TheStormofWar
Well-Known Member
And China's refiners are already talking with Canada. Good job, *** hat.
There it is. The factual data.
Here are facts:
- Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.
- In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers—ten times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.
- Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (who are subject to less scrutiny) when crossing legally are the best smugglers.
- The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs at ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be stopped than are people crossing illegally between them.
- Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.
One could argue that this shows legal crossings are subject to more scrutiny/risk, accounting for why 90% of seizures occur in these places. This leads me to believe these people are actually the worst smugglers.
Here are facts:
- Fentanyl smuggling is ultimately funded by U.S. consumers who pay for illicit opioids: nearly 99 percent of whom are U.S. citizens.
- In 2021, U.S. citizens were 86.3 percent of convicted fentanyl drug traffickers—ten times greater than convictions of illegal immigrants for the same offense.
- Over 90 percent of fentanyl seizures occur at legal crossing points or interior vehicle checkpoints, not on illegal migration routes, so U.S. citizens (who are subject to less scrutiny) when crossing legally are the best smugglers.
- The location of smuggling makes sense because hard drugs at ports of entry are about 97 percent less likely to be stopped than are people crossing illegally between them.
- Just 0.02 percent of the people arrested by Border Patrol for crossing illegally possessed any fentanyl whatsoever.
We have Canadians booing our national anthem and now cancelling trips to the US.
Well done trump. Dumbass
Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk
This next 4 years will be a good time to be a lawyer. There will be so many lawsuits. Unbelievable. How is any of this good? I know the answer is "the enemy within" and full-on lies and ******** about idiots and morons and evil people running these departments as full-on crime syndicates. Still unbelievable so many people believe this ****.
It is not "random stuff". As has been said all along, Trump uses the threat of tariffs mostly for negotiation. This is what I wrote last year:His supporters are saying you can't listen to the words that come out of his mouth, you have to patiently and loyally stand by and then praise whatever random result happens at some undetermined point afterwards.
It is also not going to happen as made clear by Scott Bessant, Trump's nomination to be Treasury Secretary when he wrote "tariff gun will always be loaded and on the table but rarely discharged."
It is a negotiation point that will be used in exactly the same way Trump used it in his first term.
One could argue that this shows legal crossings are subject to more scrutiny/risk, accounting for why 90% of seizures occur in these places. This leads me to believe these people are actually the worst smugglers.
I assume drones and GPS, water drops and other methods that are hard to stop are being used. China has worked to stop some chemicals from being sold. It has helped some, but the drug trafficers moved a lot of manufacturing to India.
It is not "random stuff". As has been said all along, Trump uses the threat of tariffs mostly for negotiation. This is what I wrote last year:
From Mexico, he wants a wall. He's thinking 10,000 Mexican soldiers can help him quickly make a wall, and that is what he got.
From Canada, I'm thinking he's not happy with the Trans-Mountain pipeline that will allow Canada to pipe our Alberta oil to Canada's west coast for loading on to tankers bound for places that aren't the United States. I don't think Canada is going to give that up, but we'll see.
Because Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline which Canada made clear they preferred.Why do you think Canada built this pipeline?
The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.(a) In general
Unless abolished pursuant to the reorganization plan submitted under section 6601 of this title, and except as provided in section 6562 of this title, there is within the Executive branch of Government the United States Agency for International Development as an entity described in section 104 of title 5. (emphasis added)
President Bill Clinton submitted the statutorily-envisioned report to Congress on Dec. 30, 1998, within Congress’ specified 60-day window. In that report, the Clinton administration explicitly chose to retain the independence of USAID as its own agency (while providing for certain forms of coordination and resource sharing). It stated:“(1) … provide for the abolition of the Agency for International Development and the transfer of all its functions to the Department of State or (2) in lieu of the abolition and transfer of functions . . . provide for the transfer to and consolidation within the Department of the functions set forth in section 6581 of this title; and may provide for additional consolidation, reorganization, and streamlining of AID . . .”
Congress provided the president the opportunity to modify or revise that plan (6601(e)) until the effective date of the reorganization plan, which the 1998 Act specified as no later than April 1, 1999 with respect to some USAID functions, and Oct. 1, 1999, with respect to the opportunity for abolition of the agency (6601(g)(2)). No prospective modification or reorganization authority was granted to the president beyond those effective dates.(d) United States Agency for International Development. Effective April 1, 1999, the United States Agency for International Development shall continue as an independent establishment in the Executive Branch.
Maybe, but he can put Marco Rubio in charge of it, and thanks to making Federal employees Schedule F, he can fire them all.Congress provided the president the opportunity to modify or revise that plan (6601(e)) until the effective date of the reorganization plan, which the 1998 Act specified as no later than April 1, 1999 with respect to some USAID functions, and Oct. 1, 1999, with respect to the opportunity for abolition of the agency (6601(g)(2)). No prospective modification or reorganization authority was granted to the president beyond those effective dates.
Because Biden killed the Keystone XL pipeline which Canada made clear they preferred.
Canada almost built the pipeline to their ports earlier, after Obama also shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, but Trump stepped in to save our oil in Alberta.
COMMENTARY || How Donald Trump killed the Energy East pipeline
www.ualberta.ca
Then Trump lost, and Biden did everything wrong like he always does, and now Trump is trying to put the Genie back in the bottle with tariffs.
MAGA world is trying to make hay over their discovery of Executive Order 10973, signed by JFK in Nov., 1961. They believe it means Trump has the authority to erase USAID via an E.O. That may not be the case.
View: https://x.com/steveondrugs/status/1886383629800231232
![]()
Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order?
Congress established USAID in statute, and the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.www.justsecurity.org
Can the President Dissolve USAID Without An Act of Congress?
No, not lawfully. In 1961, USAID was created by an E.O. issued by President John F. Kennedy (E.O. 10973), based in part on authority provided in the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. But a later act of Congress (The Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. 6501 et seq.) established USAID as its own agency. In a section titled “Status of AID” (22 U.S.C. 6563) it states:
The key language here is “there is within the Executive branch of Government [USAID]” (see sections 6562/6563). Those are the words Congress uses to establish an agency within the executive branch. It would take an act of Congress to reverse that – simply put, the president may not unilaterally override a statute by executive order.
The 1998 statute also transfers only certain functions of USAID to the State Department, and in essence requires USAID to handle all other pre-existing USAID functions described in the Foreign Assistance Act. This means that, at a minimum, Congress asserted a role for itself in such transfers of functions as well as early as 1998.
Also in the 1998 Act, Congress gave the president a near-term, time-limited opportunity to reorganize these departments (22 USC 6601). Specifically, the Act provides, among other things, that within “60 days after October 21, 1998,” the president may, in a “reorganization plan and report” to be provided to Congress:
President Bill Clinton submitted the statutorily-envisioned report to Congress on Dec. 30, 1998, within Congress’ specified 60-day window. In that report, the Clinton administration explicitly chose to retain the independence of USAID as its own agency (while providing for certain forms of coordination and resource sharing). It stated:
Congress provided the president the opportunity to modify or revise that plan (6601(e)) until the effective date of the reorganization plan, which the 1998 Act specified as no later than April 1, 1999 with respect to some USAID functions, and Oct. 1, 1999, with respect to the opportunity for abolition of the agency (6601(g)(2)). No prospective modification or reorganization authority was granted to the president beyond those effective dates.
Would you guys chill the hell out. He's cutting wasteful spending. Can you literally not see that?If Trump has proved one thing in his first few weeks in office it is that he doesn't give 2 ****s about the rule of law. It is meaningless when his plan is to create the first American Dictatorship. Keeping their eyes on the prize means ignoring all of this stuff. No way they can get it done the way they want if they go through normal channels. That is far too slow and encourages too much scrutiny. If they learned anything from the Nazis it is to avoid or better yet destroy scrutiny of their actions.