Mark Caserta: Sanctuary cities aren’t above the law

16 Jul

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

Jul. 16, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

Why would our government permit any U.S. city to knowingly and willingly harbor illegal aliens?

Cities around the country, known as “sanctuary cities,” are literally incentivizing illegal immigration by adopting policies which essentially nullify federal immigration law. And it’s no surprise that these are some of the most liberal cities in the United States.

So are these cities within their right to circumvent federal law and endanger the sovereignty of our nation, aid in crippling our economy, and put innocent lives at risk? How does one justify such an abominable progressive policy?

mc 3

Liberals justify the need for creating sanctuary policies under the guise of “protecting immigrant rights.” But clearly these are not immigrants, but illegal aliens who should be subject to deportation under federal law.

Sanctuary policies are generally passed by a local governing body in the form of a resolution, ordinance or administrative action. They usually instruct city employees not to notify the federal government of the presence of illegal aliens living in their communities. Since there is vague distinction between legal and illegal aliens, these individuals typically benefit from taxpayer-funded government services and programs.

In protecting these illegals, many with criminal backgrounds are allowed to remain in the country. While policies differ, if an illegal is arrested for a crime in a sanctuary city, they may serve jail time, but will not be turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for deportation. Many are repeat offenders and when released, lurk as an ongoing danger to a community.

According to a July column written by Jessica Vaughn for the Center for Immigration Studies, 276 jurisdictions, both state and local, have caused the release of more than 8,000 criminal alien offenders across the country over an eight-month period. Vaughn cites ICE records obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request.

According to the records, 63 percent of the individuals freed by local authorities had prior criminal histories or were labeled a “public safety concern.” Nearly 1,900 of the released offenders subsequently were arrested for another crime within the eight-month period.

kate

One such offender was Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, an illegal alien who had been deported five times and had racked up seven felony convictions. While in the midst of yet another deportation, the city of San Francisco asked for custody of Sanchez to pursue prior drug charges. Unremarkably, these charges were dropped, but in accordance to the city’s long standing sanctuary policies, Sanchez was not returned to ICE for deportation. Less than three months later, Sanchez was accused of shooting and killing Kathryn Steinle, a 32-year-old out for an evening stroll with her father along the waterfront.

Progressive policies like this are destroying our nation, not flags, guns or otherwise. But while liberal Democrats continue down this debilitating road, the GOP continues to lack the intestinal fortitude to address politically volatile issues.

It’s time for impotent politicians to make way for patriots willing to stand up and be heard.

When it comes to illegal immigration, no city is above the law.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

OBAMA WRITES TO FELONS; IGNORES FAMILY OF KATE STEINLE

15 Jul

leadership 3

Nearly two weeks after 32-year-old Kathryn Steinle was murdered on San Francisco’s Pier 14 by an illegal alien and convicted felon who was released from prison earlier this year, President Barack Obama has failed to contact the victim’s family or mention her in public. Yet Obama took the time to write (and release) 46 personal letters this month to felons imprisoned for non-violent drug offenses whose sentences he has commuted.

felon

Like the 46 felons to whom Obama wrote, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez had served time for non-violent offenses, some of them drug-related. After his arrest, Lopez-Sanchez, who had been deported five times to Mexico, confessed to shooting Steinle as she walked with her family at the popular tourist spot.

Steinle’s murder quickly became an iconic example of violent crime by illegal aliens released from custody under the “sanctuary city” policies embraced by San Francisco and other liberal cities that decline to work with federal immigration officials.

Critics have noted that Obama was quick to reach out to the family of Michael Brown, who was killed while charging a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri last year, enhancing Brown’s heroic status to drive a political narrative. He has done the same in other, similar cases.

Tags: , ,

Doug Smith: Admiral Rickover helped shape his century

8 Jul

doug smith

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot.

“The more you sweat in peace the less you bleed in war”

Admiral Hymen G Rickover

rickover

In 1904, half a century before my birth, Abraham the Tailor sent for his family in the Russian Empire, to join him in New York. I would owe Abraham a debt someday.  For he brought with him his son, Hymen.  Hymen was a very driven, scholarly, and hardworking boy. Demanding, and a loner, Hymen did not endear himself to people.  He was educated at the Naval Academy and at Columbia.

He did little to endear himself to the Navy brass either; ignoring rank in favor of ability, working hard and demanding the same of others. His standards were simple: Excellence. By 1948, he was head of the Naval Reactors brand of the Atomic Energy Commission. In 1954 he presided over the launch of the USS Nautilus, SSN 571, and the world’s first nuclear powered submarine.

My debt, and yours, to Admiral Hymen G Rickover, increased markedly that year. I was quite unaware of it, having not yet reached the level of a “twinkle in my Daddy’s eye.”  By the time I would make my entrance, late the following year, Nautilus would have signaled “Underway on Nuclear Power”, and would be on the way to circumnavigating the world, sailing to the North Pole, and steaming 250,000 miles under the oceans.

Under Rickover’s direction, the world’s first nuclear power plant would be built, around the time I turned 2.

A strong proponent for excellence in education and safety in Engineering, Hymen Rickover was the force behind a United States Nuclear force with a 60 year record of Zero serious accidents or deaths. Our Russian counterparts cannot make that claim.  That Naval Submarine Force was silently, secretly, but integrally involved in pressing back the Soviets during the Cold War, and behind us all, there was Rickover.

Us?

Yes, my more direct debt to Admiral Rickover.  As I grew up, so too, did the Submarine Force. On 4 July, 1976, I reported for duty to the USS Gato, SSN 615; a hard charging Permit class Attack Submarine, a sleek, silent, and deadly predator; a shark. I became a “steely eyed killer of the deep”; ready to do incredible violence on your behalf, to protect you, or perhaps your parents, from enemies on or beneath the seas. What did we do? Well, I could tell you, but then…  No. Much of what we did will never be told. But we were out there, between our homes and our enemy, and behind us was Hymen Rickover. His name and his spirit and his presence were felt on every boat in the fleet, and by every sailor calling them home.

He helped to shape his century. On this date, July 8th, in 1986, Admiral Hymen G Rickover died, and was laid to rest in Arlington Cemetery. So today I will remember my debt to the tailor, and the engineer and leader.  Thanks, Abraham, for bringing him. And thanks, Admiral

Tags: ,

Perry Stone Ministries: Based on prophecy; Is Greece just the first?

7 Jul
ps
Perry Stone Ministries

ALERT: It has finally occurred. Debt, borrowing from the IMF is crashing some economies within the E.U. For those who believe the 10 kings in Revelation could be a 7th Empire of prophecy – then at least 5 E.U. nations must eventually exit – Greece may be the first (we’ll see). Some nations cannot pay back the debt. Circumstances with America’s DEBTS his has led to an “October Surprise” according to “inside economists.” The IMF is expecting to add China’s currency on the level of the dollar, as a global reserve currency.

China has fudged its numbers and their Stock Market could experience a 1929 correction. However, they have tons of gold they have purchased to back their currency – and the U.S. MAY BE in a serious bind (with the dollar as a reserve) in the next 6 months, as owe not just 18 trillion in debt (that’s the Federal number) but the states, cities, retirements plans etc. are in debt over 150 trillion!! Rumor has it there is a new currency planned called the North America Republic currency, for Canada, Mexico and the U.S. on the drawing board. This is why most politicians don’t care about the border as we will eventually not have dollars, but a new currency (I have seen pro-types-sent to me by an insider). Be WISE with Stock investments and diversify NOW buying silver and gold while the prices are lower if you are an investor. 

Most of all, know we are the generation seeing prophecy fulfilled, God is behind the scenes working His plan and for believers, the best is still awaiting us!! Never fear – be excited for OUR future as believers! Repost to others if you wish. More will follow in a few days.

Disclaimer: This information is not intended as financial or investment advice.

Tags: , , ,

Doug Smith: Cautionary Tale from a Curmudgeon

2 Jul

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, Historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

“The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.

The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort.”

Robert Heinlein

c1

Some of our idealists and are enthusiastically celebrating SCOTUS’ ruling on Obamacare. So, for them: a Cautionary Tale.

Our vaunted Brethren (and Sisterns? ) reversed their own positions and found, because they wanted it to be so, that the words of a law did not say what they said, but rather what the Brethren thought they ought to have said, if the Congress intended what the Brethren thought the Congress ought to have intended.

The court, in very nearly the same breath, has said Government may NOT control your decisions, yet Government May control your decisions, depending 9 people’s whim of the moment. The Court, has, then, gathered to itself the role of Grand Arbiter, final word on all decisions of law or politics regarding what Government may do TO you.

How’s that again?

Our Constitution was enacted to protect citizens from what Government could do to its citizens, by people who had been subjects of a Government which could, and did, exercise arbitrary power at the whim of King or Noble. People who live under a monarch thought to rule by divine Right, unquestionable, are the Subjects of his will, and the whim of his lesser nobles. Or 9 Robed Arbiters.

justices 1

Citizens are protected by laws and rights that may not be infringed under those laws. Altering those laws, under the Constitution is, by design, possible, but difficult. We ought not to alter our laws on the whims of a few or a passing fashion, but by a dawning and sustained consensus that a change ought to take place, and carries popular support. Because what is so easily gained, “just like that”, can just as easily be taken away.

As part of this cautionary tale, consider that we fought a war to get the 13th Amendment, and how enduring it is. Whereas the 18th Amendment, which, like Obamacare, involved a Progressive Government controlling businesses and personal financial choices, lasted barely 10 years.

Prohibition, like Obamacare, was touted as “the law of the land”. But it quickly became unpopular, and was repealed. Why? Because it didn’t work, and was a financial disaster. Obamacare has been, and remains, hugely unpopular. Why? Because it doesn’t work, and is a financial disaster.

Our cautionary tale, then, suggests the Idealists might want to temper their celebrations. Or, perhaps, elect politicians who will vote and work to make it workable. To make it survivable, it would be necessary to change it to earn support.

Idealists don’t want to do that. They prefer that you accept their will since acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number.

But their neighbors are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. And we are comfortable with that.

c2

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Progressive victories are but short term

2 Jul

 mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jul. 02, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

As we look at the world around us, many of us are wondering if things could get much worse. In my lifetime, I can’t recall America ever being in such disarray. Indeed, the progressive movement is having its share of victories.

In such times of distress, it’s often valuable to step back and analyze exactly what’s happening and to what purpose it’s meant to serve. In doing so, those of us who are faith-based in our daily walk are able to see that progressives are desperately seeking to make Christianity irrelevant in their “new world order.”

Bringing God’s Word into question is prerequisite to redirect man’s thinking. Liberals would have you believe that having a steadfast faith in God is for “non-thinkers” and those unwilling to adapt to our changing times. After all, God couldn’t have possibly known how his children could evolve into such “intellectual” beings, able to think and surmise for themselves. He couldn’t possibly have known that we could develop such “god-like” characteristics and be able to live our lives free from the constraints and principles of His Word.

progressives

“For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear” 2 Timothy 4:3.

None of this is a surprise to our Heavenly Father, who knew us “before the foundation of the world.” He sent His only Son to experience the passions and weaknesses of this earth and was in all points tempted as we are. But in His vast love for His children, he provided His Word that we might be able to “overcome the world” through the teachings of Jesus Christ. But even then, God knew few would be willing to accept life on His terms.

“But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it,” Matthew 7:14.

Sadly, some of the valued spokespersons of the progressive movement are those professing Christianity while espousing any and all methods of circumventing God’s statutes. These are modern day “theologians” who essentially seek to redefine Christianity and are, in fact, enablers of a new “progressive” form of narcissistic salvation where man is God and without boundaries in his passions.

“Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them.” Matthew 7:15.

Stone by stone, these individuals are tearing down America’s foundation. Stitch by stitch they’re destroying the very fabric of our society. Redefining the family unit, designed by God, is paramount to their endeavor. It includes removing barriers preventing men and women from pleasuring themselves with any earthly abomination and offering an entrancing, alternative lifestyle – all in the name of love.

These progressive successes are very temporary and offer gratification only for a season. At some point, every individual will reap from the choices they’ve made in life.

And poor choices always have consequences.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

Mark Caserta: Supreme Court has become too political

25 Jun

Do these nine individuals deserve our trust for a lifetime?

mark

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 25, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

As the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States has the responsibility of interpreting the law as it applies to all cases and controversies arising under the Constitution. Unfortunately, through the years, the court has succumbed to being government’s ultimate political apparatus.

Article III, Section I of the U.S. Constitution states that “The judicial power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” As the guardian and interpreter of the Constitution, the court is charged with ensuring “equal justice under the law” for all Americans.

justices 1

A Supreme Court ruling is final and cannot be overturned by any single entity, including the president of the United States. Rulings may be nullified only if a decision is based on a law that Congress has passed, and Congress decides to change the law. Or if the decision is based on the Constitution, and the Constitution is amended. And of course, a later court may overturn a ruling if they deem it unconstitutional.

So what makes these nine Supreme Court justices so wise that we grant them vast power and control over our lives? In this writer’s opinion, not much.

While both the executive and the legislative branch have a say in the court’s composition, little consideration is given to the “constitutional caliber” of this ruling entity.

As a matter of fact, the entire process of vetting individuals nominated for court vacancies has become shallow and conspiring to the point of absurdity. The Constitution doesn’t specify qualifications for justices such as age, education, profession or native-born citizenship. A justice doesn’t even have to be a lawyer or a law school graduate! Sadly, it seems more consideration is given to the ideological balance of the court than to the justices’ qualifications.

Frankly, the polarization that’s enveloped the nomination and confirmation of a justice of the Supreme Court has rendered it dangerously political. Remember, an appointment to the Supreme Court is a lifetime commission! The potential ramifications of an ineffective, perhaps partisan court could impact generations!

Currently, the Supreme Court is about as balanced as it’s ever been. It’s popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito (appointed by Republican presidents) comprise the court’s conservative wing. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan (appointed by Democrat presidents) make up the court’s liberal wing, with Anthony Kennedy (appointed by a Republican president) as the court’s moderate and often “swing vote” justice.

Over the years, Supreme Court rulings have literally changed the way we live our lives. Controversial decisions have, at times, been rulings with life or death consequences. Should we really place so much trust in so few individuals?

I’m concerned the Supreme Court has surrendered its noble calling to becoming the pinnacle of political activism. With its escalating impact on Americans, it’s time we protect our nation’s interest by imposing term limits and clearly defined standards qualifying someone to be a justice on our nation’s highest court.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: US must ramp up campaign against ISIS

20 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot editor

Jun. 18, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

The world has now sustained months of unrelenting atrocities by the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). We’ve witnessed barbaric beheadings, victims burned alive and a strategic cleansing of Christians refusing to embrace the Muslim religion. Yet, the president of the United States still lacks a strategy to defeat them.

Last week, in a news conference following the Group of 7 summit meeting in Germany, Obama admitted to the world that “we don’t have, yet, a complete strategy” for addressing the threat posed by ISIS. He claims that after nearly a year and a half of the United States and its allies grappling with this group of Islamic terrorists, “the details are not worked out.”

The president’s failure to recognize ISIS as a grave threat early on certainly hampered strategies to squelch their advances. Some may recall that in January 2014 Obama compared ISIS to a “junior varsity basketball team,” playing down the strengths of ISIS, compared with Al Qaeda.

“The analogy we use around here sometimes, and I think is accurate, is if a J.V. team puts on Lakers uniforms, that doesn’t make them Kobe Bryant,” Mr. Obama told David Remnick of The New Yorker. That same month, ISIS seized Fallujah, a city in Anbar Province, Iraq, and parts of Ramadi, the province’s capital.

isis 2

A few months later, as the military prowess of the group became known, the president was questioned about his strategy for addressing the threat that he dramatically understated. Yet he still lacked urgency.

The president has been clear as to what his strategy won’t be!

“I will not allow the United States to be dragged into fighting another war in Iraq,” Obama told reporters. “American combat troops will not be returning to fight in Iraq, because there’s no military solution to the larger crisis there.”

So, the president claims he can defeat ISIS with coalition air power. But a recent Wall Street Journal article reveals the Obama coalition’s air campaign against ISIS pales in comparison to strategic air campaigns waged by presidents since the end of the Cold War, which were deemed successful.

During the 43-day Desert Storm air campaign against Saddam Hussein’s forces in 1991, coalition planes flew 48,224 strike sorties, or roughly 1,100 a day. 12 years later, the 31-day Iraqi Freedom campaign averaged more than 800 sorties a day. But the Obama “campaign” against ISIS, now approaching nine months, has only averaged about seven sorties a day! With ISIS now in control of an area around 50,000 square miles, it’s easy to see why these efforts haven’t been effective.

If indeed, Obama plans to decimate ISIS with coalition air power, he should take the lead in increasing the number of strikes commensurate with prior successful air campaigns.

And despite how much we dislike the thought, we must have sufficient ground troops to facilitate coordinated surgical strikes against the enemy.

Protecting America must take precedent over protecting Obama’s legacy.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , , ,

DOUG SMITH: MINIMUM WAGE ZERO

11 Jun

DOUG SMITH

Doug Smith: Author, historian and regular contributor to Free State Patriot

June 11, 2015

In 1938, in the midst of the Great Depression, a Progressive President and Congress acted to try and mandate the minimum wage a worker could be paid. Their target wage was 25c an hour.

They failed. As has every subsequent Congress which tried over the years. For the minimum wage is, and always has been, Zero.

If I hire you to cut my grass for $15, and you do a lousy job, your wage will move from 15 to zero, because I won’t hire you again.  I will make a cost benefit analysis. It is not worth $15 to me to have you cut my grass. So I seek another alternative. I might buy a goat.

And so it has been, in 1938, and every time Congress has tried. Some keep working, and get the new mandated wage. Many others get fired, and get the eternal minimum wage: zero. Many more do not get hired at all, and continue to get the universal minimum wage: zero. When Congress, or the city of Los Angeles, moves to artificially raise the minimum wage, they accomplish two things; neither of which are their original intent.

The first is to make some workers happy, and their employers unhappy, because they are getting more money for the same effort, without contributing more to the company’s bottom line. They also make other workers unhappy, because the mandated raise will not apply to those who started at the bottom, worked their way up to making more, only to see the guy who just started and doesn’t know which end is up get the raise he worked for at the stroke of a pen.

min wage

The second is to make potential workers unhappy. For with each increase in the minimum wage, the number of entry level workers is decreased. Now in plain English that means companies cut back on the number of employees. Care to flip a coin with the guy next to you? One of us gets a raise, one of us gets the boot. Good luck. There is a cost beyond just salary to keeping an employee. If I must pay each bottom rung employee more than they are worth to my bottom line, it becomes for cost effective to fire 2, and pay a little overtime to 3 others. More to the point, the teenager looking for part time work, the young person seeking that all important 1st job, looks less appealing. I will hire fewer people now than I would have. If an additional $100,000 in business might have been the break point to add one full time employee before the $15 minimum, now it may be $150,000. Sorry, kid, but Congress says you will have to wait.

So, in the midst of the Depression, with economic activity stalled and sputtering, how much longer did it take for a business to reach the point to hire one more man? The guy inside the gate was now getting a bit more, but the guy outside the gate was still broke, cold, hungry, and out of work. He would have been thrilled to get some work at 20c an hour, but

Congress and FDR say “No, we can’t have you work for that pittance! How can you support a family on 20c an hour? “

“But, but, I’m supporting them on zero cents an hour now. I’ve got nothing coming in. The 20 cents would be great.”

“Sorry, but we are from the government and we are here to help. Blame it on the evil, greedy capitalists inside the gate. “

Meanwhile, the EGC s inside the gate are going over the books. The 25% increase in labor costs, mandated by the government, has cut their margin from 2% to ½%. And an increase in the cost of goods sold has cut that even further. Shaking their heads, they reach for a stack of pink slips and start filling them out.

And that is what a boost in the government mandated minimum wage accomplishes. Not lifting people up, but pushing more people to the true minimum wage, dictated by natural law: Zero.

As if to underscore the point, the labor unions of Los Angeles are petitioning to be exempted from the city wide mandated $15 minimum wage because “it might make them uncompetitive in seeking contracts.”

The irony is rich. Welcome to basic economics, boys.

Tags: , ,

Mark Caserta: Liberals mislead regarding First Amendment

11 Jun

me

Mark Caserta: Free State Patriot Editor

Jun. 11, 2015 @ 12:01 AM

I recall during a presidential debate in 1999 when the moderator asked the candidates to identify their favorite political philosopher. George W. Bush created a firestorm in the liberal media when he spontaneously and unflinchingly replied, “Jesus Christ, because he changed my life.” The media had a field day castigating Bush for bringing Christianity into politics.

For years, progressives have diligently sought the complete and absolute removal of Christianity from politics. And frankly, we’ve allowed them far too much success. The phrase “separation of church and state” has been bantered about so often by liberals, that many people believe it’s in the Constitution. But not only is the phrase not in the constitution, neither is the concept as propagated by progressives.

The text of the First Amendment reads as follows: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

As you can see, the First Amendment doesn’t contain the words “separation of church and state.” The words can, however, be traced back to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote back in 1802 in response to a concern voiced by the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut about religious freedom. In his letter, Jefferson used the phrase as a metaphor depicting the First Amendment as a “wall of separation” between the church and government interference in religion.

Also notice that there are two parts to the First Amendment that reference religion: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. Today, much is said about the establishment clause, but very little is said about the free exercise clause.

While progressives often attempt to rewrite history to advance their agenda, our Founding Fathers had a keen perspective on the unique and important relationship between religion and the world they wanted to create for themselves and their heirs.

declaration signing

Leading up to the Revolution, these men witnessed their civil liberties trampled upon by the King of England and Parliament. The First Amendment was meant to protect these basic civil liberties and to ensure government was never able to force a particular religion upon the people or suppress their right to practice it openly. Their recognition of the importance of religious freedom to American democracy prompted the framers to enshrine it forever in the First Amendment.

But through the years, liberal courts and progressives have perverted the Framers’+ intent, essentially trampling upon the free exercise clause through misrepresentation of the establishment clause. Liberals would have you believe that any open display of worship, such as prayer in public schools or displaying the Ten Commandments, is somehow government “making a law respecting the establishment of religion” or “state sponsored religion,” which is absurd.

The strict separation of religion and government was not meant to prohibit openly practicing religion; it was meant to protect it!

It’s time we accept that religious freedom was never meant to be freedom from religion.

Mark Caserta is a conservative blogger, a Cabell County resident and a regular contributor to The Herald-Dispatch editorial page.

Tags: , , ,

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →