Never Let a Fast and Furious Crisis Go to Waste

by PatriotWatchdog 30. July 2011 13:35

I was torn as to whether I should post this particular article here or on the FIRE Coalition Blog because it has ramifications that fit the missions of both organizations, but ultimately, I decided the larger issue was a Constitutional concern related to Article IV, Section 4, the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments, so I'll try to make my points fast, and maybe you'll understand why I'm furious.

In December, 2010, Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, a former Marine, was shot and killed with a gun that our own government "helped" enter Mexico. You can do a web search for his name and find countless stories with the details, but the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, (BATFE) helped straw-buyers purchase and deliver around 2,000 weapons, including numerous .50 caliber sniper rifles.

Congressman Darryl Issa, Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has been holding hearings to investigate how such lunacy could occur. Here is the testimony of Agent Terry's family on June 15, 2011, as reported by The Tucson Citizen. You can also find transcripts and the video below at C-SPAN.

Here's some background that you won't see in most articles. In early 2009,  I noticed a trend that was also observed and shared by former Congressman Tom Tancredo, who wrote articles and did a variety of interviews trying to draw to attention to a charade related to illegal guns in Mexico.

The anti-gun, anti-2nd Amendment lobby were claiming that most of the guns being used by cartels in Mexico were coming from the U.S., but when initially confronted to share the serial numbers to see if they were actually purchased in the United States, the Mexican government refused. They showed scary photos of all the weapons they were confiscating, and showed the carnage, but wouldn't allow U.S. officials to confirm.

The general consensus at the time amongst some observers was that they wouldn't share the information or allow access to the weapons to verify the claims, because if they had, it would have been exposed that the assertion simply wasn't true.

Congressman Tancredo pressed the issue, and we discussed our observations that this charade was an attempt to create a crisis, wihich they would then use to create more anti-gun laws, and further erode the 2nd Amendment.

What we did not foresee was that once this ruse was exposed that our own government would make the lie TRUE. Operation Fast and Furious involved numerous federal agencies besides the ATF, including the FBI, the Justice Department, DHS, and probably more. The Justice Department has been stone-walling Congressman Issa and the House Oversight Committee for many months as he tries to get to the truth of who authorized this insanity, who knew about it, and when. The investigation continues.

What I find more dangerous than the 2,000 guns ATF watched "walk" into Mexico is the charade going on right now in the House Oversight Committee by the minority party members. I find the behavior of Representatives Cummings, Norton, and Maloney to be outrageous. While claiming to support the Second Amendment Rights of Americans, they keep asking the ATF witnesses what additional "tools" do they need in their tool belt to help them combat guns going south.

They aren't really listening to the witnesses, and haven't been listening to Border Patrol Agents, or the American people for years, let alone upholding their oaths of office to protect America against invasion as Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution guarantees.

At one point in the July 26, 2011 hearing, Chairman Issa, disgusted by the behavior of the minority party pointed out that Reps. Norton and Maloney had never seen a gun law they didn't like.

Never let a crisis go to waste, eh Rahm? What, there's not a real crisis? Let's create one.

And THAT is what Operation Fast and Furious, in my opinion, was all about in the first place. God knows Mexico has a serious problem dealing with the narco-terrorists ravaging their country and citizenry, but taking away the God-given inalienable Rights of Americans to defend themselves will NEVER solve this problem. It will only make law-abiding citizens unarmed easy prey for the criminals.

Please take the time to watch this hearing. Let Chairman Issa know you appreciate his efforts, and let your Congressman and Senators know we don't need more gun laws. We need to secure our air, sea, and land ports of entry. We need to prosecute the human smugglers and narco-terrorists instead of throwing another one of our Border Agents (Jesus Diaz) under the bus to appease special interest groups, and that the scoundrels behind allowing thousands of guns to intentionally migrate into the hands of terrorists spend a long time in jail.

Don't know who Agent Jesus Diaz is? He's the latest Brugman, Ramos, Compean, Hernandez, Voorhis, Behenna, etc... to be sacrificed by Congress, current and former Presidents, and ultimately US, for electing shameless, honorless cowards and traitors to run our country.

Jailed Border Agent Jesus Diaz denied bail (New American, June 27, 2011)

Bachmann Promises to Investigate Border Agent Diaz (WHO Radio, July 20, 2011)

If you're a patriot, you need to be a watchdog, and start making our "public servants" EARN that "honorable" in front of their names.


More "Feel Good Legislation" is NO Substitute for ENFORCEMENT!

by PatriotWatchdog 2. July 2011 13:01

Whether you have warm fuzzies about the regurgitated SAVE Act, or the empty promise of removing the job magnet that mandatory E-Verify for all emplorers will allegedly facilitate, neither will accomplish anything but removing illegal immigration from the third rail of politics heading into the 2012 election cycle, and further eroding States' Rights.

How many times will Americans give up a little more freedom, a little more State sovereignty, and buy into empty promises of enforcement?

Lamar Smith's controversial Legal Workforce Act, H.R. 2164, has many anti-illegal immigration advocates at odds. Those who support it, in my opinion, are willing to further erode State sovereignty under the pretense of a promise of enforcement.

For years the federal government has passed one law after another to allegedly address our growing illegal alien problem, yet, time and again, they pass laws they never intend to enforce simply to get the activists off their backs, or for political capital gleaned from the illusion of "getting tough" on illegal immigration.

Anti-illegal immigration activists need to look at the history of Congress' failure to secure our borders and ports of entry. They need to ask themselves, "How many more times will I buy into get-tough legislation that is NEVER enforced?"

Former Congressman, and founder of the Congressional Immigration Reform Caucus, Tom Tancredo, believes the pre-emption of State laws is an acceptable compromise in the effort to discourage the hiring of illegal aliens. With all due respect, I would have to ask Tom to explain when giving up a little freedom and sovereignty has EVER yielded more security.

Many of the Founding Fathers warned us that not only would we not achieve security by giving up our freedoms, but that we wouldn't deserve it.

The Democrats will rally around their SAVE Act to give the illusion that they're serious about addressing the illegal alien problem, just as the Republicans are rallying around the Legal Workforce Act, when in reality, Congressmen on both sides of the aisle should be working towards enforcing the laws we already have on the books.

They should be impeaching Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and various Members of Congress who are knowingly, and willfully giving support and comfort to insurrection against the Constitution.

We can pass new enforcement laws every day of every year, but if Congress continues to allow the President to selectively enforce those laws, then any news laws aren't worth the paper they're written on. What has happened again and again the past 20 years, is that Congress passes enforcement laws, exerts a little more control over the lawful citizenry, and then looks the other way on securing our borders, ignores the treasonous and seditious acts of sanctuary cities and States, and the largest invasion in world history continues unabated.

Below are some articles compiled by our partners at the United Patriots of America that you should read. Instead of drinking the political koolaid being served by both parties, ask your Congressman and Senators why you should believe them "this time," that they are serious about ending illegal immigration. Ask them when they plan to actually secure our southern border with Mexico. Ask them when they will eliminate the VISA Waiver Program. Ask them why we have 30,000 troops protecting the border between North and South Korea, yet send our seasoned Border Patrol Agents to Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Patriot Coalition and FIRE Coalition leadership don't want "feel good legislation." Attrition through enforcement still works, if our spineless leaders would grow enough backbone to actually "walk the walk."

This 4th of July, We the People need to declare our independence from the same old dog-and-pony shows. We demand enforcement, not more empty promises.

Jeff Lewis, National Director, FIRE Coalition & Patriot Coalition

United Patriots of America 



New and old opinions on the H.R. 2164 Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill


Two new opinions.

U.S. Border Control

Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory

The federal government has been unwilling to enforce immigration laws in the workplace, and this bill would be no exception.  There is zero likelihood that the Obama administration will go after employers who fail to use E-Verify or who knowingly help their employees circumvent the system.

In sum, the bill isn't even a compromise - it's a total sellout.   Frankly, I am surprised and disappointed that Rep. Smith would be party to such a bill, let alone put his name on it.

I even note with sadness that some prominent immigration groups have endorsed it.  What could they be thinking?   We already won this battle.  This bill does little more than take away our victory and hand it over to the enemy.



Phyllis Schlafly  

Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill Must Be Amended


H.R. 2164 pre-empts the states from requiring use of E-Verify unless employees work for state or local governments. That's equivalent to giving amnesty to millions of illegal aliens who are currently employed in our country.


H.R. 2164 forbids the states from using their constitutional power to revoke licenses from businesses that hire illegal aliens unless there has been "a showing by the Secretary of Homeland Security, by clear and convincing evidence, that the employer had knowledge that an employee is an unauthorized alien." There is no likelihood that an Obama administration will prosecute employers who use E-Verify but fail to fire the illegals, or who contract out part of their workforce to circumvent the system.


The arguments for Lamar Smith's H.R. 2164 are fallacious. We are told that only the federal government can do anything about the immigration issue, but the recent Supreme Court decision provides the definitive rebuttal to that.


Winning the Case, Losing the Principle
The Supreme Court victory allowing Arizona to enforce E-Verify.

Signed by Janet Napolitano when she was governor

 That is to say, the touchstone of preemption remains law, which is what Congress prescribes, not policy, which is a president's political calculation about what laws to enforce or not enforce.

 This leaves the states at the mercy of Big Brother for their internal defense, and that is a huge problem. The right of self-defense is a core aspect of sovereignty. If the states no longer have it, they are no longer sovereign, meaning the foundational assumption of our constitutional system no longer obtains.

On the right, commentators are gliding past this looming catastrophe and focusing on the good done by the ruling. To be sure, the validation of a state's ability to shut down the employment magnet is essential if illegal immigration is to be reduced from a crisis to a nuisance. But this judicial validation is based on the whim of Congress rather than the inherent power of sovereign states. That is not very reassuring: If the years 2007 through 2010 taught us anything, it is that a Congress in the grip of ideology can and will govern against the will of the majority.


New bill hobbles border states

By KRIS W. KOBACH,  June 16, 2011


The timing couldn't be worse. The bill stabs Arizona in the back, just after it won a victory in the US Supreme Court in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting on May 26. The court upheld the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, which lets the state suspend the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire unauthorized aliens and requires employers to use E-Verify.


Now, the Smith bill threatens to tie the states' hands in addressing the problem.


But now, the Smith bill threatens to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Arizona law -- along with every other state law on the subject -- would be preempted under the bill.


Restoring sovereignty to the States and H.R. 2164

We can begin this endeavor by having all the individuals and groups that support Tenth Amendment issue and Sovereignty issue join with the immigration control movement to amend a "shovel ready" bill recently introduced by Congressman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) H.R. 2164, titled the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify)., by removing the preemption language that prevents the states from fully enforcing the bill.



" the federal government, in its unfettered discretion, may prevent the states from conducting any immigration enforcement, no matter how threatened the states may be by illegal immigration and no matter how resolutely the president refuses to address such threats.

"This leaves the states at the mercy of Big Brother for their internal defense, and that is a huge problem. The right of self-defense is a core aspect of sovereignty. If the states no longer have it, they are no longer sovereign, meaning the foundational assumption of our constitutional system no longer obtains."

 A quote from Winning the Case, Losing the Principle by Andrew McCarthy

Federation For American Immigration Reform (FAIR)  

FAIR's activist field operation is leading the fight to have H.R. 2164

amended to remove the preemption clause or defeat the bill if necessary.

H.R. 2164, titled the Legal Workforce Act (E-Verify).

For all of the reasons, in the following articles, unless the preemption language is removed from HR-2164, the bill must be defeated.


Déjà Vu All Over Again      July 1, 2011

By Michael Cutler, Former Senior Special Agent, INS (Ret.),

CAPS Senior Fellow,  


Throwing the States off the Field

By Kris Kobach June 19, 2011

Winning the Case, Losing the Principle
By Andrew C. McCarthy, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, is the author, most recently, of The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Lamar Smith's E-Verify Bill Must Be Amended
Phyllis Schlafly   6/28/2011

Supreme Court Upholds Arizona's E-Verify Law


Ron Bass

Founded in response to 911
E-mail -


Balanced Budget Amendment Will NOT balance budget: Cut, Cap, & Balance Plan Ignores History

by PatriotWatchdog 1. July 2011 09:25

There are over one half dozen resolutions floating through Congress proposing an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

When the Framers met at the Second Continental Congress to "fix" the Articles of Confederation, they studied and debated the good, the bad, and the ugly of all types of government in recorded history prior to taking "The 5000 Year Leap," giving us the world's first Constitutional Republic.

The same due diligence was given when developing the Bill of Rights, which recognized and protected our God-given, inalienable Rights, by binding down our government with the "chains of the Constitution," as Jefferson advised.

The same cannot be said about these proposed balanced budget amendments as each of them include various "escape clauses" that allow lawmakers to NOT balance the budget. One that I find most contemptable is the provision that allows lawmakers to spend more than revenues allow, based on our being engaged in war. I'm nearly 50 years old, and there has been no period in my lifetime that America was not engaged in waging war in one conflict or another since before I was born.

The National Conference of State Legislators has produced a very informative and damning report that illustrates how inadequate a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution would be at actually "balancing" the budget.

Did you know that 49 of the 50 States in the Union have either a balanced-budget-amendment in their State constitutions, and/or a statutory requirement to balance the budget?

Every State, with the exception of Vermont, has such a requirement, yet only a handful of States regularly balance their budgets against revenues. Read their full report here: "State Balanced Budget Provisions 2010." It includes a chart citing the respective constitutional and statutory requirements to balance State budgets.

Did the authors of these various proposed balanced budget amendments to the Constitution give due diligence to reviewing the restrictions 49 States have imposed on themselves to determine what worked and what did not?

The Republican Study Committe has developed an approach they believe will address our ballooning deficits and debt, called "Cut, Cap, and Balance."

On June 06, 2011, the RSC sent a letter to President Obama of their proposed solutions they required prior to raising the debt ceiling.

Arguably, the single biggest threat to America's future is the staggering national debt. The looming debt ceiling crisis has spawned many well-intentioned politicians, citizen groups, and think tanks to rally behind the GOP's Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge, which calls for, amongst other things, an amendment to the U.S. Constitution requiring a balanced budget.

On the surface, the concept seems sound, but as we know, the devil's in the details. A visit to the "Cut, Cap, and Balance Pledge site reveals none of the details, yet implores each of us to sign a pledge to call, write, fax, or email our respective Members of Congress encouraging them to support this course of action as a pre-requisite to raising the nation's debt ceiling. This "Cut, Cap, and Balance" pledge site wants our support without citing one actual resolution. Whatever happened to "read the bill?"

There is no honest and rational argument that justifies saddling future generations with a national debt that will rob America's posterity of any hope of experiencing the true "Blessings of Liberty" that we, as the watchdogs of America's future, are honor-bound to secure on their behalf.

Reining in our annual deficits and national debt is a moral obligation from which we cannot, in good character, avoid any longer. Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd President of the United States, said the following:

I sincerely believe... that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

--Thomas Jefferson to John Taylor, 1816

While there are a myriad of reasons that a balanced budget amendment may or may not resolve our fiscal woes, I have to agree with CNN Money's senior writer, Jeanne Sahadi, that proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution is "irresponsible." 

So what is the answer? Well, history has shown that Constitutional amendments to balance the budget simply do not work. We do not need to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to balance our nation's budget. What we do need is leadership with enough courage and character to make the tough decisions necessary to rein in runaway spending.

As many of the proponents of these various resolutions have stated, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem."

I would suggest these men and women take a hard look at the federal agencies and programs that are NOT authorized by the U.S. Constitution, and begin the process of phasing them out, and restoring both the responsibility and the capacity for the sovereign States (and/or the People) to resolve these issues at the State and local levels.

The Departments of Energy, Education, Agriculture, are not authorized in the enumerated powers of Article I, Section 8. Neither are the Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Reserve.

Hundreds of billions of dollars could be saved simply by phasing out the many un-Constitutional federal projects taxpayers are burdened with paying for. Additionally, it is widely reported that roughly 50% of the American people pay ZERO federal taxes.

People that pay no taxes have "no skin in the game," and are more easily accepting of both spending and tax increases. If all Americans were required to pay at least "some" federal income tax, they would give more scrutiny to spending projects prior to giving their support.

It is reported that Congress will vote on a "balanced budget amendment" to the U.S. Constitution around July 22, 2011, roughly ten days before our national debt reaches the limit approved by Congress. Playing "chicken" with the Constitution via an amendment that will NOT solve our deficit and debt problems is not the answer. We need our elected officials to restore Constitutional governance, return to limited government practices, and allow the American People to survive and thrive on free market principles.

Educate yourselves and your elected officials. Let us declare our independence from runaway spending and crippling national debt.


About the PatriotWatchdog

Jeff Lewis is founder of PatriotWatchdog, co-founder and National Director of the Patriot Coalition, and National Director of the Federal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Coalition, aka FIRE Coalition.

As a four-time cancer survivor, and veteran of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, Jeff knows personally a thing or two about defending life and liberty. There can be no honorable "pursuits of happiness" without defending our God-given inalienable rights, and there can be no honor without giving our "all" to preserve the Blessings of Liberty our Constitutional Republic provides.

According to members of the Deptartment of Homeland Security's Advisory Council on Countering Violent Extremism, Jeff is a "nativist extremist," and potential domestic terrorist. Of course, according to DHS, anyone who believes in the Constitution, limited government, and the Bill of Rights is a "right-wing extremist."

This descendent of American Revolutionaries took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. Neither has an expiration date.

God Bless America, and those that defend Her!

Month List