INVASION: Texas Attorney General Paxton (Part 2)
President Trump fights back against Obama plan to subvert law enforcement. SCOTUS will to rule.
written by Patriots in Texas
This is part 2 of a previous published article.
Remember the discussion on Warren’s indictments? A.G. Paxton was indicted on three counts July 7 and July 28, 2015, respectively: two for securities fraud, and another for acting as an investment advisor or representative without registering. (His trial was set for May 2017.) The text of the indictments can be found here. Democrats and liberal groups began calling for his resignation immediately,1 and the Republicans remained silent on the issue. We must keep in mind that an indictment is not a finding of guilt, and Paxton has no obligation to step down as we live “innocent until proven guilty” in this country.
One can only wonder whose pockets Paxton got on the wrong side of… This was to be just the start of Paxton’s legal troubles. However, he returned to Austin while waiting to be heard in this case to continue fighting for Texans on issues like: First, Second, and Fourth Amendments; parents’ rights, property right, and school rights; human trafficking and preventing refugee cities for terrorists; consumer protection and deceptive trade practices; Obamacare, pharmaceuticals, and other healthcare policies; FCC and FDA infractions; voting rights and voter ID; climate change initiatives and environmental agendas.
Article IV, Section 4, Paragraph 1: The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Data collected by the Census Bureau shows that 3.1 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country in 2014 and 2015, or more than 1.5 million annually.2 On November 9, 2015, the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision halting the president’s executive amnesty plan in the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans/Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DAPA/DACA) case, ruling in favor of the Texas-led coalition of 26 states ruling that the president has “no statutory authority” to take his unilateral action.
In response, the federal government filed Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) with Obama claiming he’s taking action to change the laws. The Attorney Generals filed their Opposing Response December 29, 2015. Paxton responded with the following statement after SCOTUS granted the review:
“In deciding to hear this case, the Supreme Court recognizes the importance of the separation of powers. As federal courts have already ruled three times, there are limits to the President’s authority, and those limits enacted by Congress were exceeded when the President unilaterally sought to grant ‘lawful presence’ to more than 4 million unauthorized aliens who are in this country unlawfully. The Court should affirm what President Obama said himself on more than 20 occasions: that he cannot unilaterally rewrite congressional laws and circumvent the people’s representatives.”
Arguments that defend sanctuary policies, support amnesty, and are against the detention of illegal border crossers do not seem to understand that immigration and human trafficking in the United States are fundamentally interconnected.3 Human trafficking unfortunately is a topic to which politicians and members of the corporate media ignore. Those who advocate for effective action to combat human trafficking recognize that this entails securing the U.S. border and strictly enforcing immigration laws across the board. Whereas, those who are against border security and immigration enforcement while claiming to oppose human trafficking are, in fact, supporting policies that encourage that very practice.4
The United States government placed an unknown number of Central American migrant children into the custody of human traffickers after neglecting to run the most basic checks on these so-called “caregivers,” according to a Senate Report released on January 28, 2016.
WASHINGTON- In Fiscal Year 2016, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) arrested 1,952 individuals for human trafficking – the illegal trade and exploitation of people for commercial gain, most commonly in the form of forced labor and commercial sexual exploitation. From those cases, over 400 trafficking victims were identified and offered critical services.
So, Ken Paxton continues to stand against illegal immigration policies and announced on April 5, 2016 that 22 amicus briefs have been filed in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Texas’ lawsuit against the Obama Administration’s executive action on immigration. The briefs include input from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other governors, U.S. Senators and the U.S. House of Representatives, former U.S. Attorneys General, and federal court scholars, among others.
April 18, 2016 Immigration
Texas AG Leads Fight Against Abuse of Power in Washington, D.C.
U.S Supreme Court hears arguments against President’s Unlawful Immigration Policy
The Texas Attorney General’s Office just concluded oral arguments in the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of maintaining an injunction against President Obama’s illegal immigration policy. Texas leads a coalition representing 26 states fighting to defend the Constitution.
“Our lawsuit to stop President Obama’s illegal immigration policy is about a concept as old as the nation’s founding: that one person cannot unilaterally change the law.” Attorney General Paxton said, “If this blatant power-grab by President Obama is allowed to go unchecked, nothing would stop a future president from issuing an executive order dissolving the rights of gun owners in violation of the Second Amendment, nullifying the religious freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment, or abolishing any other dearly held rights.”
President Obama initially agreed with Texas’ position, saying in 2011, “I know some here wish that I could just bypass Congress and change the law myself. But that’s not how democracy works.” However, by the time he signed his 2014 executive order, President Obama changed his mind, stating, “I just took an action to change the law.”
Texas and the coalition are seeking to prevent President Obama from declaring that unlawful conduct is lawful and from overriding the will of the people as vested in the constitution.
The U.S. District Court for Southern District of Texas issued an order sanctioning the Department of Justice lawyers who defended President Obama’s unlawful immigration policy. Ken Paxton released the following statement on May 19, 2016:
“Throughout this case, the administration has struggled to provide accurate, reliable information regarding the scope of the President’s plan or even when it would be implemented. From the start, our lawsuit has been about asserting that one person cannot unilaterally change the law, and part of that is ensuring everyone abides by the rule of law.”
Paxton stated on June 23, 2016, as SCOTUS leaves the Fifth Circuit ruling in place that declared President Obama’s immigration action unlawful: “Today’s decision keeps in place what we have maintained from the very start: one person, even a president, cannot unilaterally change the law. This is a major setback to President Obama’s attempts to expand executive power, and a victory for those who believe in the separation of powers and the rule of law.”
Unexpected Disruption
During the 2016 general election, Donald J. Trump emerged as a surprise winner from the candidacy for President of the United States. He took office in January 2017, and commenced with the executive orders.
A case traveled to the Fifth Circuit from the Western District Defendants, appeal a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of a Texas statute prohibiting the harboring of illegal aliens. David Cruz; Valentin Reyes; Jonathan Ryan; Bishop Enrique San Pedro Ozanam Center, Inc. v. Abbott, et. al. No. 16-50519. (2017). U.S. 5th Cir. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today praised a ruling by the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that upholds a 2015 state law criminalizing the harboring of illegal aliens: “Today’s ruling by the 5th Circuit will allow the state to fight the smuggling of humans and illegal contraband by transnational gangs and perpetrators of organized crime, not just on the border, but throughout Texas.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, February 28, 2017, issued a letter to Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick and Speaker of the House Joe Straus to support joint resolutions by Senator Brian Birdwell (SJR 2) and Representative Rick Miller (HJR 39). The resolutions would have Texas call for an Article V Convention of the States.
From: Ken Paxton, Attorney General of Texas
Letter dated: February 28, 2017
To The Honorable Dan Patrick, Lieutenant Governor of Texas. And Speaker Joe Strauss, III
RE: Senate Joint Resolution 2
House Joint Resolution 39Dear Lt. Governor Patrick and Speaker Strauss:
President Donald Trump opened up his inaugural address with a mighty promise: his ascent to office would signify a transfer of power not merely from one party to another but also from the marble-lined chambers in Washington D.C., now given back to the American people. With these few words, President Trump voiced what the good men and women of Texas had long since concluded. The federal government has slipped free of its bit and bridle and now gallivants wherever it pleases. It pays little regard to the limits laid out by the U.S. Constitution.
In discussing his battles with the United States federal government as they attempt to unilaterally change laws without congressional approval, he says:
Our constitutional heritage rejects unitary government. It presumes that concentrated power is corruptive; it accordingly divides public authority under the expectation that self-interest would impel each office to jealously guard its territory. A Convention of the States enters into the conversation when all other checks have failed. It is the “final” defense against federal overreach the States can employ. In other words, a Convention of the States is the Constitution’s answer to the “germ of corruption and degeneracy,” which Thomas Jefferson identified, and which led a body of enumerated powers to become one of unlimited appetite.
There are some who call a Convention of the States too radical of a solution, but it is no more radical than transformation that took place in Washington, D.C., when our backs were turned. The resolutions inherit a century’s worth of precedents and rules, with which the American Founders were well familiar and which would mitigate the danger of delegates exceeding their charge. For instance, the convention’s authority would be limited to the topics delineated in SJR 2 and HJR 39. The resolutions then augment that protection, expressly instructing that an ultra vires vote by a delegate is invalid and grounds for removal. Each and every amendment offered during the convention would have to be approved by a majority of the delegations in attendance and then be ratified by three-fourths of the States. The States, at all times, remain in control of the proceedings.
The American Founders did not expect the States to sit idly by while the federal government stomped over what rightfully belonged to the people and the states. Let Texas use the Constitution’s own provisions to regain control over its destiny as a sovereign State. Let us use the Constitution to save both it and the American Republic.
On March 6, 2017, President Donald Trump issued an executive order, Ken Paxton lauded in response:
“The executive order issued today by President Trump is a direct response to an ongoing weakness in the refugee vetting process, which was identified to Congress by multiple federal officials, but left unaddressed by the Obama administration. In light of the looming threat of terrorism, the president has both the constitutional authority and solemn duty to take reasonable steps in securing our border. President Trump’s action shows decisiveness in answer to a very real danger, and I appreciate his efforts to protect the safety and security of Texas and all Americans.”
This Executive Order replaced Protecting The Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry Into The United States, that rescinded and replaced his January 27 executive order of the same name.5 Similar to Obama’s E.O.s, Trump’s E.O. experienced its time in the judicial system:
March 6, 2017: President Donald Trump issues an executive order rescinding and replacing the executive order issued on January 27, 2017.
March 6, 2017: The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issues a Q&A memo with clarifying guidance on the order.6
March 7, 2017: Hawaii Attorney General Doug Chin files a lawsuit against the executive order in federal district court, asking the judge to uphold the restraining order imposed on the previous executive order and apply it to the new one.7
March 10, 2017: The American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland filed a legal complaint in federal district court against the March 6 executive order.8, 9
March 15, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson blocks implementation of the executive order with a nationwide temporary restraining order.10
March 16, 2017: Federal judge Theodore Chuang blocks the portion of the executive order that would have prevented Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen nationals from receiving visas.
March 22, 2017: The Justice Department requests that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals expedite its review of the March 6 executive order that federal judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland blocked on March 16.11
March 24, 2017: Federal judge Anthony Trenga upholds President Trump's authority to issue the March 6 executive order, finding that it was different enough from the January 27 order that it was "no longer likely that Plaintiffs can succeed on their claim" that the order was discriminatory.
March 27, 2017:
Leading a coalition of 13 states, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton today filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit supporting President Trump’s revised executive order on immigration. The revised order concerns the national refugee program and calls for a temporary pause on entering this country for nationals from six countries of national-security concern.
In the friend-of-the-court brief, Attorney General Paxton, 11 other state attorneys general and the governor of Mississippi demonstrate that the president’s new immigration order is a lawful exercise of statutorily authorized executive power over foreign affairs and national security. Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a ruling that blocked the original order.
“Rather than leaving national security in limbo while litigation dragged on, President Trump issued a revised immigration order that addresses the 0th Circuit’s concerns and is a vital step in securing our borders.” Attorney General Paxton said, “It is imperative we find a way to better screen refugee applicants to maintain national security. The president is fulfilling his solemn duty to protect Texans and all Americans.”
Texas is joined in the amicus brief by Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, West Virginia, and Mississippi Governor Phil Bryant.
March 30, 2017: U.S. District Court Judge Derrick Watson converts the temporary restraining order he issued against two sections of the executive order into an indefinite preliminary injunction.12
March 30, 2017: The U.S. Department of Justice files an appeal of Watson's decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.13
April 10, 2017:
Attorney General Ken Paxton today led a coalition of 15 states in filing an amicus brief with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals defending President Trump’s revised immigration order. The revised order provides for a temporary suspension of entry into the U.S. for refugees from six countries of national security concern while the vetting process is reviewed.
In the friend-of-the-court brief, Attorney General Paxton, 13 other state attorneys general and the governor of Mississippi lay out the constitutional and federal statutory provisions that provide the authority for the president’s lawful actions, as delegated to him by Congress. Last month, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed a ruling that blocked the original order.”
“The president’s revised immigration order is constitutional, lawful, addresses the 9th Circuit’s concerns and is a vital step in securing our borders,” Attorney General Paxton said. “A temporary pause in the national refugee program will give the government time to review and determine how we can improve the screening process for foreign nationals seeking to enter the U.S. from six countries designated as ‘countries of concern.’ President Trump’s revised immigration orders is necessary to protect the homeland from those who wish us harm.”
April 12, 2017: Affiliates of the American Civil Liberties Union file 13 separate lawsuits for access to records related to the implementation of the January 27 and March 6 executive orders.
Unified Action
Attorney General Ken Paxton, May 1, 2017, announced that Texas and 13 other states filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court to uphold Arizona’s right to deny driver’s licenses to undocumented aliens.
Rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals force Arizona to issue driver’s licenses to people granted federal work permits through the Obama-era’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. In February, six dissenting judges on the full 9th Circuit wrote that the court’s decision against Arizona’s driver’s license policy creates “a world where the president really can pre-empt state laws with the stroke of a pen.”
“We stand with Arizona against illegal federal overreach by the former president, who bypassed Congress to enact an immigration program he did not have the authority to create,” Attorney General Paxton said. “We’re hopeful the U.S. Supreme Court will review the case and conclude that states have the right to decide who gets a driver’s license.”
Texas has a proven track record in protecting limited government by taking on the abuse of federal power. When former President Obama unilaterally sought to grant “lawful presence” to more than four million unauthorized aliens, Teas led a 26-state coalition all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court to stop the president’s unlawful immigration plan, known as Deferred Action for Parents of Americans (DAPA).
May 8, 2017: The U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals hears oral arguments in a challenge filed by the ACLU of Maryland.
In Texas, municipalities are choosing to follow the lead of California in order to provide relief to refugees and trying to create sanctuary cities, so Paxton filed suit May 8, 2017:
Attorney General Paxton filed the lawsuit to defend the right and duty of law enforcement agencies throughout Texas to detain individuals pursuant to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) federal detainer program. The program enforces immigration law and helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities. “Texas possesses an independent sovereign responsibility to protect the health, welfare, and safety of its residents,” Attorney General Paxton wrote. “Texas, cognizant of this duty, recently enacted SB 4 to set a state-wide policy of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.”
Under the federal Declaratory Judgment Act, Texas may bring a lawsuit to avoid a multiplicity of suits in various forums so that the constitutionality of SB 4 may be resolved throughout Texas in a single court. In the lawsuit, Attorney General Paxton demonstrates that SB 4 is valid under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
“Governments throughout Texas have a clear duty to continue holding undocumented and suspected criminal aliens pursuant to ICE detainers,” Attorney General Paxton said. “This is a public safety issue that requires swift resolution. If a Texas sheriff or other law enforcement authority cannot lawfully honor an ICE detainer, dangerous people will slip through the cracks of the justice system and back into our communities. As a nation of laws, it is imperative that SB 4 is fully honored in Texas.”
May 15, 2017: The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments in a challenge filed by the state of Hawaii.
May 25, 2017: The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds the injunction against the order issued by Judge Chuang, ruling that the motivation of the executive order was religious in nature and therefore violated the Establishment Clause of the Constitution's First Amendment.
June 1, 2017: The Department of Justice submits a petition to the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the court to review the ruling of the Fourth Circuit.
June 5, 2017: Leading a coalition of 16 states, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court supporting President Trump’s executive order temporarily pausing the entry of foreign nationals from six terror-prone countries.14
June 12, 2017: A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholds an injunction against the order issued by Judge Derrick Watson, ruling that President Trump did not demonstrate that the entry of the classes of people impacted by the order would be "detrimental to the interests of the United States.”15
June 14, 2017: President Donald Trump (R) issues a presidential memorandum delaying the effective date of the executive order to 72 hours after the injunctions blocking the order are lifted.16
June 16, 2017: Trump decided to rescind the 2014 DAPA policy, which prompted Paxton to give him kudos: “I applaud President Trump for acknowledging what President Obama himself acknowledged over 20 times – the Obama Administration’s DAPA immigration edict was a violation of law and the separation of powers. I am proud to have led a 26-state coalition that went all the way to the Supreme Court to block this unlawful edict.” June 16, 2017. To view the Department of Homeland Security’s recession of memorandum providing for DAPA, click here.
June 16, 2017: The Attorney General joined with 10 other states in filing Amicus Brief supporting the constitutionality of President Trump’s Executive Order regarding sanctuary cities.
Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct cooperation between federal and local officials on immigration enforcement and undermine the rule of law. When law enforcement is deliberately impeded, our communities become more dangerous by the day.
“President Trump’s Executive Order is fully constitutional and a large step toward public safety,” Attorney General Paxton said. “If law enforcement authorities have policies of not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, dangerous criminals will unlawfully remain in the country, travel freely between states, and continue to evade the justice system. Governments have a duty to protect their citizens – it is imperative that we honor federal laws and cooperate with ICE detainers to keep our communities safe.”
This amicus brief recommends that the court dismiss the Plaintiff’s complaint against the Executive Order.
June 26, 2017: The U.S. Supreme Court issues a per curiam opinion partially lifts the injunction against the order and agrees to review the rulings from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits. The court allows the suspension on entry to the United States and on the admission of refugees to be enforced, except for individuals with a bona fide relationship with the United States. The court put the consolidated cases on its argument schedule for October 2017.
June 26, 2017: “The Supreme Court clearly did the right thing today, staying in large part the actions of lower federal courts that ignored the law and the Constitution,” Attorney General Paxton said. “This sweeping reinstatement of the president’s travel ban provides needed security measures for our nation against dangerous threats that are very real and ongoing. Texas will continue to support the Trump administration’s travel ban when the Supreme Court takes up the case in October.”
June 29, 2017: The executive order goes into partial effect at 8 p.m. Eastern time.17
June 29, 2017: AG Paxton leads 10-State Coalition Urging Trump Administration to Phase Out Unlawful Obama-Era DACA Program. Here’s the letter.
But our friend, Warren, has yet to have his day in court after being indicted on securities fraud charges in 2015. Four different judges have overseen his case at some time. The potential case has bounced around from Dallas to Houston to Dallas again. And true to Texas court fashion, at one point no movement at all occurred in the case for nearly a year. The man has given new meaning for what it means to be a compromised officeholder in Texas. While he may have gotten on the wrong side of someone with deep pockets, he must have a puppet master of his own.18, 19
No single reason explains the delays. But altogether, Paxton has become an example of how powerful allies and acts of God can drag out career-threatening criminal charges and allow a politician to rise above being written off as a political goner.
Sources:
1 Patrick Svitek (August 3, 2015). Paxton Surrenders in Securities Fraud Indictment. Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2015/08/03/paxton-set-surrender-securities-fraud-indictment/
2 Steven A. Camarota (May 24, 2016). New Data: Immigration Surged in 2014 and 2015. Ceneter for Immigration Studies. https://cis.org/Report/New-Data-Immigration-Surged-2014-and-2015
3 Carter Quinley (Spring 2021). Along the Borderline: The Critical Links Between Human Trafficking and U.S.-Mexico Immigration. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f2ed301da84567c22edd5bf/t/6140bf82b6fc4b24b9026ea9/1631633282301/Spring-2021_Quinley.pdf
4 Eric Ruark (January 15, 2021). Apologists for Illegal Immigration Encourage Human Trafficking. NumbersUSA. https://www.numbersusa.org/blog/apologists-illegal-immigration-encourage-human-trafficking
5 Donald Trump's immigration executive order issued March 6, 2017. Ballotpedia. https://ballotpedia.org/Donald_Trump%27s_immigration_executive_order_issued_March_6,_2017#Summary%20of%20The%20Order
6 Q&A: Protecting the Nation From Foreign Terrorist Entry To The United States (March 6, 2017). Department of Homeland Security. https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/06/qa-protecting-nation-foreign-terrorist-entry-united-states
7 Lydia Wheeler (March 8, 2017). Hawaii files challenge to Trump's new travel order. The Hill. http://web.archive.org/web/20170309003858/http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/322897-hawaii-files-challenge-to-trumps-new-travel-order
8 INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE ASSISTANCE PROJECT V. TRUMP (March 10, 2017). https://www.aclu.org/cases/international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump?document=international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump-amended-complaint
9 International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump. Immigrants' Rights. Maryland. U.S. Supreme Court. Last Update: January 31, 2020. https://www.aclu.org/cases/international-refugee-assistance-project-v-trump
10 Alan Gomex (March 16, 2017). Trump travel ban dealt another blow by Maryland judge. USAToday. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/03/16/trump-travel-ban-targeting-muslim-countries/99244568/
11 Josh Gerstein (March 22, 2017). Trump administration moves to expedite travel ban appeal. Politico. https://www.politico.com/story/2017/03/travel-ban-expedite-appeal-236369
12 CNNPolitics. (March 30, 2017). Trump travel ban: Read federal judge’s latest ruling. https://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/politics/travel-ban-hawaii-full-text/index.html
13 United States District Court for the District of Hawaii. Hawaii v. Trump. Notice of Appeal March 30, 2017. https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2017/03/30/17-15589%20NOA.pdf
14 Amicus Brief. Ken Paxton and 16 other states. https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/files/epress/16-1436_tsac_States_of_Texas_et_al.pdf
15 Maura Dolan, Jaweed Kaleem (June 12, 2017). U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses to reinstate Trump’s travel ban. Las Angeles Times. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-na-9thcircuit-travel-ban-20170530-story.html
16 Gregory Korte, Richard Wolf (June 14, 2017). In defensive move, Trump extends effective date of travel ban order. USAToday. http://web.archive.org/web/20170627003836/https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/defensive-move-trump-extends-effective-date-travel-ban-order/102854830/
17 Dara Lind (June 29, 2017). The travel ban is in effect. Here’s how it will actually work. Vex. https://www.vox.com/2017/6/29/15892378/muslim-ban-work-visa-airports-refugees
18 Paul J. Weber and Jake Bleiberg (May 23, 2022). Seven Years Later, Still No Trial for Texas AG Ken Paxton. Associated Press. https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2022-05-23/seven-years-later-still-no-trial-for-texas-ag-ken-paxton
19 Quotes from Paxton taken from Texas Attorney General press releases.
Thanks for the history education. EO overreach and the judiciary approvals continues to disregards its citizens interests.
While we are on the topic of TEXAS.
A PRELUDE TO THE OPENING OF 'PANDORA BOX.'
[which by the way is mentioned in the article, @toresays
Sixty years have passed since the events leading to the Vietnam theatre of 'war,' and over 55 since my arrival in country.
The following link is a great piece of chronoligical review journalism of the events leading to the assassination of our dear President and the onset of full on occupation of Vietnam and many other horrific events.
by By Edward Curtin - Global Research, November 22, 2023
https://www.globalresearch.ca/president-john-f-kennedy-life-public-assassination/5762348?fbclid=IwAR3Xe9sDRR9wAPqmnEwfidgiSua5q2PVIOxziVw3YH829vdfh9XPS5YAu8g