Blog - Constitution Party

None Dare Call It Treason – 50 Years Later – The Vision of John A. Stormer

None Dare Call It Treason – 50 Years Later – The Vision of John A. Stormer

10 March 2014 –

by Jack McLain, Constitution Party of Florida –

When I read None Dare Call It Treason in 1964-65, it was so startling that I read it slowly over several weeks. To me it seemed that America as we knew it could not last but a few more years. Mountains of evidence and quotations made the facts undeniable. It changed my life.

Thinking recently upon the date of its writing, it occurred to me that author John A. Stormer wrote this momentous book 50 years ago. Tribute needs to be paid here to this stalwart patriot who is now quite advanced in age. His efforts to awaken America should be recognized, appreciated, examined, and heeded by all, even at this late date.

John Stormer’s book took America by storm in presidential election year 1964. It became the largest selling political paperback ever in our history with 7 million copies sold and distributed. Its cover statement read: “1964 is a year of crisis and decision. Will America continue to aid the communist enemy, to disarm in the face of danger, to bow before communist dictators in every corner of the earth? The decision is yours.”

The thoroughly documented warnings concerning the inroads of communism in America should have been enough to stir millions of Americans to action. Many of us were so awakened and stirred that we recognized that we needed to be involved as never before. We will never forget this reading and how it answered so many questions that had plagued us. My main question was why we had allowed communism to take control of Cuba, a nation just 90 miles from our shores. Answer: The American press was already sufficiently leftist that this action was condoned and accepted by the media. Fidel Castro was promoted as an “agrarian reformer,” not a communist. Our State Department covered his communist connections.

Stormer is a dedicated man who spent four years researching his 236 page book. It was not to be discredited. He was unbiased, as a former editor and general manager of a leading electrical engineering magazine, enriching his conclusions through some 800 references from a multitude of sources including major newspapers, Congressional documents, speeches, hearings of Dept. of Justice, National Review, Time magazine, Senate reports, Newsweek, Human Events, House Committee on UnAmerican Activities, Sports Afield, The Worker, Reece Committee, and dozens more.

The title of Stormer’s book is taken from a quotation of Sir John Harrington (1561-1612): “Treason doth never prosper, what’s the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”

Stormer summarized his book as follows: “[Communists] have infiltrated every conceivable sphere of activity: youth groups; radio, television, and motion picture industries; church, school, educational and cultural groups; the press; national minority groups and civil and political units…We cannot defeat Communism with Socialism, nor with secularism, nor with pacificism, nor with appeasement or accommodation…a ‘soft’ attitude toward Communism can destroy us.”

Americans, and especially our leadership, have had a “soft” attitude toward communism for well over the 50 years of Stormer’s writings. I dare say that the average American knows little and understands less about communism, even as it is thrust upon us today in full force.

John Stormer was so thoroughly knowledgeable and concerned about the inroads of communism in America that he updated his book, entitling it None Dare Call It Treason…25 Years Later, published in 1990, adding 160 pages, 13 chapters, titled, “The Treaty Traps,” “Why Do Our Leaders Betray Us?”, “How Communists Manipulate Society,” “Communist Influence in America,” “The Communist Plan: Conquest Without War,” “Know Your Strengths—And the Basis of Victory,” and more.

In addition to these books, Stormer has written others: The Anatomy of a Smear, The Death of a Nation, None Dare Call It Education, and Betrayed By the Bench (Judge-made Law). For 18 years he was pastor of an independent Baptist Church in Missouri and administrator of a large Christian school. Through his experiences, he wrote the book, Growing Up God’s Way. “None Dare Call It Treason” was dedicated to his daughter: “To Holly, May her future be as bright as mine was at age 5.”

Stormer served in the Air Force during the Korean War. He was called to preach after trusting Jesus Christ to be his Savior and Lord in 1965. From 1977 until 2008, he conducted a weekly Bible study in the Missouri Capitol for members of the legislature. In 2005, he wrote Something Was Missing, subtitled, “Until God, Through Faith, Gave Joy and Peace and Full Assurance of Salvation,” helping others to know Christ as Savior through his testimony.

He has published all his books through his organization, Liberty Bell Press, Florissant, Missouri. We met John and have come to know him as a friend and brother through his affiliation with the Constitution Party of Missouri.

What have Americans learned from this man who is so well learned in the evil nature and designs of communism? Now some 50 years later, it would seem that many Americans still have much to learn. Most of the ten planks of communism have been fulfilled in our nation. Socialism, kin to communism, has taken root and many Americans for decades now are very content in letting government supply their needs. A full-fledged Marxist president, though completely ineligible, has been elected twice and is rapidly putting his programs into place under the name of “change.” He and his cohorts very obviously plan a socialist/communist state.

Many organizations, including the Constitution Party, are very active in attempting to awaken and inform our citizens concerning our constitutional principles, while strong inroads opposing us are implanted by leaders and representatives who claim we are a “democracy,” though we have always been a Republic, a nation of laws. Many are socialists and would have us even surrender our freedoms for the foulness of the United Nations and world government.

The question, “Do you remember September 29, 1959?” came across our computers recently. The answer was a photo and quote from Nikita Khrushchev pounding his shoe on the podium at the United Nations and exclaiming: “Your children’s children will live under Communism. You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept Communism outright; but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of Socialism until you will finally wake up and find that you already have Communism. We won’t have to fight you; we’ll so weaken your economy, until you fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

Then, a photo of a smiling Obama and the words: “We’re almost there.”

The ranting of this enemy nearly 55 years ago have gradually come to pass while many Americans seemingly know little about how they have been indoctrinated, much less as to what to do to turn our nation back to sanity, wisdom, righteousness, and the freedoms that we once knew. Many of us have turned back to the Bible for answers. God requires repentance and faith for personal, eternal salvation and national deliverance. God gives and honors wisdom. Wisdom and action are necessary for the continued existence of our once-blessed nation. Every parent and grandparent should be seriously concerned about the future of his children and grandchildren. Every patriot should be involved and asking, “What can I do?” Today is the day to start! We have suggestions if you’re still not sure which way to turn.

“History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.” – General Douglas MacArthur.

“Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord. Our soul waiteth for the Lord: He is our help and our shield. (Psalm 33:12,20).

Stop Fighting the Fruit – Start Chopping the Root

Stop Fighting the Fruit – Start Chopping the Root

– 8 March 2014

– by Robert W. Peck, Constitution Party of Washington state chairman –

I’m always looking for the principle behind a thing, the key thing, the root thing, the thing that makes it all work. I can’t walk into a building without starting to analyze the structure to figure out which is a load-bearing wall, which is a facade, what holds this up and what supports that.I’m that way with politics and government too. I want to find the foundational principles that make for good government, the eternal truths that can tell me which policies are right or wrong. I want to make sure I’m getting to the root of the matter and am not being distracted by something superficial.

I realize not everyone is like me and I don’t expect you to be. However, there are times in life when we absolutely must understand what is at the root of a matter and make sure we are dealing with it at the source. If not, we’ll be destined to futility in our dealings with it and we’ll never be able to fix it when it’s broken. Think about it – you don’t go to a doctor just to talk with him about how you feel, then have him give you something to relieve those symptoms. You go to a doctor to have him correctly diagnose the root cause of the symptoms so you can fix the problem at its source.

Likewise, in matters of politics and civil government, we cannot afford to become distracted with superficial things that are mere symptoms of a more systemic, root matter. We risk getting caught up in treating the symptoms of our political ailment and failing to fight the disease at the root.

I was recently reminded of the importance of understanding key issues, principles and underlying causes while reviewing an article by Memphis attorney and 2008 Constitution Party Vice Presidential nominee, Darrell Castle. In his article on “How the Republic Became a Monarchy,” Darrell went all the way back to President Woodrow Wilson, the 16^th Amendment (the income tax) and the establishing of the Federal Reserve in order to show his readers how key things that happened 100 years ago are at the root of much of what we are dealing with today. I highly recommend a review of Darrell’s article, both for the sake of the information provided in it and as an exercise in learning to identify key issues that are at the root of our nation’s maladies. If you prefer, the same information is available as a four part series of audio podcasts (about 5 mins. each) at www.castlereport.us (Part 1 / Part 2 / Part 3 / Part 4).

While I say this in love, seeking the best interest of my friends, brethren and fellow countrymen, I have to point out that the Christian-conervative-right has, in great part, lost sight of the key issues, root matters and foundational principles. We have become distracted with the symptoms of the diseases that plague our land and have come to devote the majority of our time and effort to suppressing the symptoms instead of eradicating the disease.

The conservative movement has become like a man with a tree in his backyard that is producing poisonous fruit. His strategy is to grab a stick and start swinging at whatever piece of fruit happens to catch his eye, hoping to knock some of it off the branch before it matures. But no matter how frantically he swings at the fruit, it keeps coming back faster than he can knock it down. He has become so distracted by his frenzied fight with the fruit on the branches that he fails to notice the root feeding the tree. If he would just take an ax and start chopping off the roots instead, he could rid himself of all the toxic fruit.

Through a combination of distraction and a forgetfulness of the foundational Biblical values, strict Constitutional limits and key principles of liberty, the conservative movement has come to a place of counting a slower loss as a win and the partial alleviating of a symptom as a major victory. Today’s conservatism appears to only be playing defense and is singularly devoted to the strategy of trying to slow the spread of the disease and ease some of the symptoms. My friend, former Montana State Representative, Rick Jore, refers to members of his former party who follow this strategy as, “Slow Death Republicans.”

Let’s look at just a few examples of key issues, root causes and foundational principles versus distractions and treating the symptoms.

THE INCOME TAX

How much time and energy did the conservative movement expend fighting to get, and later to keep, the so called “Bush tax cuts”? By the attention given to them, those tax cuts would appear to have been the conservative event of the decade and probably were the high water mark of conservative achievement during that period. But how much difference did those tax cuts actually make in your everyday life? How much more disposable income do you have now?

The fact is that those tax cuts only made a few minor adjustments to a huge, complex and evil system of taxation that a Republican President and Republican controlled Congress had it in their power to abolish – possibly by repealing the 16^th Amendment, but at least by defunding and dismantling the IRS. Conservatives heralded as a tremendous victory this barely discernible relief brought to just one of the nation’s multitude of maladies. But the conservative movement, as represented by those to whom it had handed the reins of power, utterly passed up the opportunity to lay the ax to a major root providing the revenues that feed a plethora of un-Constitutional branches of government.

THE FEDERAL RESERVE

Conservatives spend massive amounts of time and energy fighting policies and agendas that come down through a vast maze of un-Constitutional and extra-Constitutional bureaus, agencies and programs. All forms of federal taxation combined are not sufficient to support the heavy load of all these agencies and programs. In other words, these can only exist through deficit spending – deficit spending that is facilitated by the existence of the Federal Reserve and its ability to create fiat funny money out of thin air, backed by nothing. During the conservative reign of complete Republican control from 2000 to 2006, the President and Congress had it within their power to repeal the Federal Reserve Act and restore Constitutionally authorized money coined by Congress and backed by gold. This would have chopped off another major root that feeds the branches of un-Constitutional government through deficit spending. But who in the dominant conservative movement or the Republican Party even alluded to this possibility, much less called for it?

“GREAT SOCIETY” PROGRAMS

This isn’t just happening at the federal level. The distraction from key issues and fundamental principles is taking place in the states too. Today’s brand of conservatism at the state level seems to consist of contending for performance audits and better management of the state’s many Great Society, welfare and social services programs. Conservative law makers tout it as a great victory whenever they can sustain the current state programs and agencies without raising taxes. But if the conservative movement were remembering its origins in the principles of liberty and limited government in the spirit of the American founders, it would be contending for the complete defunding and dismantling of every one of those socialist programs. And in case you think it’s the Democrats that won’t let them do it, keep in mind that fully half of the states are currently under complete Republican control with a majority in both houses and the governorship.

EDUCATION

Today’s brand of conservatism thinks it is really taking a stand when it answers the education establishment’s demands for increased funding with timid suggestions that maybe we should audit the government schools first, or evaluate teacher performance. But the Bible teaches that the education of children is the sole responsibility and jurisdiction of parents. When government mandates and regulates the educating of children, it comes between parent and child, violates the God ordained order and is outside of its God given jurisdiction. When government taxes one man for the education of another man’s child, it now engages in legalized plunder, violation of that man’s liberty and establishes socialism. If conservatives were discerning the root matters and committed to fundamental principles, they would be calling for the abolition of government run education, not trying to “fix it.”

BEING “CONSERVATIVE” SOCIALISTS

Just the other day, I received an email from a “conservative” legislator representing one of the most conservative districts in my state. One of the bragging points in his legislative report was that he had brought home the bacon to the tune of $1million for a “skills center” (aka vocational school). This is a foray by government into an area of education where many privately operated vocational schools and technical institutes have been meeting the need quite well. This is governments’ making the conscious choice to go into competition with existing private sector business and doing so with the advantage of being taxpayer-subsidized. Today’s “new conservatism” boasts that it brings home the bacon, gets us our “fair share” from the bucket of socialist slop and, by the way, it pats us on the back for being fiscally responsible, bragging that our “skills” center has the lowest cost per square foot of any similar socialist program across the state – boy, aren’t we conservative!

The Republicans are not in the majority in my state and may not have had anything to do with funding this particular program, but it’s sad when the best that the new conservatism can do is to congratulate ourselves as to what fiscally responsible socialists we are. Even if a legislator is not in a position to eliminate such socialistic programs from the state’s budget, couldn’t he, we, or the conservative movement, at least use an occasion like this as an opportunity to share a lesson on fundamental principles of liberty, limited government, private sector free enterprise and Biblical jurisdictions? How is anyone going to learn to discern socialism from liberty, or know that it’s bad and why it’s wrong when “conservative” legislators don’t speak out against it?

These are just a few examples that show us that the conservative movement has become distracted from the key issues and root matters and has ceased fighting the disease and settled for treating the symptoms instead. The new conservatism, as manifested by the Republican Party at least, now accepts socialism and prides itself on being able to make un-Constitutional, secular humanist, socialist, big government work better than the other party.

We need to learn to think like Americans again because we’ve obviously forgotten. May I recommend the short weekly commentaries of Institute on the Constitution co-founder and 2004 Constitution Party Presidential nominee, Michael Anthony Peroutka, at www.theamericanview.com. Subscribe today and in no time at all Michael will have you thinking like an American again and believing that “there is a God; our rights come from Him; government exists to protect those rights.”

May I challenge us to begin scrutinizing every political issue to discern the difference between key issues and mere distractions. Darrell Castle’s news and commentary podcsats can help with this. It only takes 5 minutes every Monday, Wednesday and Friday at www.castlereport.us.

Then, once we’ve learned to tell the difference between the root and the fruit, let’s grab our ax and start chopping at the root.

Bob Peck is the writer of the American Perspective blog – Politics, government and society from a Christian and Constitutional perspective. He is currently serving as Chairman of the Constitution Party of Washington, and is the Senior Coordinator of the national CP Multimedia Group, his specialties being videographing and podcasting. You can read more of his work at: bobpeck.wordpress.com.

President Barack Obama, Meet President Dwight Eisenhower – How A 60-Year-Old Slippery Slope Led Into An Ocean of Illegal Aliens

President Barack Obama Meet President Dwight Eisenhower – How a 60-year-old slippery slope led into an ocean of illegal aliens

– 5 March 2014-

– by Peter B. Gemma, National Executive Committee member –

Historians often speculate about “what ifs,” such as what if John Kennedy had lived, or what if Charles Dickens had dinner with Fyodor Dostoevsky, or what if the Confederacy had forced the North to the negotiating table. When thinking about “what happened to the American Dream,” it could be instructive to speculate about what if Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Barack Obama had a discussion and debate on the issue of open borders — how and why they should be closed.

The two men served their country about 60 years apart, only a span of two generations, but they handled the problems caused by illegal aliens very differently in style and substance.

The economy of 60 years ago is not what it is today. To keep the nation’s fiscal house in order — the country was downshifting from high gear in World War II arms spending, and faced a huge influx of returning veterans seeking jobs — President Eisenhower focused on creating a balanced federal budget. The government ran a small deficit in 1954 and 1955, then registered a surplus for each of the next two years. As the nation went into a recession in 1958 and 1959, Eisenhower allowed the federal deficit to grow because some of his advisors thought it would stimulate the economy. By 1960 however, he managed to return the federal budget to a surplus. Although Ike had critics on the right and the left, historian Robert Griffith summed up Eisenhower’s approach to the national economy as a desire to “fashion a new corporate economy that would avoid both the destructive disorder of unregulated capitalism and the threat to business autonomy posed by socialism.”¹

In 2009, President Obama had to confront different economic challenges: he came into office facing a big deficit and unemployment rates of over 10 percent. Even before his inauguration, he lobbied Congress to pass an economic “stimulus” bill that became the top priority during his first month in office. Just two months after being sworn in to office, Obama signed into law the $787 billion plan that included spending for health care, infrastructure, education, and direct assistance to individuals. As part of its 2010 budget proposal, the Obama administration proposed additional spending measures in an attempt to stabilize the economy. There have been mixed judgments to date. The conservative Washington Times opined, “The era of big government returned with a vengeance.”² Howard Gold, of the Wall Street Market Watch, commented, “The president made mistakes — I think he should have gone for more limited health care reform, simpler banking reform, and a stimulus that focused more on infrastructure…he helped avert the very worst, but could have done much better. So, for me, his final grade is C-. But definitely not an F.”³

In terms of economics and sociological issues, illegal immigration was and is a vital question that both presidents have dealt with.

On March 28, 1951, the New York Times observed, “The rise in illegal border-crossing by Mexican ‘wetbacks’ to a current rate of more than 1,000,000 cases a year has been accompanied by a curious relaxation in ethical standards extending all the way from the farmer-exploiters of this contraband labor to the highest levels of the Federal Government.”⁴

Two months later, the Los Angeles Times reported that 21,000 Mexican nationals had “flooded across Mexican border into California during April” and complained about the overworked, understaffed border patrolmen and “the endless wave of line jumpers, unprecedented in the nation’s history.” Just like today, the argument about jobs “Americans won’t do” was a justification used by one employer in the Times piece, while the authorities stressed the need to enforce the law to protect out-of- work veterans.

The news media of the Obama era have similar news stories: A Washington Times news report of January 29, 2013, was headlined: “Arrest numbers signal nine percent jump in illegal immigration in 2012;”⁵ on March 4, 2013, the federal government’s Homeland Security news service disclosed a “sharp increase in border crossings in 2012”;⁶ and then this item in the New York Times, September 23, 2013: “Number of Illegal Immigrants in U.S. May Be on Rise Again, Estimates Say.”⁷

During World War II, with so many Americans in the armed services, Mexicans illegally (and legally) entered the U.S. to take advantage of employment opportunities, especially as agricultural laborers. The federal government had actually created what was called the “Bracero” program (Spanish for “manual laborer”), which brought Mexicans into the United States to fill jobs that soldiers had left behind. Those foreign workers were in the U.S. legally, but Washington often looked the other way when companies illegally brought more cheap labor over the border. By 1945, there were some two million illegal aliens living in California, Arizona, and Texas. Such a massive underground workforce had a devastating impact on the wages of American workers and those returning war veterans looking for jobs.

John Dillin, writing for the Christian Science Monitor, tells this story:

The late Herbert Brownell Jr., Eisenhower’s first attorney general, said in an interview with this writer that the president had a sense of urgency about illegal immigration when he took office.

America ‘was faced with a breakdown in law enforcement on a very large scale,’ Mr. Brownell said. ‘When I say large scale, I mean hundreds of thousands were coming in from Mexico [every year] without restraint.’ Although an on-and-off guest-worker program for Mexicans was operating at the time, farmers and ranchers in the Southwest had become dependent on an additional low-cost, docile, illegal labor force of up to 3 million, mostly Mexican, laborers.⁸

In contrast, President Obama asserts that, “the idea that you’re going to deport 12 million people is ridiculous, that we’re not going to be devoting all our law enforcement resources to sending people back.”⁹

Then there is Obama Attorney General Eric Holder, who told the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, “Creating a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized immigrants in this country is absolutely essential. The way we treat our friends and neighbors who are undocumented — by creating a mechanism for them to earn citizenship and move out of the shadows — transcends the issue of immigration status. This is a matter of civil and human rights.”¹⁰

Eisenhower, concerned about all the tangential issues due to the illegal alien invasion, including corruption that resulted from the profits of the underground labor market, took decisive action. First he cancelled the Bracero agreement and then appointed General Joseph “Jumpin’ Joe” Swing, who commanded the 11th Airborne Division during the campaign to liberate the Philippines in World War II, to head the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). However, like today, there was an open borders lobby at work: agribusiness and other employers of unskilled labor gained the favor of influential politicians, including Senators Lyndon Johnson of Texas and Nevada’s Pat McCarran, who fought against strong border enforcement. Today, the open borders lobby is more persuasive and pervasive: for example, the National Immigration Forum’s chairman is John Gay of the National Restaurant Association, and its board includes Craig Regelbrugge, representing the American Nursery and Landscape Association, and Randal K. Johnson of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Other amnesty advocates include GOP Senators Lindsey Graham and John McCain, Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, and U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

General Swing’s close connections to President Eisenhower protected him — and the Border Patrol — from meddling by powerful political and corporate interests. With the close cooperation of the Eisenhower Justice Department, Swing launched what was called “Operation Wetback.”

With only 1,075 Border Patrol agents, supported by municipal, county, state, and the military, a comprehensive operation to identify and apprehend all illegal immigrants was undertaken. According to the Texas Historical Association, on the first day of the operation 4,800 illegal aliens were apprehended. The roundup of aliens began in California and Arizona, because there was less political resistance. Some 750 agents set a goal of 1,000 arrests a day, but in less than two weeks over 50,000 aliens were caught in the two states. Another 488,000 had fled the country.¹¹

In comparison to Operation Wetback, the Obama Department of Homeland Security spends $4 billion annually deploying over 58,000 personnel with 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, and 300 camera towers. It even uses aerial drones to enhance the scrutiny. In 2012, the Border Patrol apprehended about 357,000 people — a 78 percent drop since 2000. A February, 2013 GAO report¹² found that just 44 percent of the border was under “operational control,” 37 percent was “monitored,” and the rest “low-level monitored.”

Unlike the Eisenhower era, protecting the 1,954-mile Mexico-U.S. border, has now become more than an economic issue — it impacts America’s national security. In an August 13, 2013, op/ed in The Washington Times, Retired Admiral James Lyons, who was senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, stated, “Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism that America faces. In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security.”¹³

On May 21, 2013, Rebecca Gambler, director of Homeland Security and Justice for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), gave testimony before the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security and revealed that DHS identified 1,901 illegal overstays “of concern” in 2011. As of March 2013, 266 remain missing. The 1,901 cases were made a top priority for further investigation by DHS “because the subjects of the records could pose national security or public safety concerns.”¹⁴

Still, it seems there is no sense of urgency. In an interview with the Spanish broadcasting conglomerate Telemundo, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said many deportations were “totally unjustified” and that, “When most people are apprehended, they are deported. I don’t see any reason for these deportations.” Pelosi also stated, “I think that there is discretion in the law as to the implementation, enforcement of the legislation that is calling for these deportations.”15

In 2006, Congress passed a bill that called for a double-tier fence to be built along 700 miles of the border. But a year later, the U.S. Senate slipped language into a spending bill to water down that requirement, giving Homeland Security officials the leeway to determine how much and what type of fencing. As of early this year, the department had built just 36 miles of two-tier fencing, 316 miles of single-tier fence, and another 299 miles of vehicle barriers that still allow pedestrians to cross, but are meant to keep out smuggling vehicles. Commentator Charles Krauthammer explains the issue this way: “It’s not complicated. Build the damn fence.”¹⁶

The Obama Administration protection policies greatly differ from those of his predecessor of 60 years ago. For example, of the 188,382 criminal aliens deported in 2011, at least 86,699, or 46 percent, had been deported earlier and had illegally returned to the United States. (In 2011, Illegal re-entry became the most commonly recorded lead charge brought by federal prosecutors, accounting for nearly 47 percent of all criminal immigration prosecutions filed.)¹⁷ President Eisenhower’s initiatives were designed to ensure Mexicans caught in Operation Wetback were not released at the border, where they could easily re-enter the U.S. The Operation Wetback policy was to hire buses and trains to take illegal aliens deep within Mexico before being set free. Tens of thousands more were put aboard two hired ships which ferried the aliens to Vera Cruz, Mexico, more than 500 miles south.

Thanks to Operation Wetback, illegal immigration rates dropped 95 percent by the end of the 1950s.¹⁸ An INS report of 1955 stated, “The so-called ‘wetback’ problem no longer exists.… [T]his is no longer, as in the past, a problem in border control. The border has been secured.”¹⁹

The pugnacious columnist Pat Buchanan summed up the Eisenhower immigration policy this way:

During President Eisenhower’s first term, 60 years ago, the United States faced an invasion across its southern border. Illegal aliens had been coming since World War II. But, suddenly, the number was over one million. Crime was rising in Texas. The illegals were taking the jobs of U.S. farm workers … Eisenhower, who had tapped his nuclear hole card twice — first, to force the Chinese to agree to a truce in Korea, then to halt their shelling of the offshore islands in 1958 — was a no-nonsense president…as for the deportation of the Mexicans, they had broken in, they did not belong here, and they were going back. End of discussion.²⁰

A Federation for American Immigration Reform publication, “President Obama’s Record of Dismantling Immigration Enforcement,” assesses the Obama Administration as having, “carried out a policy of de facto amnesty for millions of illegal aliens through executive policy decisions. Since taking office in 2009, [it] has systematically gutted effective immigration enforcement policies, moved aggressively against state and local governments that attempt to enforce immigration laws, and stretched the concept of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ to a point where it has rendered many immigration laws meaningless. Remarkably, the Administration has succeeded in doing all this with barely a peep of protest from Congress.” The white paper goes on to show:

The Administration’s intimidation of state and local governments determined to enforce federal immigration laws. President Obama has turned the Department of Justice into the Administration’s attack dog, filing lawsuits against states that pass their own immigration enforcement laws. When lawsuits fail, the Department’s Civil Rights division launches meritless investigations designed to harass local governments and officials who attempt to enforce the law.²¹

Any idea of a meeting between Presidents Obama and Eisenhower would have to be more than fictional: fantasy would be a better description. There would be no reason for such men of totally opposite worldviews to even try to mediate immigration policies — which is why one has to ask whatever happened to the American dream.

Endnotes

1. Andrew J. Dunar, America in the Fifties (Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press, 2006)

2. “Obama’s economic collapse: Rosy scenarios defeated by grim reality,” July 29, 2011

3. www.marketwatch.com/story/grading-president-obama-on-the-economy-2012-09-14

4. http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F00A17FF3F5F147B93CAAB1788D85F458585F9&scp=1&sq=curious+relaxation+in+ethical+standards&st=p

5. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/29/arrests-signal-9-percent-jump-illegal-immigration/?page=all

6. www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130304-sharp-increase-in-border-crossings-in-2012

7. www.nytimes.com/2013/09/24/us/immigrant-population-shows-signs-of-growth-estimates-show.html?_r=0

8. www.dailykos.com/story/2008/08/02/558484/-Obama-Quotes-on-Immigration-With-Links

9. www.examiner.com/article/dhs-janet-napolitano-claims-illegal-immigration-is-not-a-crime

10. www.suntimes.com/news/huntley/19934745-452/us-citizenship-is-not-a-human-right.html

11. www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/pqo01

12. www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-374T

13. www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/14/lyons-the-national-security-component-of-immigrati/?page=all

14. www.gao.gov/assets/660/654752.pdf

15. www.numbersusa.com/content/news/december-16-2013/pelosi-living-us-illegally-does-not-warrant-deportation.html

16. www.nationalreview.com/articles/339427/immigration-getting-it-right-charles-krauthammer

17. http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/251/

18. www.csmonitor.com/2006/0706/p09s01-coop.html/(page)/2

19. www.archive.org/stream/annualreportofim1955unit#page/15/mode/1up

20. http://buchanan.org/blog/will-the-gop-embrace-amnesty-5541

21. http://www.fairus.org/publications/president-obama-s-record-of-dismantling-immigration-enforcement

Peter B. Gemma, a contributing editor to The Social Contract, is an award-winning writer who has been published in a variety of venues including USA Today (where more than 100 of his commentaries have appeared), Military History, the DailyCaller.com, and The Washington Examiner.

How The Republic Became A Monarchy

How the Republic Became a Monarchy

~ 26 February 2014 ~

by Darrell Castle, Executive Committee member and 2008 Vice-Presidential Candidate

FROM JEFFERSON TO WILSON

How did the United States change from the republic envisioned by the framers into a monarchy with its royal court that it has become today? I started thinking about this when I was analyzing the State of the Union speech given by President Barack Obama recently and I decided to go back and look at State of the Union speeches given in the past. What I found was that Thomas Jefferson, when he became President, decided not to give a State of the Union speech at all because he thought that walking out in front of a joint session of Congress reminded him of the British monarchy that the country had gone through a war to be rid of. Instead of a speech, he wrote a letter to Congress, intentionally vague, so that it wouldn’t seem like a royal decree and then he had a clerk read it out loud to the Congressmen and Senators.

The Constitution doesn’t require a speech. Article II, Section 3, says only that from time to time the President is required to give Congress information of the State of the Union and to recommend things for their consideration. That’s all that it requires. Jefferson’s example became a tradition that was carried on until it was broken by Woodrow Wilson in 1913. The 20th century, in many ways, became Wilson’s century as he brought into existence much of what we see today. In the very least he laid the groundwork of what we have become today.

Woodrow Wilson was the son of a preacher, but pursued a career as an academic. He taught at several colleges along the way before eventually taking a position at Princeton. He served as President of Princeton from 1902 to 1910. He served briefly as governor of New Jersey, 1911 into 1912, then he gained the Presidency in 1912. There was acrimony and division in the Republican Party that split the ranks and Wilson won with only 43% of the vote.

From the statement of his friends and various writings, he believed that he was ordained by God to hold the position of President – perhaps the early formation of a divine right philosophy. According to his biographer, this gave him an arrogance and a smugness which masqueraded as righteousness.

THE INCOME TAX, THE FEDERAL RESERVE, AND THE 17th AMENDMENT

Wilson was a believer in the power of the state and he led the nation into centralization and bureaucracy. In 1913, when he took office, Congress, along with the Europeans, began handing to him the tools to attain the goals that he had for the nation. To accomplish what he wanted there had to be key changes in the power system as defined by the Constitution. The 16th Amendment giving Congress the power to tax incomes was passed in 1909, but after years of fighting was finally ratified in February 1913, just in time for Mr. Wilson’s use. The 17th Amendment calling for the direct election of US Senators was passed in 1912, but not ratified until April 1913, once again, just in time for Mr. Wilson.

These two amendments changed the power structure of the nation and altered the relationship between citizens and the federal government. Occurring so closely together, along with other things that happened a few months later, it was the equivalent of a second American revolution. The direct election of Senators greatly diminished the republican form of government envisioned by the founders in which the states had influence and even control of half of the legislative branch. Senators had previously been beholden to the state legislatures and this insulated them from day to day popular opinion. There was no need for the multi-million dollar election campaigns that we see today. This also focused the Senate on the interests of the states rather than being just another popular assembly. Direct election of Senators made them just another group of populist politicians.

The 16th and 17th Amendments contributed a great deal to the fundamental changes to the constitutional system that were necessary in order for President Wilson to complete his agenda for America. It seems that every President has his agenda and he has no shortage of people who want to help him accomplish it.

The 16th Amendment brought about the enactment of a national income tax during Mr. Wilson’s first year in office, but it was only on the “rich.” At that time, rich people were defined as those earning over $4,000 per year. In today’s terms, thanks to the Federal Reserve, that would be about $80,000 per year – not rich then and not rich now.

The important thing was that the dam was breached, the Rubicon crossed, or however you want to say it. The power to tax income was the thing holding back the march of federal power and purchased influence based on spending by the federal government. It was a short jump from that to the federal government’s being able to buy anything and anyone. Before Woodrow Wilson was President, federal government spending never exceeded 3% of gross domestic product except during the war of 1812 and the Civil War.

At that time, revenue was still derived constitutionally, that is, from customs, levies, import duties and other excises and tariffs. During Mr. Wilson’s two terms in office, spending rose to more than 20% of GDP. So Woodrow Wilson had broken the interest of the several states with the 17th Amendment and their influence was on the decline; he also had broken the dam holding back federal spending with the power to tax income.

He still had another river to cross however before his destruction of Constitutional government was complete and that was accomplished with his support of the Federal Reserve Act passed December 23, 1913, in the wee hours of the morning with Washington all but deserted for the Christmas holidays. You get a good look at the Federal Reserve and how it works from G. Edward Griffin’s book, The Creature From Jekyll Island and Eustace Mullins book, Secrets of the Federal Reserve. The name Jekyll Island comes from Jekyll Island, Georgia, where all the bankers went in secret to rewrite and take control of the United States financial system.

The Federal Reserve Act stated that its purposes were:

To provide for the establishment of Federal Reserve banks;
To furnish an “elastic currency” (they’ve certainly done that haven’t they?);
To afford means of re-discounting commercial paper;
To establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States and,
For “other purposes.”

The Fed was composed of a board of governors in Washington DC and 12 regional Federal Reserve banks. By statute, the responsibilities of these banks are to:

Conduct the nation’s monetary policy by influencing the money and credit conditions in the economy;
Supervise and regulate banking institutions to ensure safety and soundness of the nation ‘s banking and financial system;
Maintain the stability of the financial system;
Provide certain financial services to the U.S. government financial institutions and to public and foreign official institutions including a major role in operating the nation’s payment system.

The Federal Reserve was created as, and has followed hard to remain, “an independent central bank.” This is a totally European concept reflecting the need to provide banking services to the sovereigns – so “welcome to America Mr. Monarch.” The Fed is independently run within the government and its decisions do not have to be ratified by Congress, the President or anyone.

It is still, however, a creature of government and the creature is not greater than its creator. The Constitution gives to Congress the power to coin money and to set its value and therefore Congress maintains oversight over it. Thanks to Mr. Wilson’s assistance in 1913, Congress delegated, or assigned, its power to coin money and regulate its value to the Federal Reserve. It could take it back however, any time. Congress could simply repeal the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and it would be back in control of the nation’s monetary system.

In simple terms, folks, the Federal Reserve is a European style central bank that can create on its own authority and subject only to very weak indirect oversight by Congress, credit denominated in U.S. dollars. It is now a credit based economy – that’s the way it’s run.

The 16th Amendment, which gave the President power to tax income, broke the dam holding back federal spending. The 17th Amendment broke the Congress’s connection to the states. The Federal Reserve gave control of the U.S. monetary system to the banks, thus President Wilson was handed in his first year in office, a credit backed elastic fiat currency. These were the beginnings of the enlargement of federal government power based on spending financed by taxes, borrowing and its resultant national debt.

OBAMA AND WILSON: TRANSFORMING AMERICA

Like President Obama now, Wilson meant to transform America, and like Obama, Congress gave him the tools to do it. As Wilson put it, he wanted to “put government at the service of humanity.” But as Thomas Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, the purpose of government is to secure our God given rights, not to serve humanity.

Mr. Wilson, again like Mr. Obama, was an activist in pushing government expansion and in getting government-expanding legislation through Congress. Such legislation as the Federal Trade Commission in 1914 and the Federal Farm Loan Act in 1916, brought the federal government into the daily lives and the living rooms of Americans everywhere. You may recall that Congress recently passed a $1 trillion farm bill now some 98 years after this organization was formed.

Mr. Wilson, like Mr. Obama, embroiled the United States in foreign wars including bringing the U.S. into the Mexican civil war and even invading Mexico and sending U.S. troops into Russia to oppose the Bolshevik Revolution. This is the 100th anniversary of World War I which began in Europe in 1914. The U.S. would not officially enter that war until three years later however.

Mr. Wilson was very lopsided in monitoring policy against neutral and not at war countries in World War I. He did not seek a balanced neutrality in the early years of the war. Once it started, he forbade U.S. banks from making loans to the warring powers yet permitted the banks to extend large “credits” to the French and British. In effect, the U.S. was bankrolling the war just as we do yet today in wars across the Middle East. Possibly, without the United States’ elastic currency, the countries would have run out of cash and that very unnecessary war would have ended much earlier.

Many countries were sucked into the war as it went on and on and on, ruining many lives across Europe. Much as today, U.S. credit policies perpetuated war, thus allowing it to get worse and worse, leading directly to German submarine warfare against the supply convoys.

The U.S. population was strongly against U.S. troops being involved in this European war, much as they are today. The production of war materials however led to economic boom times in the U.S., all funded by credit much as it is funded today.

In 1916 Wilson ran for his second term on the slogan, “he kept us out of war”, just as President Obama ran on ending the war in Iraq which is now worse than ever. Less than 90 days after his inauguration for a second term, Woodrow Wilson asked Congress for a declaration of war against Germany. Wilson sought to control opposition to his war policies with laws designed to limit free speech and political dissent. The elastic currency of the Federal Reserve funded the war as Wilson continued his domestic agenda at home, much as we do today. Under Woodrow Wilson, America got its first introduction to the warfare state.

THE WILSONIAN WARFARE STATE

Wilson’s impact on America is hard to over estimate. He dominated the 20th century to the extent that no one alive today has ever experienced anything but a Wilsonian world. No one alive today can remember a time when the world at large worked any other way than the Wilsonian way.

His effort to make the peace in his image has involved America in internationalist, globalist government that still exists 100 years later. It required certain assumptions about America and about the world. Certain things about America had to change. He had the power to tax income and he had the Federal Reserve and its elastic currency with which to carry out his plans. Most nations were not so fortunate. One thing is clear though, looking back from 100 years of history, if Woodrow Wilson had not become President, the United States would have had a far different 20th century.

In one sense, Wilson simply copied, or carried forward, the centralized debt-financed government model created by Otto von Bismarck in Germany 40 years earlier. So we ask ourselves then, was he an innovator? Did he invent this welfare-warfare state or simply copy the diagrams created by others?

Could then the U.S central bank, the Federal Reserve, have come into existence without Wilson? There is little room for doubt that the bankers needed their man in the White House in order to bring their plan into existence and push their legislation through Congress. Without the Federal Reserve, how would the world economy that has evolved have been financed? Without Wilson’s influence, would the income tax and credit based economy have existed in time to feed the engines of World War I.

Without Wilson, would the war to make the world safe for democracy have lasted so long, torn apart European civilization and destroyed a whole generation of young men? Would a corporal in the German army in 1918 named Adolf Hitler have risen in only 14 years to become chancellor of Germany?

Absent World War I, would an obscure lawyer named Franklin Roosevelt have become Secretary of the Navy and then elevated himself into the Presidency of the United States? How would soldiers such as Douglas MacArthur, Harry Truman, George Patton and most of the leaders of the 20th Century world have been trained and formed?

Would the war have lasted so long and been so expensive that Russia descended into revolution and chaos leading to Lenin, Stalin and the deaths of 70 to 100 million people? Would the Ottoman Empire have collapsed and dissolved spawning the modern Middle East and allowing Great Britain to draw the lines of nations on invisible maps – paper-forming countries that are even today at war and threatening to break apart?

Would the concept of world government a la the League of Nations, leading later to the United Nations, have formed in the minds of men? Would the rise of Hitler and Mussolini from the ashes of Europe have occurred? Would the Holocaust have occurred – the slaughter of World War II after the draconian peace terms forced on Germany by Wilson and the allied powers? Would the development of nuclear weapons and their use have occurred?

Would the Bretton Woods Agreement, giving the U.S. reserve currency status, have occurred? Would the United States have embarked on a 60 year pattern of no-win wars against unknown enemies such as communism and terror? Would we have arrived in 2014 with $17.5 trillion of debt and the Federal Reserve now printing $65 billion a month?

Who knows the answers to all these questions, folks? But they are worth contemplating as we observe the path of America’s descent from Constitutional Republic into the monarchy we have become.

Darrell Castle is the creator and voice of The Castle Report, a tri-weekly podcast examining the issues affecting Americans from a constitutional and historical perspective. He is a former USMC combat officer in Vietnam, a private practice attorney, member of the Executive Committee of the Constitution Party, and served as the 2008 Vice-presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. Listen to more podcasts at: www.castlereport.us.

Foreign Aid? It’s Being Flushed Down the Toilet Faster Than You Think…

Foreign Aid? It’s Being Flushed Down the Toilet Faster Than You Think…

~ 11 February 2014 ~

by Peter B. Gemma, National Executive Committee –

The economy of Mexico is the 13th largest in the world and the 11th in buying power. British economist Jim O’Neill, former head of asset management for Goldman Sachs, said recently that, “Mexico has a unique opportunity to steal the thunder of no less a giant than China.” Remember Ross Perot’s warning about that giant sucking sound of jobs going south of the border because of the North America Free Trade Agreement? It’s turned out to be a whirlpool. According to 2013 Census Bureau data, the U.S. had a trade surplus with Mexico of $1.6 billion in 1993, but that has plunged full speed to a trade deficit of $50.1 billion last year. Yet the amount of foreign aid that the U.S. gave to Mexico during 2012 was $317 million.

And here’s a stick-in-the-eye note: in an article this writer penned for the Unz Review, a Government Accounting Office report found that of the 1,954 mile border with Mexico, only 44 percent — 860 miles — is under “operational control.” The average cost per mile of border fencing, to protect American jobs from illegal aliens, was $3.9 million a mile. The advantage of cutting off aid to Mexico and applying it to building the fence? You do the math.

The economy of South Africa is currently the largest in Africa. Since 1996, Pretoria’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) has almost tripled to $400 billion, and its foreign exchange reserves have increased from $3 billion to nearly $50 billion. In 2011, Uncle Sam said they needed $757 million of taxpayer’s money to make things a bit better — that’s about 190 miles of U.S.-Mexico border fencing.

Oil-rich Nigeria’s economy is set to outpace South Africa within a year or two — America donated 132 miles worth of U.S. border fence — I mean $530 million last year.

The Philippines 2013 annual GDP growth rate of 7.2 percent was the fastest rate of growth seen in a two-year period since 1954-1955. The Philippines’ annual growth rate is second only to China, which grew at 7.7 percent last year. That good news earned Manila some $610 million, approximately 340 miles of border security, from our foreign giveaway aid program.

Then there is Israel. It is slightly smaller than New Jersey and has a population equal to Arizona. On the 2012 UN Human Development Index, Israel ranks 16th of 187 countries which earns it a rating of “Very Highly Developed.” Although Israel’s per capita income roughly equal to South Korea or Spain, Washington will send Tel Aviv $9.3 million every single day in 2014. According to a Congressional Research Service report, U.S. military aid underwrites over 18 percent of the entire Israeli defense budget.

That sugar daddy relationship, criticized for years but only in whispers, is just now being quietly discussed.

Presidential candidate, Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) put the question on the table during the 2012 campaign: “Foreign aid makes Israel dependent on us,” he said. “It softens them for their own economy. And they should have their sovereignty back, they should be able to deal with their neighbors at their own will.”

Long time Huffington Post blogger Steven Strauss’ 2013 post entitled “Israel Has Reached Childhood’s End — It’s Time to End U.S. Aid to Israel,”still makes the rounds in Middle East debates.

Even Naftali Bennett, leader of the right wing Jewish Home Party, has observed, “I think, generally, we need to free ourselves from it [U.S. aid]. We have to do it responsibly, since I’m not aware of all the aspects of the budget, I don’t want to say, ‘let’s just give it up,’ but our situation today is very different from what it was 20 and 30 years ago. Israel is much stronger, much wealthier, and we need to be independent.”

Of course the money pipeline to Israel will continue to flow freely because, as former President Jimmy Carter asserts, “Reluctance to criticize any policies of the Israeli government is because of the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee. It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress.”

The political machinations of Israel aid aside, the mechanics of how taxpayer dollars are spent — and wasted — are mind-blowing. A report from the Council on Foreign Relations on aid to Sudan revealed, “Since 2005, state officials and government contractors have stolen an estimated $4 billion from treasury coffers — an amount equivalent to 30 percent of the country’s annual economic output.“

The anti-corruption advocacy group Global Financial Integrity says almost a sixth of Angola’s entire annual budget — $6 billion — is ripped off annually.

The New York Times asserts, “For more than a decade, wads of American dollars packed into suitcases, backpacks and, on occasion, plastic shopping bags have been dropped off every month or so at the offices of Afghanistan’s president — courtesy of the Central Intelligence Agency. All told, tens of millions of dollars have flowed from the C.I.A. to the office of President Hamid Karazai, according to current and former advisers to the Afghan leader. ‘We called it ‘ghost money,’ said Khalil Roman, who served as Mr. Karzai’s deputy chief of staff from 2002 until 2005. ‘It came in secret, and it left in secret.’”

How to fix the flood of our money into overseas rat holes? Senator Rand Paul observes, “The administration once promised transparency, but nations such as Egypt and Pakistan now regularly receive billions of our dollars with no reasonable amount of oversight or enforceable conditions. Part of the problem is that the State Department has not had an inspector general in more than five years. This position is specifically designed to ferret out wasteful programs and instances of misused or stolen program funds. The House Committee on Foreign Affairs sent Mr. Kerry a letter in February asking that the secretary appoint someone to fill this vacancy. Today, the position remains unfilled.” That’s a practical idea — but such initiatives don’t fly fast and far on Capitol Hill.

Eventually we must stop the waste then re-tool and reduce American largesse. And there’s an extra reward for doing so: that 1100 miles of border fencing that Washington politicians promised would be built may actually be erected.

Peter B. Gemma has been published in a variety of venues including USA Today (where more than 100 of his commentaries have appeared), Military History, the DailyCaller.com, The Washington Examiner, and the EconomicPopulist.org. This article was originally published at: www.unz.com/article/foreign-aid

Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood

~ 10 February 2014 ~

by Frank Fluckiger, National Chairman –

Barack Obama is the first President to address a Planned Parenthood convention. He finished his rousing speech by saying, “I want you to know that you’ve got a President who’s going to be right there with you fighting every step of the way. Thank you, Planned Parenthood. God bless you.”

I was particularly offended by the “God bless you” line — I’m sure you are too.

Tennessee-march-for-life-Stop-abortion-rally

Planned Parenthood is a monstrous operation. In 2012, they raked in over $1.1 billion, including $542 million in taxpayer funding via federal and state grants and contracts. Although none of the government money specifically underwrites the abortions they perform, it does allow Planned Parenthood to use private donations to pay for their grisly services. And that’s a big “business” — in 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood performed a record 333,964 abortions.

In reading some background stories about Planned Parenthood, I came across these news items:

*A Planned Parenthood counselor was caught on tape admitting that the organization leaves infants born alive after an abortion to die.

*A Delaware Planned Parenthood clinic experienced five botched [their term, not my definition] abortion emergencies in less than five weeks.

And then there was this:

For the second time this month, pro-life activists helplessly looked on as yet another ambulance rushed away from the St. Louis Planned Parenthood abortion clinic headed for a hospital emergency room. Emergency workers spent 14 minutes inside the Planned Parenthood office, the last remaining abortion clinic in Missouri, before emerging with a woman on a gurney covered head to toe with a sheet. The ambulance departed without the use of its lights or siren.

Planned Parenthood is an evil business, and the right to life movement does an excellent job exposing and opposing it. I’m proud to say the Constitution Party is part of that cause — we are the only pro-life party in America.

Our platform is crystal clear:

“We affirm the God-given legal personhood of all human beings from fertilization to natural death, without exception. … Under no circumstances may the federal government fund or otherwise support any state or local government or any organization or entity, foreign or domestic, which advocates, encourages or participates in the practice of abortion.”

Every one of our party’s candidates are 100% pro-life. Every one, running for every office, in every state. In 2012, former Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis was the Constitution Party candidate for Lt. Governor. The Missouri Right to Life Committee endorsed her candidacy. Cynthia said at the time, “We are changing the political landscape. This is the first time Missouri Right to Life has ever endorsed anyone on the Constitution Party ticket.”

We are offering a strong pro-life challenge to the establishment candidates, and the right to life movement is taking notice. That’s why we need your help.

We want to take our pro-life message to thousands who stand up for the unborn. Will you help us do that? May I count on your investment of $20?

You know, this year marks the 40th anniversary of legalized abortion-on-demand. Perhaps a gift of $40 or even $80 should mark this sad milestone. I’ll leave that decision to you.

In 2012, Planned Parenthood’s political action committee donated $190,000 to pro-abortion candidates — that was part of the $3.6 million pay-off to politicians by the powerful pro-abortion movement.

We don’t need millions of dollars — right now we need thousands of right-to-lifers working at the grassroots level, helping Constitution Party candidates. To recruit them, we need your contribution: $20, $40, $80, or more will go a long way in spreading the word: The Constitution Party is the only pro-life party in America.

Let’s get to work defending the unborn.

Draft Judge Napolitano — But Not As A Republican

Draft Judge Napolitano — But Not As A Republican

~ 5 February 2014 ~

by Robert W. Peck (Chairman, Constitution Party of Washington) –

The other night I ran across a Facebook page titled “Draft Judge Andrew Napolitano for President.” I found that it is associated with a website devoted to the same purpose of convincing the judge to seek the Presidency in 2016. I like Judge Napolitano. I’m not aware of his having ever said anything that I disagree with and I would be pleased to have him as President. However, I have one problem with this effort.

The “Draft the Judge” petition concludes by calling on “Judge Andrew Napolitano to offer himself as a ‘Republican‘ candidate for President of the United States” (emphasis added). This despite the fact that after identifying numerous of our country’s ills, the petition rightly identifies both the Republican and Democrat Parties as the source of our problems, stating that they have “worked in tandem as an entrenched political duopoly to put the United States on this path, despite both parties’ claiming fundamental ideological differences.”The petition goes on to state that “both parties have done so because they are controlled by professional politicians and special interest groups that do not hold the best interests of the American people at heart,” to which I say, “oh how true.”Continuing, the petition says “the only way to transform a system riddled with such corruption and cronyism is to support groups and candidates currently outside the government and neither controlled by nor invested in such special interests.”

Excuse me, but how exactly is seeking the Republican nomination an act of going outside the controlled Establishment and special interests? The “R&D” duopoly are the epitome of controlled, insider, Establishment politics that’s bought and paid for by power brokers and special interests.

Have we learned nothing after twice watching the “R” party leadership lie, cheat, steal and do whatever it had to to prevent Ron Paul, a Constitutionally sound and courageous candidate that they cannot control, from getting the nomination? And have we learned nothing after watching the same party subvert the campaigns of similar men of principle at the state and local level?

Election cycle after election cycle I’ve watched as the “R” party Establishment leadership works to undermine the campaigns of any overtly God-honoring, Constitution-upholding, liberty-loving candidates in the primary election. I’ve heard story after story of the shenanigans pulled by the party leadership to push the Establishment choice through the nomination process, will of the membership be damned. When the occasional God honoring patriot makes it through the primary, the party has been known to actually undermine that candidate’s campaign in the general election, preferring a Democrat who will maintain the status quo over a man of courage and integrity who will uphold the Constitution and rock the Establishment’s boat. Even on the really rare occasion that a Constitutionist does get elected and goes to Congress, or the state legislature, they find their endeavors to honor God and uphold the Constitution opposed and thwarted by their own party’s leadership. They might as well have been elected and served as Democrats.

So what am I suggesting – that the judge run on a third party ticket, or as an independent? That’s exactly what I’m suggesting.

“Oh, but a third party or independent candidate can’t win” you might say. Well wake up – have any overtly God honoring, strict Constitutionists who are sincerely contending for liberty won as Republicans? Well, about a half dozen or so have won in Congress and the numbers are about the same in most state legislatures. But I expect that many of those candidates would have won as independents or third party candidates based on their local name recognition and reputation. If the local folks who agree with a candidate’s views would simply give them the same support without regard for party label, then I’m confident that most would have won even as third party or independent candidates.

But why not run as a Republican? Because every time a good man, with good values, who honors God, upholds the Constitution and contends for the real principles of liberty runs as a Republican, he lends his credibility as a Christian and a Constitutionist to a party that has become anything but Christian and Constitutional.

Now I realize that there are a lot of nice Christian people still trapped in the Republican Party and I know that people will point out that the Republican Party has a good platform. But did Jesus say we should know a tree by its leaves or by its fruit (Mat 7:15-20)? The Republican Party may have a lot of nice Christian leaves (members) and be cloaked in a quite conservative platform, but the only test that I’ve been instructed to judge a thing by is the fruit that it produces. So what fruit has the Republican Party produced?

Now before you say “oh, but those pesky Democrats won’t let the Republicans do anything good,” let’s stop and consider that over the last quarter century that I’ve been paying attention to the affairs of government, the “R” party has been in power about half the time. They have held the Presidency with a Democrat controlled Congress (1988-92), they have controlled Congress under a Democrat President (1994-2000), they had the whole enchilada from 2000-06 and even now they control the branch of the federal government responsible for all bills for revenue and thus have full control over the nation’s spending habits. The “R” party also controls fully half of the union states with 25 states having both an “R” majority in the legislature and an “R” governor.

Despite all this opportunity, can you name for me one time that the Republican Party produced even one piece of good, God honoring, Constitution upholding, liberty restoring fruit? Can you name one time that the budget has been balanced, the borders secured, Constitutional money restored, abortion ended, foreign aid eliminated, foreign interventionism and international meddling ended…? Can you name one “R” party controlled state that has exercised its 10^th Amendment rights and stood up to federal usurpation, nullified un-Constitutional federal acts or produced overtly God honoring, Constitution upholding fruits of liberty?

It’s time to judge the tree by its fruit and the fruit is corrupt.

But why not run as a Republican anyway per adventure the judge might have a little better chance of winning? Because every time that a good man associates himself with a corrupt entity, he lends his reputation to that entity and brings it credibility – credibility that causes well meaning Christians and conservatives to continue to be held hostage by a party that is only serving to shove toxic, bitter fruit down their throats.

Running Constitutional candidates under the banner of an un-Constitutional party is only helping to deceive people into thinking that party is Constitutional. Running sincerely Godly candidates under that banner is only misleading people to perceive that party as Godly.

It’s time to stop perpetuating the lie. It’s time to “Come out of her, my people” (Rev 18:4) and “Be ye not unequally yoked” (2 Cor 6:14) with an entity that is not even trying to go in the direction that Christians and conservatives claim to want to go.

Am I saying the judge could win as an independent or third party candidate? Probably not – not without a major change in the spiritual condition and general moral climate of “we the people.” However, I expect he would have about as good a chance as he does of winning the Republican nomination.

More importantly though, by refusing to associate himself with an entity that in truth does not represent Biblical values, Constitutional limits or the founding principles of liberty, the judge could help shake good people free from their dependency on, and captivity in, a party that truly is holding them hostage and exploiting them for nefarious purposes.

I believe much more good could be accomplished by Judge Napolitano’s choosing to only associate himself with people and organizations of like mind who are sincerely committed to the principles and values of the American founders. I would recommend for the judge’s consideration, the Constitution Party, an organization that from its inception has held the values of the Founding Fathers as its guide. Associating with such an organization would be an equal yoking and would help bring attention to the principles and values that need to be restored in America rather than wasting a good man’s reputation on bringing credibility to a corrupt entity.

Even running as an independent would help shake people loose from their political strain of Stockholm Syndrome that keeps them supporting their political captors. At a minimum, a high profile, Constitutionally credible candidate, running outside the Establishment duopoly would help shake the political powers that be and perhaps lessen their hold on power and their hold over the people.

As much as I appreciate Judge Napolitano, if he chooses to run as a Republican, I won’t be able to bring myself to expend my effort in support of his campaign. Spending time, money or the reputation of a good man on anything associated with the “R” party would be tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Let’s find courage – courage to stand and not bow to the power brokers and party bosses that tell us that we need them, their influence, their money or their party initial after our name. Let them be accursed along with their lust for power and their willingness to sell our American birthright of liberty to get it.

_______________________________

For more thoughts on this topic, please refer to my article on Whether to Run as a Republican

Perils of A Porous Border

by Peter Gemma – National Executive Committee member, originally published at unz.com

Protecting the 1,954-mile Mexico-U.S. border, as some pundits assert, is not just an economic issue, or a problem of criminal drug trafficking and gun running. It threatens America’s national security. In an August 13, 2013 op/ed in The Washington Times, Retired Admiral James Lyons, who was senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations, stated, “Fixing our porous borders is one of combating the threat of terrorism that America faces. In the various efforts to reform the U.S. immigration system, often overlooked in the debate is its impact on national security.”

The statistics are alarming: according to an August 1, 2011 investigative report in the Columbus Dispatch, the United Nations estimates that 97 percent of the illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. clandestinely do so across the U.S.-Mexican border. However, only 20 percent of illegal aliens are caught. Smuggling illegal aliens across the border is now a $6.6 billion industry for Mexican crime syndicates.

In an interview with this writer, Penal County Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu stated, “Pinal County is roughly 70 miles north of the border. In 2010, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 212,202 illegal aliens were caught in the Tucson sector alone. The Border Patrol admits for everyone captured, another 2.7 make it into the United States undetected. Of the individuals who are apprehended, as many as 30 percent of them already have a criminal record in the United States.” Ongoing, even increasing, human trafficking and drug smuggling has a new wrinkle: Michael Braun, former Chief of Operations at the Drug Enforcement Agency, testified at a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on February 2, 2012 that suspected terrorists have now formed alliances with Mexican drug lords, which allows them to “operate freely in our neighborhood.” Braun asserted, “I don’t want to sound too crude, but I think there’s going to be hell to pay in the not too distant future.”

On May 21, 2013, Rebecca Gambler, director of the Homeland Security and Justice for the Government Accountability Office (GAO), gave testimony before the House Subcommittee on Border and Maritime Security and revealed that DHS identified 1,901 illegal overstays “of concern” in 2011. As of March 2013, 266 remain missing. The 1,901 cases were made a top priority for further investigation by DHS “because the subjects of the records could pose national security or public safety concerns.” Emphasis clearly mine.

Former National Intelligence Director Mike MConnell, in an interview with the El Paso Times, noted, “Are terrorists coming across the Southwest border? Not in great numbers [but] there are some. …” Later, he goes on to admit, “There were a significant number of Iraqis who came across last year. Smuggled across illegally … It’s significant numbers.”

In fact, thousands of illegals have been caught crossing the borders who are classified as “OTMs” (Other Than Mexicans). Records from a detention center near Phoenix show illegal aliens from Afghanistan, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Sudan, and Yemen are in custody. And the trend line of illegals coming from those countries is worrisome. According to the Customs and Border Protection’s Immigration Yearbook 2011:

108 Syrians were apprehended at the border; 1,353 have been caught over the past ten years.
198 Sudanese were arrested, bringing the ten year total up to 1,207;
276 Iranians were nabbed in 2010; 2,310 were captured over the previous ten years;
525 Pakistanis were caught sneaking across the Mexican border, bringing their ten year total to 10,682.

These are not political refugees or those seeking green cards — they are illegal aliens who deliberately chart an expensive and secret course to the U.S. via our spongy border with Mexico.

Of course none of these statistics or even expert opinions mean we are under imminent attack from crazed jihadists. The vast majority of these Middle Easterners, like their Mexican counterparts, are crossing the border to find a better and safer life — quickly and without trace — and they know the U.S.-Mexican border is an easy route. But there should be more concern, more action, simply because some specific instances are unsettling.

For example, in 2010, federal prosecutors in San Antonio issued an indictment against a Somali human smuggler that was unusual in its detail. The government’s case divulged that the smuggler, Ahmed Mohammad Dhakane, was a member of Al-Ittihad Al-Islami (AIAI) and the money laundering front Al-Barakhat — both of which are affiliated with the Somali terrorist organization Al-Shabaab. Not only had Dhakane illegally entered the U.S. through Mexico, but prosecutors filed documents alleging that Dhakane smuggled at least several other AIAI operatives as well.

Then there is Abdallah Nafisi, who called on his comrades to bring weapons of mass destruction to America, specifically referring to the pedestrian entry tunnel at the San Ysidro Port of Entry. A Washington Times article (“Al Qaeda eyes bio attack from Mexico”), describes Nasfi’s recruiting video, posted on the internet in 2009, as carrying this message: “Four pounds of anthrax — in a suitcase this big — carried by a fighter through tunnels from Mexico into the U.S. are guaranteed to kill 330,000 Americans within a single hour if it is properly spread in population centers there. What a horrifying idea; 9/11 will be small change in comparison …There is no need for airplanes, conspiracies, timings and so on.” In 2001, Mahmoud Kourani (the brother of Hezbollah’s security chief in southern Lebanon) came through the San Ysidro Port of Entry in the trunk of a car, after bribing a Mexican embassy official in Beirut to get a visa.

And more. In December 2002, Salim Boughader Mucharrafille, a café owner in Tijuana, Mexico, was arrested for illegally smuggling more than two hundred Lebanese into the United States, including several believed to have ties to Hezbollah. In 2010, Muhammad Nazmul Hasan and Mirza Muhammad Saifuddin, were intercepted near Naco, Arizona, not long after they had crossed the border. During their interrogation, one of the men admitted that they were members of Harakat-ul-Jihad-i-Islami-Bangladesh, which was designated a terrorist organization by the United States in February 2008.

Bottom line? There’s no sure-bet solution, but let’s start by sealing off the border — it’s the promise of many politicians, but their delivery has gone from bad to worse. The Department of Homeland Security spends $4 billion annually deploying over 58,000 personnel with 16,875 vehicles, 269 aircraft, 300 watercraft, and 300 camera towers. It even uses aerial drones to enhance the scrutiny. In 2012, the Border Patrol apprehended about 357,000 people — a 78 percent drop since 2000. A February, 2013 GAO report found that just 44 percent of the border was under “operational control,” 37 percent was “monitored,” and the rest “low-level monitored.” In 2006, Congress passed a bill that called for a double-tier fence to be built along 700 miles of the border. But a year later, the U.S. Senate slipped language into a spending bill to water down that requirement, giving Homeland Security officials the leeway to determine how much and what type of fencing. As of early this year, the department had built just 36 miles of two-tier fencing, 316 miles of single-tier fence, and another 299 miles of vehicle barriers that still allow pedestrians to cross, but is meant to keep out smuggling vehicles. Commentator Charles Krauthammer explains the issue this way: “It’s not complicated. Build the damn fence.”

Even before the fence posts are driven into the ground, let’s put a sense of urgency into that job by further investigating the threat that the porous border poses to national security.

Peter B. Gemma is an award-winning writer who has been published in a variety of venues including USA Today (where more than 100 of his commentaries have appeared), Military History, the DailyCaller.com, The Washington Examiner, the EconomicPopulist.org, and Congressman Ron Paul’s CampaignForLiberty.org

Illegal Alien Crime and Violence by the Numbers: We’re All Victims

by Peter B. Gemma, National Executive Committee member

At first glance, the statistics are jolting. According to the United Nations, 97 percent of the illegal immigrants who enter the U.S. clandestinely do so across the almost 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, but only 20 percent of those who cross the border illegally are caught.^[1]

The New York Times reports that about 4.5 million illegal aliens in the U.S. drive on a regular basis, many without licenses or insurance, or even the ability to read road signs written in English.^[2] (Meanwhile, the California legislature has just voted to give driver’s licenses to illegal aliens.) Yahoo.com writer J.C. Grant notes, “There is a statistically significant correlation between state per capita illegal immigration rates and car thefts. This correlation is particularly strong: the odds are less than two in one million that the correlation is a chance occurrence.”^[3]

If just car thievery were the main concern, it would be an important problem to address. However, the Office of Immigration Statistics reported that of the 188,382 deportations of illegal aliens in 2011, 23 percent had committed criminal traffic offenses (primarily driving under the influence). Congressman Steve King (R-IA) estimates that illegal alien drunk drivers kill 13 Americans every day — that’s a death toll of 4,745 per year.^[4]

The 23 percent criminal traffic offenders figure is only part of the overall picture. According to the Center for Immigration Studies, another 23 percent, more than 43,000 illegal aliens, were convicted of drug offenses. The violent crime category of assault, robbery, sexual assault, and family offenses comes to 12 percent. The non-violent crime grouping of larceny, fraud, and burglary totaled seven percent, and on the list goes — equaling 100 percent of illegal aliens who have been through the criminal justice system and inflicted thousands to millions in cost per alien on the system, for issues having nothing to do with their illegal entry into the country.^[5]

In an interview with this author, Pinal County, Arizona Sheriff Paul Babeu stated, “Pinal County has followed the trend of the majority of counties across the United States, so we have seen most of our major crime statistics drop during the past few years. The one area we have not seen drop — which has seen dramatic increases in fact — is crimes tied to illegal immigration. Our high-speed vehicle pursuits have rapidly increased each year from 142 in 2007 to 340 such incidents in 2010. Marijuana seizures have spiked from a low in 2008 of about 19,600 pounds to over 45,500 pounds in 2010. My deputies are telling me more and more that they are apprehending guns and high tech communication equipment from cartel operatives.”

Sheriff Babeu went on to make this point:

Pinal County is roughly 70 miles north of the border. In 2010, the U.S. Border Patrol reported 212,202 illegal aliens were caught in the Tucson sector alone. The Border Patrol admits for everyone captured, another 2.7 make it into the United States undetected. Of the individuals who are apprehended, as many as 30% of them already have a criminal record in the United States.

The liberal Huffington Post writer Chris Kirkham recently noted that, “this year, more than 60 percent of all federal criminal convictions have been for immigration-related crimes, federal data show.” He went on to observe in his August 23 piece, “In Texas’ southern federal court district this year, where nearly 90 percent of all new prosecutions were for illegal entry and reentry into the United States, federal authorities are looking for more room to hold detainees, many of whom are charged with immigration crimes.”^[6]

The figures add up.

According to TracImmigration.com, the independent and nonpartisan resource site for information about federal immigration enforcement, illegal reentry under Title 8, Section 1326 of the United States Code was the most commonly recorded lead charge brought by federal prosecutors during the first half of FY 2011. It alone accounted for 47 percent of all criminal immigration prosecutions filed. The average prison sentence was 14 months for those convicted where illegal reentry was recorded as the lead charge^[7](at an estimated cost of $134 per day per inmate^[8]).

And the recidivism rate is on the rise. An April 19, 2013 story from the Miami Herald reveals that, “New figures show that the number of federal prosecution cases against previously deported immigrants is increasing nationwide.”^[9]

An investigative news piece in the Columbus Dispatch included this finding:

Nationwide, the number of people prosecuted for coming back illegally after being deported has increased by 175 percent since 2005, according to a report by Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, or TRAC, which gathers and analyzes data from public agencies.

The Columbus Dispatch story goes on to report that locally, “illegal re-entry cases represent about a third of the caseload for the federal public-defender’s office, according to Gordon G. Hobson, a senior litigator for the federal public-defender’s office. Ten years ago, it was about five percent,’ he said. ‘Not everyone who comes back illegally and is caught a second time is prosecuted.’”^[10]

Recently there has been a surge of crossings as talks about new restrictions in trade for amnesty are taking place. “We’ve seen the number of illegal aliens double, maybe even triple since amnesty talk started happening,” one border agent who asked to remain unnamed due to fears of retaliation within Customs and Border Protection, something he said is common. “A lot of these people, although not the majority, are criminals or aggravated felons. This is a direct danger to our communities,” he warned.^[11]

A new study published by the Migration Policy Institute and the Wilson Center sheds light on the passage of Central Americans through Mexico, in a phenomenon called “transmigration”. Among the findings cited is the fact that arrests by the U.S. Border Patrol of individuals from countries other than Mexico have increased from 59,000 in FY 2010 to 99,000 in FY 2012.^[12]

Fox News, obtained reports by the House Judiciary Committee and nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. They are the result of the committee’s subpoena request for Department of Homeland Security records from October 2008 to July 2011. The information was analyzed by the CRS and show 276,412 reported charges against illegal and criminal immigrants over that three-year period as identified by Secure Communities, a federal program that essentially attempts to make best use of resources by identifying and prioritizing which illegal immigrants pose the biggest threat to public safety and should be arrested or deported. Fox News reports, “Of the 160,000 people in the database, more than 26,000 were re-arrested — accounting for nearly 58,000 crimes and violations. They allegedly committed nearly 8,500 drunken-driving offenses and more than 6,000 drug-related violations. The records also show major criminal offenses, which included murder, battery, rape, kidnapping and nearly 3,000 thefts. Roughly two percent of the crimes included child molestation, lynching, and torture, according to the 13-page Congressional Research Service report.”^[13]

Sheriff Paul Babeu observed, “The Mexican drug cartels have almost toppled the Mexican Government and they are crossing into Arizona at will. In Mexico, over 42,000 lives have been lost to their wars and that number is rising by the hour. Their illegal drug trade is a forty billion dollar a year industry. The stakes are so high and the competition so fierce, that Mexican warlords are sparing no expense. Pinal County has seen mass murders, execution-style slayings, sexual assaults, kidnappings, shootings, armed robberies, burglaries, and more — all tied to illegal immigration.”

Counting off face-to-face.

The overall perspective of the criminal behavior of illegal aliens is grim. In a 2007 Government Accountability Office study of 55,322 illegal aliens, analysts discovered that they were arrested at least a total of 459,614 times, averaging about eight arrests per illegal alien: 70 percent had between two and 10 arrests, and 26 percent (about 15,000) had 11 or more arrests. Drug or immigration offenses accounted for 45 percent of all offenses, and approximately 12 percent (over 6,600 illegal aliens) were arrested for violent offenses such as murder, robbery, assault, and sex-related crimes.^[14]

An FBI crime study also shows heavy illegal alien involvement in criminal activity revealed these statistics:

75 percent of those on the most wanted criminals list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.
One quarter of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals, as are more than 40 percent of all inmates in Arizona and 48 percent in New Mexico jails.
Over 53 percent of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.
63 percent of cited drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that number, 97 percent are illegal aliens. 66 percent of cited drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.^[15]

The numbers don’t show attitude or intent. “United States is stupid … I come back every time,” asserted Mexican national Rolando Mota-Campos to a Virginia-based immigration agent after his 11^th arrest — for crimes ranging from abduction, assault, four DUIs, vehicular assault, attempted robbery, and domestic violence. Mota-Campos has been deported three times and has vowed to return again.^[16]

And the numbers don’t show the depth of depravity of some illegal alien criminals. In Arizona, Mexican national Santana Batiz Aceves was charged with 47 counts of rape based on DNA evidence. He has already been deported twice for drug charges in California. Aceves also faces charges of kidnapping, aggravated assault, sexual abuse of a minor, giving police false information, providing false documents, and trespassing.^[17]

The statistics are traumatic, but the anecdotal stories are horrifying.

A year after Baltimore’s mayor signed an order officially converting the city into a sanctuary for illegal immigrants, federal authorities arrested an undocumented Ecuadorian national wanted for the brutal rape of a nine-year-old girl.^[18]

Carlos Martinelly-Montano, a Bolivian national who killed a Virginia nun in a drunk-driving accident, was on a new federal government supervised release program, allowing the illegal alien — who committed a series of crimes — to remain on the streets despite being subject to deportation. Rather than detaining Montano, authorities determined that he was a candidate for the Alternatives to Detention (ATD) program, which supposedly monitored his whereabouts.^[19]

Guatemalan illegal alien Juan Tzun killed California sheriff’s dispatcher Dominick Durden. In 2008, Tzun was charged with two felonies. He pled guilty to one felony and the other was dropped. Tzun was given 3 years probation but should have been deported. A year later he was caught driving drunk. Three more years probation, but again, no deportation. Another year later, Tzun was caught driving drunk a second time and was released — two months later he drove into Durden and instantly killed him. Finally, ICE detained Tzun until an immigration judge freed him on bond. Tzun spent all of 35 days in jail, and is now in detention pending deportation.^[20]

Politicians, lobbyists, and statistics.

During election season last year, a new initiative by the Obama Administration was described by Neil Munro, White House Correspondent for the dailycaller.com, in his story headlined, “Obama immigration policy opens work permit door to ID thieves, jailed illegals, uninsured drivers:”

The [new] White House immigration policy would not prevent illegal aliens who have committed identity theft or have been driving cars without licenses from obtaining work permits, an administration official told reporters during a press conference on Friday. It will also be extended to some illegals already in jail and to some who have already been approved for deportation by judges, he said … The presidential policy — which was pitched by officials as a large-scale exercise of ‘prosecutorial discretion’ — has been credited by Democrats with boosting Obama’s support among Hispanic voters into the 70 percent level.^[21]

The continuing — actually increasing^[22] — crime wave by illegal aliens can be linked to a series of policy actions taken by the Obama Administration as part of their open borders advocacy. The Heritage Foundation reports, “Congress has repeatedly considered, and rejected, a bill known as the Dream Act that would effectively grant amnesty to many illegal aliens. Yet in June 2012, six months before the election, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano issued a directive to immigration officials instructing them to defer deportation proceedings against an estimated 1.7 million illegal aliens. Oddly, this happened about a year after President Obama admitted that ‘the President doesn’t have the authority to simply ignore Congress and say we’re not going to enforce the laws you’ve passed.’”^[23]

Also last year, the Obama Justice Department announced it would stop deporting illegal immigrants who come to the country at a young age and meet certain requirements. The new rules apply to those who came to the United States before they were 16 and who are younger than 30, if they have lived here for five years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or served in the military. The change in policy could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported.

That new directive earned this remark from House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA):

President Obama has once again abused his authority and unilaterally refused to enforce our current immigration laws by directing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to stop removing broad categories of unlawful immigrants. The primary reason why our immigration system is broken today is because our immigration laws have largely been ignored by past and present administrations. It’s imperative that we prevent this from happening again by taking away the enforcement ‘on/off’ switch from the President.^[24]

According to a statement by National Border Patrol Council, Local 2544, “This… [is] more of the ‘wait until they kill, rape, beat or molest someone here in America, then we’ll deport them’ logic. Any victims want to step up to the plate so they can make sure an illegal alien becomes a ‘felon’, making him deportable under the Obama and Napolitano rules? Brilliant strategy. They say they’ll deport ‘gang members’ as well. The illegal alien cheerleaders will love this new strategy. Those of us who actually have to put our lives on the line and enforce the laws? Not so much.”^[25]

In August of 2013, the Obama Administration issued the latest in a line of policy directives granting amnesty by default. This latest directive instructs Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials not to enforce immigration laws in cases where an illegal alien is the primary provider for any minor child — regardless of the child’s immigration status — or the parent or guardian of a child who is a U.S. citizen or legal permanent resident.

Also in August, a U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission news release (“EEOC’S Miami District Office and Mexican Consulate Offices Sign Historic Outreach Agreement”), hailed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) it signed with the Consulate General of Mexico in Miami and Consulate of Mexico. The pact “establishes an ongoing collaboration between these entities to provide Mexican nationals with information, guidance, and access to resources on the prevention of discrimination in the workplace regardless of immigration status … The EEOC’s Miami District Office is currently involved in plans for the agency’s participation in various ‘Labor Rights Week’ events scheduled throughout the state at the end of August by the Miami Consulate General and Orlando Consulate offices. ‘Labor Rights Week’ is an initiative to educate Mexican nationals and other Latinos about their civil rights, workplace safety, minimum wage laws, and human trafficking.”

Gangs add to the toll.

The invasion of illegal aliens has established a bloody battlefront in the form of street gangs.

What fuels the growth of gangs is money — easily obtainable via drug smuggling. A 2011 report from the National Gang Intelligence Center makes the connections between the Mexican drug cartels and various U.S.-based gangs, especially illegal alien rings such as Los Aztecas and MS-13.

US-based gangs have established strong working relationships with Central American and MDTOs (Mexican Drug Trafficking Organizations) to perpetrate illicit cross-border activity, as well as with some organized crime groups in some regions of the United States. US-based gangs and MDTOs are establishing wide-reaching drug networks; assisting in the smuggling of drugs, weapons and illegal immigrants along the Southwest Border; and serving as enforcers of MDTOs interests on the US side of the border.^[26]

The report notes that, “Federal, state, and local law enforcement officials are observing a growing nexus between the Mexican drug cartels, illegal alien smuggling rings, and US-based gangs. It is estimated that criminals earn billions of dollars each year by smuggling aliens through Mexico into the United States.”^[27]

One of the better-known illegal alien gangs is the violent MS-13, the abbreviation for Mara Salvatrucha (loosely translated as “street smart clique”) — dubbed the “The World’s Most Dangerous Gang” by usually restrained National Geographic. Michael Sullivan, a former director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, says the Salvadoran gang’s use of brute force to keep control of its operations has kept MS-13 from being infiltrated. “MS-13’s foothold in the U.S. is expanding,” Sullivan says, with known affiliates in 42 states, up from 33 in 2005. The FBI believes that the gang’s L.A. members have a higher status among the group. The gang typically targets high school and even middle school students for recruitment. Aaron Escorza, chief of the FBI’s MS-13 National Gang Task Force says a “revolving door” on the border has kept the gang’s numbers steady even as many illegal immigrant members are deported.^[28] Reporter Dave Gibson notes that according to FBI records, there are at least 70,000 MS-13 gang members operating between Central America and the United States.^[29]

Another rapidly expanding gang, Florencia 13, works closely with the Mexican Mafia and is based out of South Los Angeles. Florencia 13 is part of a terrifying gang war scene that has turned L.A. into one of the most dangerous counties in the country. It also has members and influence in states like Virginia and Iowa. The gang has racked up charges ranging from piracy to conspiracy to sell drugs and murder over the last few years. They also have been cited for infiltrating the U.S. military.

Originally based out of El Paso, Los Aztecas have become a powerful paramilitary force on both sides of the Mexico border. Now many of the gang’s members are recruited from Texas prisons, and some of its work takes place inside prison walls, such as heroin production. Los Aztecas work with the Juarez and Los Zetas cartels running drugs, smuggling illegal aliens and murdering consulate officials. In March 2011, 35 members of the gang were charged with a variety of crimes, including 10 gangsters involved in the murder of the U.S. Consulate employee and several family members.

The ultra-violent Trinitarios has its roots in New York’s prison system in the 1980s, but quickly spread to the streets as inmates were released. Its influence is now felt in all five boroughs of New York and in at least 10 states covering all corners of the country. The predominantly Dominican gang, with deadly rivalries with other Hispanic gangs, is notorious for recruiting in high schools throughout New York and New Jersey, and is said to be behind a number of teen shootings and machete deaths.

A quick scan of the Internet finds sickening evidence of the carnage caused by illegal alien gangs on the prowl.

Police in the Sanctuary City of Austin, TX arrested two Mexican nationals who reportedly participated in the gang rape of a 13-year-old girl on June 29. As many as 13 men took turns sexually assaulting the girl. Many cheered and filmed the crime on their cell phones. Juan Lozano Ortega, 25, and Edgar Gerardo Guzman Perez, 26, were charged with aggravated sexual assault of a child. Both men, Mexican nationals, are currently being held in the Travis County Jail on immigration detainers.^[30]

Pinal County Arizona Sheriff Babeu recounts this story: “On December 14th 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was patrolling with three other members of his tactical team in Peck Canyon that is a notorious drug-smuggling corridor. At the same time five illegal aliens, all of whom were armed with weapons, were also patrolling in the same canyon. According to one of them who was later arrested, at least two of the illegal aliens carried their assault rifles “at the ready position.” After the Border Patrol agents identified themselves in Spanish as police officers, one of the illegal aliens opened fire striking Brian Terry in the back. The bullet pierced his aorta and he began to bleed profusely. He died at the scene. At the time of the shooting, Brian Terry was armed with a ‘less lethal’ beanbag shotgun [the weapon is designed to deliver a blow that will briefly render a violent suspect immobile]. Two of AK-47s recovered at the scene came from the failed ‘Fast and Furious’^[31] operation.”

What will be the tally?

The 2012 illegal alien population in the United States, based on Pew Research Center estimates, is an estimated 11.7 million U.S., up from a recent low of 11.3 million in 2009. Since 1990, the illegal alien population has more than tripled, and shows no sign of slowing.

Financial analyst and economics journalist, Edwin Rubenstein, Ph.D., noted in this journal that there “are the divergent trends [in criminal incarcerations] of the two most recent years for which we have data. From 2008 to 2009 the number of white male inmates declined by 15,000 (-2.6 percent); black male inmates declined by 5,000 (-0.6 percent); while the count of incarcerated Hispanic males rose by 15,000 (+3.5 percent.)” He also observed that, “Hispanic males were 37 percent more likely to be incarcerated than non-Hispanic males. More importantly, the gap is growing. From 2000 to 2009 non-Hispanic incarceration rates declined while Hispanic incarceration rates rose.”^[32] The only change seems to be a growing number of illegal alien criminals.

The Washington Times reports that, “14.7 percent of removal cases filed by the administration this year have alleged criminal violations. That figure has dropped steadily from 16.6 percent in 2010.”^[33] More illegal alien criminals, but fewer deportations.

Is immigration reform doomed? Is there a light at the end of the tunnel illegal aliens have burrowed in America? According to commentator Pat Buchanan, “The crisis of the West is a collapsing culture and vanishing peoples … mounts the greatest invasion in history of the world. If we do not shake off our paralysis, the West comes to an end.”^[34]

The answer may lie somewhere in these numbers: public approval of the way Congress is running the country hovers under 20 percent,^[35] and a remarkable 55 percent of registered voters disapprove of Obama’s handling of immigration policy.^[36] Add to that equation that approximately 53 percent of U.S. citizens believe that most or all illegal aliens should be deported. These numbers are encouraging.

However, approximately 42 percent of eligible voters did not go to the polls last year.^[37]

In this writer’s opinion, Buchanan’s wise advice to shake off our paralysis is crucial — vote and vote your convictions.

[1] www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2010/12/27/deported-illegal-immigrants-return-repeatedly.html

[2] “Some unlicensed drivers risk more than a fine,” by Julia Preston and Robert Gebeloff, December 9, 2010; www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/us/10license.html?pagewanted=all

[3] “Illegal immigration rates strongly correlated with car thefts,” June 4, 2010; http://voices.yahoo.com/illegal-immigration-rates-strongly-correlated-with-6155000.html?cat=7

[4] www.wnd.com/2006/11/39031/#cjEhV0wE8KWZZZ5B.99

[5] www.cis.org/revolving-door-deportations-of-criminal-illegal-immigrants

[6] www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/undocumented-immigrants-prison_n_3792187.html

[7] http://trac.syr.edu/immigration/reports/251/

[8] www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/investigations/122630554.html

[9] www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/29/3371655/feds-number-of-previously-deported.html#storylink=cpy

[10] http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/188382-criminal-illegal-aliens-deported-in-2011/

[11] http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/01/exclusive-illegal-border-crossings-double-as-beltway-gets-close-to-deal-on-immigration-reform-n1554148

[12] www.migrationpolicy.org/pubs/RMSG-FinalReport.pdf

[13] www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/31/recidivism-rate-for-illegal-immigrants-nearly-20-percent-dhs-records-show-as/

[14] www.examiner.com/article/illegal-aliens-and-crime-statistics-not-on-obama-s-side

[15] www.examiner.com/article/illegal-aliens-and-crime-statistics-not-on-obama-s-side

[16] www.examiner.com/article/illegal-alien-being-deported-tells-reporter-i-ll-come-back-real-soon

[17] www.azcentral.com/community/chandler/articles/2010/03/01/20100301chandler-serial-rapist-pleads-guilty01-ON.html?nclick_check=1

[18] www.ice.gov/news/releases/1305/130516baltimore.htm

[19] www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/jw-forces-release-of-dhs-report-on-illegal-alien-charged-with-killing-virginia-nun-in-august-2010-drunk-driving-incident/

[20] www.caps-blog.org/articles/2013/06/26/unlicensed-immigrant-killed-my-son-s-744-pardons-criminals/

[21] http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/03/obama-immigration-policy-loosens-work-permit-requirements/#ixzz2fkegvtlu

[22] It appears that more illegal aliens equal more crime. The Washington Times analyzed deportation numbers of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement and found that of those deported this year, 55 percent had criminal records, up from 53 percent in 2012.

[23] http://blog.heritage.org/2013/09/17/morning-bell-5-ways-obama-has-trampled-the-constitution/

[24] http://goodlatte.house.gov/press_releases/444

[25] www.examiner.com/article/illegal-aliens-and-crime-statistics-not-on-obama-s-side

[26] www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment/2011-national-gang-threat-assessment-emerging-trends

[27] op. cit.

[28] http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-01-29-ms13_N.htm

[29] www.examiner.com/article/as-illegal-immigration-spreads-so-do-dangerous-gangs

[30] www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/23/texas-police-arrest-2-illegal-immigrants-gang-rape/

[31] The Department of Justice program distributed 2,000 weapons to gun-runners in the hopes of tracking them to drug gangs who would purchase the guns. However, the DOJ lost any trace of their shipments.

[32] www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_21_4/tsc_21_4_rubenstein.shtml

[33] http://capoliticalnews.com/2013/07/09/supporters-of-criminals-upset-all-criminal-types-of-illegal-aliens-being-deported-not-just-the-violent-ones/

[34] Day of Reckoning: How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are Tearing America Apart, Thomas Dunn Books, New York; HB, 294 pages, $25.95

[35] www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html

[36] www.fairus.org/facts/illegal-immigration-and-amnesty-polls

[37] http://nonvotersinamerica.com