disease.”
“Hungarians Declare: ‘Central Europe Stands United Against Mass Illegal Migration’”, Jack Montgomery, Breitbart, June 21, 2017:
An alliance of Central European countries led by Hungary has pledged to work together to stem the flow of illegal migrants into Europe at a meeting in Prague.
Delegations to the Central European Defence Cooperation (CEDC) group from Austria, Croatia, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, and the Czech Republic were, according to a report on the Hungarian government’s official website, “united against mass illegal migration”.
Defence ministers at the summit agreed to “facilitate the quick and joint mobilization of civilian, police and military capabilities” in defence of the European Union’s external borders.
Elaborating on the reasons behind Hungary’s robust anti-mass immigration stance, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán explained: “What we want is a Hungarian Hungary and a European Europe.”
The Fidesz leader said his government “won’t participate in experiments aimed at changing Hungary or Europe, in which Europe’s cultural traditions would be swept aside to be replaced by a mixture of other cultures, religions and worldviews, allowing masses to enter without control”…..
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/austria-border-e1498604485836.jpg360640Jihad Watchhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJihad Watch2017-06-27 19:01:362017-06-27 19:01:36Hungary leads Central European countries against mass migration
See my post yesterday immediately following the surprising announcement by the Supreme Court on the Trump ‘travel ban’ from six terror-producing countries and the ceiling/moratorium on refugee resettlement across all countries and ethnic groups.
This morning I thought I might find an article or two that sounded reasonably informed about what is going to happen in the coming days and weeks. I didn’t find anything (yet) that looks very useful. Everyone seems confused.
There is an LA Times story with a juicy nugget where they say 50,500 refugees (yikes!) are waiting in the wings from the six targeted ‘travel ban’ countries. And, a Buffalo Newsstory is representative of the myriad stories from across the country where refugee contractors are scratching their heads about what it all means for them. Those that get mostly refugees with “family ties” believe they will be getting their full quotas of paying clients.
Random thoughts!
So, as much as I would like to give readers guidance on what is going to happen, I can’t. But, here are some thoughts I have in random order. Some are comments, others are questions.
The issue of bona fide relationships is going to be a huge mess. Already the contractors and subcontractors are thinking that if they have some refugees on the way from any country, they, the contractor, will be a bona fide “entity” and therefore their refugees will get in.
Apparently a 120-day MORATORIUM on refugee resettlement (90 days for those 6 countries is a separate part of the EO) will go into effect, except for those who can claim a relationship of some sort. If it begins on Thursday (as most are predicting), 120 days ends on or about October 26th which is 26 days in to FY18. It then makes me wonder what Donald Trump will do with his ‘determination’ for that fiscal year which by law he will present to Congress in September.
After wandering in the weeds about numbers, will the Trump Administration have any will to reform the whole US Refugee Admissions Program? It is now or never!
Even if the Supreme Court hears the case in October, it could be months later for a decision (well in to election year 2018).
BTW, as several news articles yesterday pointed out, there was and probably still is, a huge amount of fraud in the Refugee Admissions Program as it relates to who is, and who isn’t, a family member. Long time readers may remember the discovery in 2008 that literally as many as 20,000 Somalis entered the US fraudulently as part of the P-3 Family Reunification program. The Dept. of State shut down the P-3 for parts of Africa for years. The Supreme Court has now further increased the incentive for fraudulent claims of family connections.
The Supreme Court ruling is troubling to me, actually on many levels, but they suggest that refugees with family ties get priority, while perhaps more persecuted people are left behind. Heck, every Somali probably has a family tie to someone in the US (since way over 100,000 are here already), while a truly persecuted Syrian Christian may have no ties because so few Syrian Christians have been admitted to the US. How did the Supremes let themselves get into this quagmire?
The Dept. of State, with the likes of Brian Hook working with Sec. of State Tillerson, will be making critical decisions about how choices will be made about who gets in here between now and October 26th. They will be forced to depend on career bureaucrats (because Trump has moved too slowly to get people loyal to him placed in agencies across Washington) who have long-time personal relationships with the contractors.
Although, as I said yesterday, I’m glad the Supreme Court put to rest the issue of whether Trump had the authority to reduce the refugee CEILING that he inherited from Obama (from 110,000 to 50,000), I am extremely troubled by the Supreme Court writing refugee law. The Refugee Act of 1980 is very specific about what steps must be taken for a President to go above the CEILING. The steps involve the President consulting with Congress in the case of an emergency. The court here is saying they have now stepped in to allow an increase over 50,000 (for relatives!). What is Congress going to do—continue to hide on the subject of refugees—and give up their Constitutional power to the courts?
Congress actually appropriated enough money for 75,000 refugees to be admitted by September 30th, so what happens to that money as the number surely won’t come in anywhere near the 75,000 level (how on earth did Tillerson/Hook get out on that limb back in May telling contractors 1,500 would be admitted every week?).
Representatives of the nine federal contractors*** are in a tizzy(as I read many news stories this morning), some trying to put a positive spin on what the Court has done. I wondered if they wouldn’t have been better off just letting Trump’s EO go in to effect months ago and get the review over with. It would have been done by now and some normalcy returned. Instead we are all looking to many more months of chaos, confusion and lawsuits. So maybe we can say, that the contractors are responsible for those “vulnerable” refugees left in limbo now.
On that point about being in a tizzy, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society (HIAS)is organizing a briefing call on Thursday so you can find out what they think of the decision and what they will do going forward.
From an e-mail:
To learn more about the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision for refugees and non-citizens, join HIAS for a briefing call on Thursday, June 27 at 4:30 pm EST. Click here to RSVPand receive a call-in number.
[Update! A reader has pointed out that Thursday is the 29th! So, I expect there will be an e-mail correction coming from HIAS—ed]
I’m sure I’ve forgotten some things, and if I find some great legal mind who can predict what is going to happen beginning on Thursday, I’ll send it your way. In the meantime, send story links that you think add to the discussion to the comments here at RRW.
More later…..
***Federal contractors in a tizzy. Since the vast majority of their annual income is from the US Treasury based on the number of refugees admitted each year, their budgets have again gone to hell. Not that I am sympathetic about their financial mess, but this is why Congress has to get the middlemen contractors out of the refugee business!
Can the global warming campaign keep scaring us if their predictions never come true?
Check out the featured story this morning over at CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service.
Radio and print journalist Kerry Jackson writes that,
“It’s summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that within a decade there would be a ‘true planetary emergency.'”
“Instead of these disasters, we have the climate alarmist community admitting that there has indeed been a pause in the warming and that its models failed to predict it.”
“Yes, that’s right. The alarmists are acknowledging in the abstract of a research paper that was published this month in Nature Geoscience that there have been ‘differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates.'”
This is a big deal.
For years CFACT has contrasted real-world temperatures measured by scientists against other scientists’ climate computer models to show that the models project a warmer world than we actually live in.
There has been no meaningful warming since the 20th Century.
Warming campaigners have been in full denial about these inconvenient facts. That they are finally getting around to acknowledging the evidence staring us all in the face is a positive step.
“Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery” is what they tell people in crisis.
Let’s hope a begrudging admission that their models have been wrong all along leads to more open minds and better climate science.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/global-cooling-global-warming-time-covers.jpg360640Committee For A Constructive Tomorrowhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngCommittee For A Constructive Tomorrow2017-06-27 17:51:232017-06-29 20:00:25Climate scares fail to occur
The Seattle Minimum Wage Study, a study supported and funded in part by the Seattle city government, is out with a new NBER paper evaluating Seattle’s minimum wage increase to $13 an hour and it finds significant disemployment effects that on net reduce the incomes of minimum wage workers. I farm this one out to Jonathan Meer on FB.
This is the official study that was commissioned several years ago by the city of Seattle to study the impacts of raising the minimum wage, in a move that I applauded at the time as an honest and transparent attempt towards self-examination of a bold policy. It is the first study of a very high city-level minimum wage, with administrative data that has much more detail than is usually available. The first wave (examining the increase to $11/hr) last year was a mixed bag, with fairly imprecise estimates.
These findings, examining another year of data and including the increase to $13/hr, are unequivocal: the policy is an unmitigated disaster. The main findings:
– The numbers of hours worked by low-wage workers fell by *3.5 million hours per quarter*. This was reflected both in thousands of job losses and reductions in hours worked by those who retained their jobs.
– The losses were so dramatic that this increase “reduced income paid to low-wage employees of single-location Seattle businesses by roughly $120 million on an annual basis.” On average, low-wage workers *lost* $125 per month. The minimum wage has always been a lousy income transfer program, but at this level you’d come out ahead just setting a hundred million dollars a year on fire. And that’s before we get into who kept vs lost their jobs.
– Estimates of the response of labor demand are substantially higher than much of the previous research, which may have been expected given how much higher (and how localized) this minimum wage is relative to previously-studied ones.
– The impacts took some time to be reflected in the level of employment, as predicted by Meer and West (2016).
– The authors are able to replicate the results of other papers that find no impact on the restaurant industry with their own data by imposing the same limitations that other researchers have faced. This shows that those papers’ findings were likely driven by their data limitations. This is an important thing to remember as you see knee-jerk responses coming from the usual corners.
– You may also hear that the construction of the comparison group was flawed somehow, and that’s driving the results. I believe that the research team did as good of a job as possible, trying several approaches and presenting all of their findings extensively. There is no cherry-picking here. But more importantly, without getting too deep into the econometric weeds, my sense is that, given the evolution of the Seattle economy over the past two years, these results – if anything – *understate* the extent of the job losses.
This paper not only makes numerous valuable contributions to the economics literature, but should give serious pause to minimum wage advocates. Of course, that’s not what’s happening, to the extent that the mayor of Seattle commissioned *another* study, by an advocacy group at Berkeley whose previous work on the minimum wage is so consistently one-sided that you can set your watch by it, that unsurprisingly finds no effect. They deliberately timed its release for several days before this paper came out, and I find that whole affair abhorrent. Seattle politicians are so unwilling to accept reality that they’ll undermine their own researchers and waste taxpayer dollars on what is barely a cut above propaganda.
I don’t envy the backlash this team is going to face for daring to present results that will be seen as heresy. I know that so many people just desperately want to believe that the minimum wage is a free lunch. It’s not. These job losses will only get worse as the minimum wage climbs higher, and this team is working on linking to demographic data to examine who the losers from this policy are. I fully expect that these losses are borne most heavily by low-income and minority households.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/seattle_mini-e1498598563664.jpg372640Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2017-06-27 17:26:322017-06-28 17:06:47Seattle’s Minimum Wage Has Been a Disaster, as the City’s Own Study Confirms by Alex Tabarrok
Increasing frustration with Federal overreaches and abuses of governmental power has resulted in many Americans returning to the Foundations of the United States to find solutions. It was known from the start that all governments are essentially a necessary evil – that in time, no matter how bound by supreme laws of the land, governments would become destructive of the very ends for which the people originally created them.
In the case of the U.S. Declaration, Constitution and Bill of Rights, our Founders did absolutely brilliant work to provide separation of powers, limited duties and authorities and checks and balances aimed at preventing that inevitability. They also assumed that sooner or later, the inevitable would come to pass, despite their efforts to prevent it – and they provided numerous remedies as well.
In recent years, one such remedy has been heavily promoted by some searching for a solution to Federal tyranny – The Article V Convention of States. The group leading the charge on this initiative is Citizens for Self-Governance and their web site for this project is found at www.ConventionofStates.com
In reviewing this proposed solution, I will work from the statements found at the Convention of States web FAQ page as well as Article V text itself.
First, the actual text of Article V
“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.” (Source)
Next, the definition of a Constitutional Convention
Any meeting between Congress and the States in which the stated purpose of the meeting is to amend the United States Constitution, is by definition, a Constitutional Convention. The power to amend the U.S. Constitution is derived from Article V. Congress may propose and pass amendments to the Constitution without a “convention.” None of the 27 amendments to the Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. The Congress proposes an amendment in the form of a joint resolution, later sent to the States for ratification.
However, for the amendment process to begin from the states, 2/3 of the State Legislatures must apply to Congress to convene a “convention” for the purpose of considering proposed constitutional amendments being offered by the States. In either case, the same amendment process begins. The States cannot amend the Federal Constitution outside of a Constitutional Convention. They can only force Congress to convene a convention for that purpose and propose amendments for consideration.
The Amendment Process
The Amendment Process is very cut-n-dry. The process can begin either by Congress passing Joint Resolutions sent to the States for ratification, or by 2/3 of the State legislatures applying to Congress to convene a Constitutional Convention.
In either case, Congress will oversee the process, consider proposed amendments and determine which amendments will be sent back to the States for ratification. No amendment is adopted until this process has completed and at least ¾ of the States have officially ratified the amendments. (Source)
Statements by Citizens for Self-Governance
On their FAQ page, the Convention of States initiative answers the following key questions…
Answer: “A convention of states is a convention called by the state legislatures for the purpose of proposing amendments to the Constitution.”
Clear enough, right… The initiative seeks to amend the Federal Constitution by having 2/3 of the States apply to Congress to convene a convention for that purpose. But then the answer continues with this text – “They are given power to do this under Article V of the Constitution. It is not a constitutional convention.”
By definition, it IS a “Constitutional Convention” they are applying to Congress to convene. The minute Congress “shall” convene, the prescribed Amendment Process begins.
Answer: “Thirty-four state legislatures must pass a resolution called an “application” calling for a Convention of States. The applications must request a Convention of the States for the same subject matter. The applications are delivered to Congress.”
Indeed, 2/3 of the State legislatures can apply to Congress to convene a convention for the purpose of hearing proposed amendments to the Constitution. In the end, ¾ of the States must ratify amendments passed at the convention and sent to the states for ratification, or the entire process is moot.
There is some word-smithing involved here… They continually refer to this convention as a “Convention of States,” when in fact, by definition, they are applying to Congress to convene a “constitutional convention.”
A Number of other Falsehoods
“As long as each states applies for a convention that deals with the same issue (i.e., limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government), Congress must call the convention.”
It is true that upon the application of 2/3 of the State legislatures, Congress “shall call” the convention, setting the time, place and process for considering amendments to the Constitution. It is false that Congress has no convening authority over that convention. Read the Amendment Process.
“The text, history, and purpose of Article V all point to the ability of the states to limit a convention to the consideration of a single topic or set of topics.”
As already stated, this process has never been attempted. All existing amendments to the U.S. Constitution were passed by Congressional Joint Resolution and sent to the States for ratification. Never in our history has 2/3 of the States applied to Congress to convene a constitutional convention on their behalf, for the stated purpose of amending the Constitution.
The theory that Congress will have no say, or that the convention can be limited or controlled by the States throughout the amendment process is just that, a theory. It has never been attempted, much less accomplished.
Some point to the Bill of Rights as an example of success. However, the Bill of Rights was actually largely agreed to during the ratification of the Constitution itself, and immediately adopted after, in order to secure the ratification of the Constitution.
Closing Statement
Yes, 2/3 of the States can apply to Congress to convene a convention for the purpose of amending the Constitution.
Yes, Congress “shall” convene upon that application by the States
Yes, the States can attempt to limit and control the scope of the amendments, with no guarantees whatsoever
No, the States cannot amend the U.S. Constitution free from any Congressional oversight
Yes, the entire Amendment Process must ensue and be completed before any amendments will have been adopted.
Further, State legislatures are constantly changing as well. By the time you can get 2/3 of the States to file an application with Congress, the make-up of those legislatures will be different than when the process began. So, there will be no way to predict what amendments will be proposed by the time that a convention could be convened, or the outcome of it.
Last, I understand that some “experts” are pushing this solution as if it could work the way they say. Don’t ask me why they do this, I do not know.
But true constitutionalists seeking to reign in a runaway federal government would simply seek to enforce existing Constitutional text, rather than amending it. In truth, a serious effort to reign in the federal government would focus on repealing several existing amendments, rather than adding to them with amendments we cannot control.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/article-5-constitution-e1498580701259.jpg368640J.B. Williamshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngJ.B. Williams2017-06-27 12:25:072017-06-27 12:25:07What Article V Actually Says
BIRMINGHAM, Ala.
