Tag: Filibuster

Commentary: Innocent suffer in border surge

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Courtesy Don Loucks
Contributing columnist to The Statesman

It is difficult to understand the video showing two small girls ages 3 and 5 being dropped over 14-foot-tall border wall in Texas and then left there while the perpetrators fled back into Mexico. However, as the saying goes, “follow the money.”

Human trafficking — modern slavery, really — is a booming and very lucrative business. In fact, it is only a close second behind the illicit drug trade. How big, one wonders? Hundreds of billions of dollars big.

There are many facets to this tragedy; many layers and intensities of activity are in play. The dropping of children over the border and border walls is only one small part. Human beings in various capacities are valuable commodities.

Keep this in mind: This horrible human tragedy would not be happening if President Joe Biden had not cancelled the Trump plan to complete the border wall and strictly control who may enter the United States. It is clear that the word went out very early after the election that Biden would stop enforcing control of our borders. His administration cannot even call this crisis a crisis.

Set aside America’s Southern border crisis for a moment and consider something that came to light in late 2019 in the form of a so-called pandemic. Certainly, COVID-19 can be a deadly disease, but how was it so rapidly distributed from Wuhan, China, to other parts of the world such as Los Angeles, New York City, Florence, Italy, and Madrid, Spain, to name just a few?

The answer to the “why” is slave labor. Communist China provides laborers to other countries. In the case of COVID-19, it was primarily textile workers (clothing makers) who were contracted out to do clothing manufacturing. Who was paid?

The Communist Chinese regime “owns” its citizens. The money paid for their labor goes to their government, which takes a nice cut, then a pittance is paid to the laborers. This is slave labor. The Communist Chinese government owns its citizens, they are considered property.

To whom do the people crossing our Southern border then belong?

One of the terrifying smuggling techniques for monetary gain is to charge a large sum for conveying a person into the United States. Reported amounts of $5,000 to $15,000 dollars are common. Then, one would ask how these supposedly destitute people obtain such funds when the countries form which they originate are so poor?

Evidently, the new method is a form of “installment plan.” The coyotes (smugglers) take a deposit from the person seeking passage, and then the now-indentured slave is made to promise to send direct deposit payments monthly to the coyote’s bank accounts. If the payments are not made, the collateral (families of the migrants back home) are harmed or killed. This is serious business.

It is also reported that the drug and human smuggling cartels are intertwined and are so powerful they have become the actual government of most of northern Mexico. Is it possible for Americans to imagine the entire Southwest United States being controlled, government and all, by the Mafia? Please imagine that because that is exactly what it would be.

Some of the illegal immigrants act as “mules” for smuggling drugs across the border. If caught they are subject to drug smuggling charges and can be incarcerated. But there are other, more efficient means of smuggling drugs, such as tunnels, disguised shipping containers and even model aircraft and drones.

As a public, we have been aware of drug smuggling and the effects of drug addiction for many decades. It has only been relatively recently that the human trafficking and slavery prostitution have become newsworthy. The number world-wide is estimated to be 25 million slaves.

The Jeffery Epstein scandal, where under-age girls were taken to his private island for the pleasure of well-heeled clients, is just the tip of the iceberg. More coverage of kidnapping and sex slavery will be included in the second of this two-part column series.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Commentary: The U.S. Senate must preserve the filibuster to protect America from radical laws

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]Courtesy Don Loucks
Contributing columnist to The Statesman

Democrats warn that if they do not get their way in passing their radical legislation through the U.S. Senate, they will do away with the legislative filibuster in order to do so. That’s a dangerous threat.

Let’s review some history of the Senate.

In the original U.S. Constitution, Senators were selected by their state’s legislatures. In the unamended Article I, Section 3, “The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, chosen by the Legislature thereof, for six Years; and each Senator shall have one Vote.”

Senators were not elected by the voters. Rather, the state legislators who were elected by the people, chose their state’s U.S. senators, accurately described as each state’s ambassadors to the federal government. Thus, there was a degree of separation between the popular culture and governance.

Then came the populist movement in 1913 under Progressive Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The loud complaint was that the Senate was too stodgy and obstructive, and popular and progressive (liberal) legislation was unfairly killed or modified. Also, after the Civil War, many disagreements among state legislators left vacancies in the Senate, some lasting a long time and leaving states without representation in that chamber.

The founders, however, left Senate picks to state legislatures because they knew the dangers of a public that could be easily or temporarily swayed by appealing fads, like socialism.

Then came 17th Amendment — one of several destructive changes to U.S. governance.

The 17th Amendment restates the first paragraph of Article I, section 3 of the Constitution and provides for the election of senators by replacing the phrase “chosen by the Legislature thereof” with “elected by the people thereof.” In addition, it allows the governor or executive authority of each state, if authorized by that state’s legislature, to appoint a senator in the event of a vacancy, until a general election occurs.

Before the 17th Amendment, states were somewhat protected from legislation unfavorable or harmful to them.

The legislative filibuster, a parliamentary procedure used to delay or block legislation in the Senate, also enhanced that protective function.

As it was with the progressives of 1913, our radical Democratic Senate majority of this Congress sees the filibuster as just another impediment to their leftist goals. If the filibuster is eliminated, states will be run over by harmful, unstoppable legislation.

The filibuster is defined by a Senate rule. Under this rule a senator may halt the progress to vote on a bill by invoking their right to continue debate on it. A filibuster may be stopped if three-fifths of all Senators (usually 60) vote to end debate. This vote is commonly called “cloture.”

However, because it is a rule, it can be changed or removed by the Senate if two-thirds of the senators present vote for the change, which would be very difficult to achieve. Senators know the filibuster protects the minority party in that chamber.

Also, the filibuster protects senators from political toss-up states. Those senators are leery of voting for legislation that is unpopular with those who elected them – gun control is a good example.

The Democrat leadership in power now, however, may not honor their desires and may attempt to change the Senate rules without the 67 votes currently required for such a change. The loophole is a provision that requires only a simple majority of 51 votes, to virtually circumvent a Senate rule by an arcane maneuver of claiming “precedence” by allowing for a simple majority vote. This “nuclear option” has been used by Republicans and Democrats, most recently Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., used the option in 2019 to advance President Donald Trump’s executive and judicial nominees.

With Democrats in power now, they will do absolutely anything to ram their radical agenda through to be signed by the president.

Watch closely in the coming weeks to see what the Democrats will try to pass, and watch just as closely as what Congress actually passes.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Verified by MonsterInsights