07/8/15

Illegal alien advocates: accessories to an epidemic of murder and child rape

By: James Simpson
DC Independent Examiner

And should be charged as criminal accomplices and dealt with accordingly. Does that sound outrageous? Sure it does, but withhold judgment until you read this post.

It is absolutely indisputable that San Francisco’s sanctuary policies contributed to the horrific, senseless, shooting death of 32-year-old Kate Steinle on July 2. Francisco Sanchez, the illegal alien who admitted killing her, has said that it was the city’s sanctuary policies that attracted him to it. City leaders have Kate’s blood on their hands. But that blood is a drop in the bucket compared to the outrages regularly being committed by the illegals among us, while politicians of both parties sing their praises.

Donald trump has been roundly criticized by both Democrats and Republicans for saying that 80 percent of women crossing the border are being raped. NBC decided to drop his popular show, The Apprentice, and the Miss Universe pageant he produces. Mexico says it will withdraw its entrant to the pageant based on Trump’s offensive statements. ESPN, NASCAR and others have piled on. But Trump was just quoting an article from Fusion magazine. The piece, “Is rape the price to pay for migrant women chasing the American Dream?” leads off by saying:

Before they can reach the American Dream, many migrant women have to survive a Mexican nightmare. A staggering 80 percent of Central American girls and women crossing Mexico en route to the United States are raped along the way, according to directors of migrant shelters interviewed by Fusion.

Could it be any clearer than that? Democrats have long since abandoned even a shred of honesty, but are Republicans again rebranding themselves as “The Party of Stupid?” How about “The Party of Insufferably Mindless Idiots?” Is that what they should be called, or maybe just the cowards, frauds and hypocrites they are?

In fact, the problem is infinitely worse than the article reveals. For example, almost half of all federal crimes committed in the United States in fiscal year 2013 were committed in a few districts along the Southwest Border with Mexico. Of 61,529 criminal cases initiated by federal prosecutors, 24,746 – fully 40 percent of the total – originated in five border jurisdictions in Arizona, New Mexico, Southern California, Western Texas and Southern Texas. Almost all were committed by illegals.

Following are some statistics on illegal alien crime that were compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for its 2011 report, Criminal Alien Statistics. The GAO study included a review of 249,000 criminal aliens. They were arrested a total of 1.7 million times, an average of about 7 arrests per alien. Between them they committed 2.9 million crimes. About 50 percent were arrested at least once for either assault, homicide, robbery, sex crimes or kidnapping. Here are the eye-popping stats:

Homicide, 25,064 (8% of total), Sex Offenses 69,929 (12%), Assault 213,047, (35%), and Kidnapping, 14,788 (4%).

But this doesn’t give context. These crimes were committed over multiple years. It is obviously not insignificant, but is difficult to tell how it stacks up to the total without reviewing all crimes during the period. The following stats will put it in proper perspective.

GAO also studied a subset of five states with large illegal alien populations, New York, Florida, Arizona, Texas and California. At the time of the study, 2011, the latest data available were for 2008. In New York, 28 percent of illegal aliens convictions in 2008 were for murder. Another 11 percent was for sex offenses. Those sounded like a lot but GAO did not provide the numbers that generated those percentages, so a FOIA request was submitted. Following are the unpublished numbers provided by the GAO, placed side-by-side against the total of each type of crime committed in each state in 2008:

New York

Total Murders: 835. Illegal Alien Murder Convictions: 1,168 (140% of total)

Total Sex Crimes: 2,775; Illegal Alien Sex Crimes: 459 (17% of total).

California

Total Murders: 2,143. Illegal Alien Murder Convictions: 2,859 (135% of total)

Total Sex Crimes: 8,906; Illegal Alien Sex Crimes: 3,325 (37% of total)

Texas

Total Murders: 1,373. Illegal Alien Murder Convictions: 934 (68% of total)

Total Sex Crimes: 8,004; Illegal Alien Sex Crimes: 1,825 (23% of total)

Arizona

Total Murders: 404. Illegal Alien Murder Convictions: 326 (81% of total)

Total Sex Crimes: 1,654; Illegal Alien Sex Crimes: 391 (24% of total)

Florida

Total Murders: 1,169. Illegal Alien Murder Convictions: 1,762 (151% of total)

Total Sex Crimes: 5,972; Illegal Alien Sex Crimes: 2,971 (50% of total)

The reason convictions exceed state total crimes for the year in some cases is because convictions are for crimes that may not have been committed that year but went to trial in 2008. However if total murders for the previous three years 2005 – 2007 are added up, the 2008 illegal alien convictions are still astronomical:

New York, 45%; California, 40%; Texas, 22%; Arizona, 24%; Florida, 55%.

North Carolina is a haven for illegals for some reason. Sex crimes committed by illegals against children in NC are off the charts. For example:

In North Carolina there were 752 arrests of illegals for sex crimes against children in 2014. Each illegal was arrested on an average of five charges, for a total of 3,695! Statistics were not available for November 2014, so the actual number is doubtless higher.

Despite this glaring issue, and the serious vote fraud problems in NC, the newly elected GOP majority in the state just passed a law providing driver licenses to illegals. One must scratch deep to uncover something more idiotic and irresponsible. Such stupidity will insure NC’s GOP majority is short-lived. Does the GOP have a death wish?

People are being killed, and raped in epidemic numbers. Illegals are praying on our children! President Obama’s catch and release program for illegal aliens, including violent criminals, is directly responsible for 121 murders committed by illegal alien criminals released from jail under Obama.

What kind of insanity allows this to continue? By coddling illegals at the expense of Americans, President Obama, Eric Holder, Jeh Johnson and all the other self-serving parasites in this unbearable, destructive cabal, as well as leaders of both parties in the U.S. House and Senate, and countless state and local politicians (Martin O’Malley can you hear me?) are personally responsible for this violent crime wave. They have blood on their hands and should be criminally charged as accessories to rape and murder.

01/12/15

The Dismantling of Federalism

By: Nancy Salvato

It wouldn’t be surprising, if polled, that many United States citizens would feel disenfranchised when it comes to politics. Though the right to vote and petition the government is supposed to make sure the people’s interests are considered, we the people are not given standing to question the constitutionality of laws, i.e. The Affordable Care Act. Political parties are no longer able to moderate the positions of the most extreme members of our society, who feel compelled to take law into their own hands, i.e. exhibiting anarchy against the rule of law in response to the Grand Jury’s decision not to indict in the events surrounding Ferguson. Extremism, lack of understanding, apathy, an agenda driven 4th Estate, all work against the citizenry in exercising their rights and responsibilities with fidelity in today’s society. How did it come to this?

One of the earliest Supreme Court cases to set precedent (A decided case which is cited or used as an example to justify a judgment in a subsequent case—ninja words) for our rule of law was Marbury v Madison. What happened is this. Before leaving office at the end of his term, 2nd President John Adams appointed a slew of judges to the federal courts to maintain an ongoing Federalist Party influence during upcoming Democratic-Republican President Thomas Jefferson’s tenure in office. John Marshall was unable to deliver all the commissions before our 3rd President began his term of office and Jefferson refused to have the remainder of the commissions delivered. William Marbury, who was to receive a commission, was not pleased with this turn of events and applied to the Supreme Court for a writ of mandamus, to force delivery of the commissions.

Angered by the appointment of the “midnight judges” Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party controlled congress attacked the Federalist controlled courts, removing many of the appointees by repealing the Judiciary Act of 1801, under which authority many of the appointments were made. To prevent an appeal on the subject, they determined the Supreme Court would not reconvene until 1803. By doing so, the executive and legislative branches appeared to be cementing their authority over the judicial branch.

The newly appointed Chief Justice John Marshall was in a bind. He did not want to further anger the Democratic-Republicans, fearing the administration would go as far as to simply ignore any decision made by the Supreme Court, if it appeared to further a Federalist agenda. Yet, he truly believed that Marbury’s commission was legally binding and should have been delivered. He resolved this conundrum, at the same time elevating the judiciary branch as co-equal to the other branches, by determining that the power to issue a writ of mandamus –given to the Supreme Court as part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, was actually “unconstitutional.” Therefore, he could not issue a mandate regarding the commission, satisfying Jefferson. At the same time, Marshall established the power of judicial review, ensuring the other branches abide by the Constitution, as interpreted by the Judicial Branch. In doing so, this elevated the status of the Judicial Branch, giving it the sole power to determine the constitutionality of law – a power for which it was never intended, but is now associated with this branch.

Influenced by Baron de Montesquieu, the Framers intended to prevent tyranny by dividing the powers delegated to the federal government into three branches of government, which could check and balance each other. In addition, according to the 10th Amendment, powers not delegated to the federal government were to remain with the states and the people. If the constitutionality of a law is in question, this determination is presumably up to the states and the people to decide. The precedent for this is called nullification.

“If the feds pass a law that a state deems to be outside the boundaries of its proper constitutional authority, the state will simply ignore the law and refuse to comply with it.” – The New American

This idea, that the states could declare a federal law null and void because it violates the compact between the states and the federal government, eventually leads to the secession of the southern states from the union.

Because most people associate the Civil War with making good on a promissory note to those who were not treated equally under the law, the precedent for nullification is lost on the majority of citizens.         This is problematic because citizens have no standing to bring questions of constitutionality before the Supreme Court and states have lost the main check and balance intended to ensure their interests were defined and respected by the federal government with passage of the 17th Amendment—which eliminated the choosing of senators by the state legislatures and having them directly elected by the people. There is currently a movement to remove the last check and balance of the states with the elimination of the Electoral College.

There are currently a number of issues against which the states and people seem to be rendered powerless.

1) Immigration: By not enforcing the laws that Congress has passed on securing the border and immigration, the Executive Branch is marginalizing the Legislative Branch.

2) Obamacare: By unilaterally changing the text of the Affordable Care Act without seeking the changes legislatively, the Executive Branch is manipulating written law by decree, marginalizing the Legislative Branch.

3) Gitmo: Mr. Obama is “transferring” enemy combatant prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in an effort to empty the prison, in effect forcing a “closing” of the facility, something that Congress has passed legislation to prevent.

4) EPA: Using Executive Branch decreed regulations instead of seeking legislation from Congress, Mr. Obama is effectively legislating by regulating, and affecting many pieces of legislation Congress has passed to affect pro-economic growth.

Now that the new Congress has been seated, the President Obama has promised to veto any legislation that doesn’t further his agenda. It would seem that more than ever, the states and the people must reassert the powers which were never given to the federal government in order to prevent the tyrannical practices taking place at the federal level.

James Madison, in Federalist 51, writes,

“In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

It seems that the failsafe measures which were put in place to oblige the government to control itself have been breached.         It is up to the states and the people to restore the natural order once again.

Copyright ©2015 Nancy Salvato

Nancy Salvato is the Director of Education and the Constitutional Literacy Program for Basics Project, a non-profit, non-partisan research and educational project whose mission is to re-introduce the American public to the basic elements of our constitutional heritage while providing non-partisan, fact-based information on relevant socio-political issues important to our country. She is a graduate of the National Endowment for the Humanities’ National Academy for Civics and Government. She is the author of “Keeping a Republic: An Argument for Sovereignty.” She also serves as a Senior Editor for NewMediaJourna.usl and a contributing writer to BigGovernment.com and FamilySecurityMatters.org.