Constitutionist News & Blog - Constitution Party

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

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.

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

Constitution Party: No More Meddling in the Middle East

CONSTITUTION PARTY: NO MORE MEDDLING IN THE MIDDLE EAST

23 October 2013

Military intervention in Syrian civil war is unconstitutional and unwise

The Constitution Party platform opposes interventionism, and even saber rattling, unless the vital interests of the nation are at risk—and the House of Representatives authorizes military action. Our plank on foreign policy demands that Congress, “refuse to fund unconstitutional, undeclared wars pursuant to presidential whim or international obligations under which American sovereignty has been transferred to multi-national agencies.”

Whether it is full scale military invasion of Iraq in 1990 or what the Pentagon now calls “limited stand-off strikes” in Syria, the Constitution Party takes seriously John Quincy Adams’ observation: “America abstain(s) from interference in the concerns of others, even when the conflict has been for principles to which she clings … She goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” The Constitution Party opposes war by Executive Order as well. The U.S. Constitution is clear: only Congress has the power to “define and punish … offenses against the Law of Nations” (Art. 1, § 8, cl.10). Congress cannot transfer to the president its exclusive power to declare war any more than it can transfer its exclusive power to levy taxes. Such a transfer is illegal.

Intervention in the tragic Syrian civil war is not only unconstitutional, it is a risky strategy. A May 5 Reuters News Service story proves the point: “U.N. investigator: testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas.” Dropping American bombs into this complex, confusing, and far away fight will only fortify terrorist rallying cries and further erode the historic U.S. foreign policy based on fairness, justice, and guided by a moral compass. The American people understand this and are resisting the machinations of the military-industrial complex. Polls consistently show 65-75 percent opposition to meddling in the Middle East. The Constitution Party urges voters to reject U.S. jingoism and heed Thomas Jefferson’s sage foreign policy advice: “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.”

Howard Phillips: The Conservative’s Conservative

Howard Phillips was born in Boston, Massachusetts in 1941. The son of Jewish parents, he later converted to Christianity, and remained a devout Christian to the end of his life. He married Margaret “Peggy” Blanchard and together they raised six children.

A 1962 graduate of Harvard College in Cambridge Massachusetts, he was twice elected as chairman of the Student Council.

During the 1970s and ’80s, Phillips also coordinated efforts to build private sector support for anti-Communist freedom fighters in Central America and southern Africa. He played an instrumental role in the leadership of the New Right and Religious Right political movements. Phillips led geostrategic fact-finding missions to Eastern Europe, Africa, the Baltic States, South America, Central America, Western Europe, and the Far East.

During the Nixon Administration, Phillips headed two Federal agencies, ending his Executive Branch career as Director of the U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity in the Executive Office of the President, a position from which he resigned when President Nixon reneged on his commitment to veto further funding for “Great Society” programs.

Howard Phillips founded the U.S. Taxpayers Party (USTP) in 1992 to offer America leadership committed to restoring the Federal Republic to its delegated, enumerated Constitutional functions and returning American jurisprudence to its original “common law” Biblical foundations. Phillips was nominated in 1992 and 1996 to be the USTP candidate for President of the United States. In 1999, the name of the US Taxpayer’s Party was changed to “Constitution Party” to better reflect the party’s primary focus of returning government to the U.S. Constitution’s provisions and limitations, and Howard Phillips was chosen to be its 2000 Presidential candidate.

Phillips also served as President of The Conservative Caucus Research, Analysis & Education Foundation.

Author of four books: The New Right at Harvard (1983), Moscow’s Challenge to U.S. Vital Interests in Sub-Saharan Africa (1987), The Next Four Years (1992), and Victory 2000 (1999).

Awards:

The June 1982 Eagle Forum Award for leadership in the pro-family cause, and “steadfast opposition to the mischief of the federally-financed feminists.”
The National Association of Pro-America 1983 Award for “promoting Constitutional government”.
The National Council on Bible Curriculum in Public Schools Award, 1995.
The Strategic Resource Group’s William Wilberforce Award for “Ministry to the Nation/Public Policy” in September, 1996.
The Patrick Henry Center for Individual Liberty conferred upon him the title of “Patriot” in May 2002.

America truly lost one of her most valiant patriots with the passing of Howard Phillips in April of 2013. Thank you, Howie, for carving the path for us to follow in re-establishing the American Constitutional Republic. May we live up to your vision and the vision of the Founders of these United States of America.

Darrell L. Castle’s Tribute to Howard W. Phillips, the Founder of the Constitution Party

A Great Man Has Fallen by Chuck Baldwin

Howard Phillips Legacy Society

CASE FOR IMPEACHMENT

A Great Man Has Fallen

by Chuck Baldwin, April 25, 2013

There are five men who are called “great” in the Holy Scriptures.

One of them is a man by the name of Abner. Upon hearing the news of Abner’s death, King David said, “Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day in Israel?”

My column today is dedicated to a great man. That man is Howard Phillips. Howard Phillips went to Heaven this past Saturday, April 20, 2013. I am so blessed to have gotten to know this remarkable man, and, more than that, to be able to call him my friend. I first met Howard some thirty years ago in the Bahamas. I attended a national meeting of conservative leaders and Howard was one of the principal speakers. I suppose the first thing that struck me about Howard was his remarkable intellect and deep conviction. It is no hyperbole to say that Howard Phillips was one of the most brilliant men I have ever met. A graduate of Harvard, Howard’s grasp of government, history, and law was unequalled.

Howard Phillips forgot more about those subjects than the vast majority of us will ever learn. He was literally a walking history encyclopedia. He might have been the keenest, sharpest mind that I have ever been exposed to. Howard Phillips was an intellectual giant. But as awesome as his mind was, Howard’s commitment to the principles of liberty was equally awesome. Liberty has never had a more ardent defender than Howard Phillips. And communism never had a more formidable adversary.

Howard Phillips was born and raised in Boston, Massachusetts, and became a dynamic conservative leader from his youth. At Harvard, he was twice elected president of the Student Council. He was a GOP precinct worker, election warden, campaign manager, congressional aide, Boston municipal Republican chairman, and assistant to the Chairman of the National Republican Committee. He later became president of Policy Analysis, Inc., chairman of the Conservative Caucus, and founder of the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party, now named the Constitution Party. This is the third largest political party in the United States.

The Constitution Party nominated Howard three times as its Presidential candidate. Howard (“Howie” as he was known to his friends) served in President Richard Nixon’s cabinet and headed two federal agencies in the Nixon administration. He voluntarily resigned his post in the Nixon White House after Nixon reneged on his promise to defund the giant Welfare State, known as “The Great Society,” which had been created by President Lyndon Johnson. What many people do not realize is that Howard Phillips was the principal founder of what became known as the “Religious Right.” Howard was also the man who most influenced Jerry Falwell to start the Moral Majority.

Howard Phillips is as important to the rise of the modern conservative movement as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were to the rise of the independence movement in Colonial America. As a conservative and constitutionalist leader, Howard Phillips had no peer. One of the great honors of my life came when Howard asked me to seek the Constitution Party’s nomination for President in 2008. At his behest, and after much prayer and contemplation, I did this and was honored to have received that party’s nomination by an overwhelming vote from the party’s national delegates.

It was during that campaign that I received the endorsement of Congressman Ron Paul. During and after the 2008 campaign, Howard and I became very close. I found him to be among my dearest of friends and closest of confidants. Howard Phillips was raised as a Jew but became a staunch believer in Jesus Christ as an adult.

Howard and his wife Peggy have six children and many grandchildren, all of whom are among the finest people that anyone would ever meet. The entire Phillips family is an outstanding reflection of the character and commitment of both Howard and Peggy. Please pray for this wonderful family.

Now, I have one more honor that has been bestowed upon me: Peggy asked me to conduct Howard’s funeral service and preach the funeral message. To say that I am overwhelmed at being asked to perform such a task is an understatement. Nothing anyone could say is sufficient to honor a man the caliber of Howard Phillips. I covet your prayers. Howard’s viewing will take place at the Money and King Funeral Home in Vienna, Virginia, this Saturday, April 27, from 3:00-5:00pm, and Sunday, April 28, from 3:00-7:00pm local time. The funeral service will take place Monday, April 29, at 11:00am local time at the McLean Bible Church in Vienna.

As King David said of Abner, I say of Howard Phillips, “Know ye not that there is a prince and a great man fallen this day?” The Phillips’ family has lost their patriarch, their loving and devoted husband, father, and grandfather. The Conservative Caucus has lost their beloved chairman. The Constitution Party has lost their courageous founder. Modern conservatives and constitutionalists nationwide have lost a Founding Father. Freedom fighters around the world have lost one of their truest allies. America has lost one of its greatest patriots. Liberty has lost one of its most ardent defenders. And I have lost one of my dearest friends.

(c) Chuck Baldwin www.ChuckBaldwinLive.com