John Derbyshire was interviewed by the Economist, and the subject of the border came up:

[The Economist]: You have been a strong supporter of both democracy and restrictions on immigration. If it came down to it, which of these two values would you think more important for the United States? If, in a multistate referendum, the voters of Texas, New Mexico and Arizona decisively rejected building a wall between Mexico and their borders, and a group of aggrieved citizens decided to do so anyway–or decided, let’s say, to patrol the border on their own, with firearms that they used often–would you support the renegades or the majority’s decision?

Mr Derbyshire: It’s the NATION’s border, not just Texas’s, New Mexico’s and Arizona’s. Of course I would support citizen action. Heck, I’d be down there with them. [Twelve questions for John Derbyshire | Democracy in America | Economist.com]

The point is that the Southwest’s porous border is no longer just a problem for the Southwest. When Mexicans come across the border they no longer settle in the Texas but spread throughout America.

And there are people in the Southwest who aren’t interested in protecting the border.

A while back, I got an SPLC email saying that

Neither the chief of Border Patrol in the Laredo sector nor Laredo’s mayor are happy that Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen are coming to town.

A quick look at the underlying story told me that the Border Patrol agent in question was Acting Chief Patrol Agent Reynaldo Garza, his Deputy Chief was  John Cristian Esquivel, and the Mayor of Laredo was  Raul Salinas.  O-o-kay, maybe they don’t like the Minutemen. But who cares?

Congressional candidate Rosanna Pulido isn’t exactly a dead ringer for Jefferson Smith, Jimmy Stewart’s character in Frank Capra’s 1939 classic “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

Like Smith, Chicagoan Pulido has plenty of fire in her belly, but that’s where any similarity ends.  There is none of the naïveté shown by Smith early in the film as Pulido strives to sell her message of “common sense” to the residents of Illinois’ 5th Congressional District who, until recently, had been represented by Rahm Emanuel, President Barack Obama’s chief of staff.  She is among 26  candidates vying for Emanuel’s seat in a March 3 primary.  A special election will be held April 7.

Born and raised in the district she hopes to represent, Pulido, who is of Mexican descent, is no stranger to the political maneuvering one encounters when it comes to major issues that have been dividing Americans for decades:  abortion (she’s pro-life) and the 2nd Amendment (she favors gun ownership).  She ’s also been active in the areas of veterans care and seniors issues, and she opposes same sex marriage.

“I’m not beholden to either party,” says Pulido, who is running on the GOP ticket. She said she preferred to run as an independent, but the Chicago Democratic Machine has made it difficult to stray from the two-party system.  Pulido says in Chicago  independent candidates must gather 1,700 signatures on their petitions compared with the 319 signatures she needed.

“I’ve done all my own leg work and used my own money,” Pulido says. ”I’m not afraid to knock on doors. My job is to give the voters what they want - the truth.”

The one issue that has put Pulido in the public eye is her tireless effort to educate Illinoisans about the illegal immigration crisis in her state.  She was among the first of the Minutemen to visit this country’s border with Mexico in April 2005 and is founder of the Illinois Minuteman Project.  She’s also the Chicago representative for “You Don’t Speak for Me,” a national organization of Hispanic-Americans opposed to illegal immigration.

“Don’t get me started,” she says on her web site. “Illegal immigration is not a victimless crime. It hurts American workers and legal immigrants. It hurts the taxpayers of Illinois to the tune of 3.5 BILLION dollars a year. We must give American workers a break and demand that every business uses E-Verify which allows businesses to check if their potential employee is legal to work in the United States.”

Political campaigns, especially those carried out in freezing temperatures and on shoestring budgets, require great stamina and a sense of humor to deal with the unexpected.  In Pulido’s case, the unexpected came from Joshua Hoyt, Illinois’ leading anarchist and apologist for illegal aliens, who late last month challenged most of the signatures Pulido had submitted and calling her
a “bitter personal failure” and a “cynical bully.” Hoyt also talked out of the other side of his mouth when he noted in his challenge  that “we are a nation of laws.”

However, the Cook County Clerk’s Office Feb. 5 ruled in favor of Pulido.

“We are just glad that the democratic process prevailed, providing more choice for voters,” Pulido says.  “We look forward to running a strong, common sense campaign for the people of the 5th District.”

In his article (Democrat Says Ramos and Compean Commutation Not Good Enough - And Immigration Reform Patriots Must Co-operate) of January 22, 2009, VDARE contributor Donald Collins mostly agreed with Antelope Valley Minutemen founder Frank Jorge regarding the pending commutation of sentences for railroaded Border Patrol agents Ramos and Compean. But then Collins admonished Jorge:

However, you go on in your email, to finger the new President as a “Marxist” and a possible illegal alien. As a Democrat who supported Ramos and Compean, I find this hard to take.

My first reaction: What does supporting Ramos and Compean have to do with one’s views about the new President? Do most Democrats prefer that Ramos and Compean stay railroaded?

My second reaction: Let’s review the public record on Obama.

He certainly talks like a Marxist. Perhaps Don Collins is unaware, as so many of our fellow citizens are unaware, of voluminous material that came out during the campaign — in late October — but that the in-the-tank mainstream press wouldn’t touch. (Recall that when Joseph ["Joe the Plumber"] Wurzelbacher got Obama’s mask to slip just a bit during a campaign stop in Ohio, the press went all out investigating Wurzelbacher, leaving Obama as pristinely unexamined as before.)

The biggest smoking howitzer was Obama, on the radio, in 2001, as discussed by Bill Whittle. Here’s the key part of the transcript, reproduced by Whittle:

You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

Whittle didn’t make that up. I’ve heard the recorded conversation myself, as anyone can. It’s Obama talking. And there’s a lot of additional explication in Whittle’s article, linked above. (The recording of the full ~50-minute radio program on Chicago’s station WBEZ on January 18, 2001 can be heard here. So if you’re worried that the YouTube clip is missing important context — it’s not — go to about the 70% point of the full recording to hear the smoking howitzer. Or listen to the whole, revealing program from its start.)

Regarding Obama’s status, I, too, find it far-fetched that he was born in Kenya, considering all the difficulties that would have been involved with third-world travel in 1961. But if he’s legitimate, why didn’t he simply release his claimed Hawaiian birth records to prove it and end the hassle, for surely he was aware of the controversy? The natural conclusion, employing Occam’s razor, is that he is, indeed, an illegal alien, or otherwise ineligible to be President.

Neither Jorge nor Collins referred to Obama’s Muslim background, but I might as well go for the trifecta. The important thing is that, as Daniel Pipes writes in Barack Obama’s Muslim Childhood, Obama was a Muslim as a child. And he has lied about it. This is really incontrovertible.

As an adult, he joined that infamous Christian church in Chicago, but judging from Obama’s denials that he ever heard Pastor Wright say the things that Wright so flagrantly said, it’s hard to credit Obama with really being of that church. His is, we can conclude, a Christianity of political convenience.

And Pipes had another article, Obama Would Fail Security Clearance, showing that Obama wouldn’t ordinarily qualify for a security clearance. A President obviously needs clearances at the highest level, and the issuing agencies will have to wink at all their rules to give this President such clearances.

I don’t mean in any of what’s above to suggest the slightest enthusiasm or respect for John McCain. I could vote for neither of these two horrors our system served up.

I predict, however, that many who voted for Obama will wind up wishing, as a matter of pride and guilt, that they hadn’t.

A shooting, a rape and beating, and dark insinuations by the police and media. It’s just another week in the immigration wars in Everett, Washington.

On Saturday evening, a reader sent me material on two violent attacks a week apart by intruders in the home of immigration reform (of the patriotic variety) activist Shawna Forde and her husband.

Shawna Forde is the director of Minutemen American Defense. She and her husband are separated, but still share their house in Everett.

On the evening of December 22, a lone intruder broke into the Fordes’ home, where Mr. Forde was home alone, and shot him three times in the chest. The shooter “was described as white,” but the police composite sketch suggests that he is Hispanic, categories which are not racially exclusive, but which politically have taken on separate lives.

Exactly one week later, three males broke into the Forde home, where Mrs. Forde was home alone. One beat her with a blunt object, one or more sliced her up, and at least one raped her. She reports that one male was white, another spoke Spanish, and that they “used a felt pen to scrawl the number 13 on her kitchen floor. She said her freelance crime investigations could have brought trouble her way, and suggested the ‘13’ may be a reference to Hispanic street gangs, including the ultra violent Mara Salvatrucha [MS-13],” which is active in Everett.

As reported by Everett’s Herald newspaper, the Everett Police Department has insinuated that all is not right with the Fordes’ stories (or that the crimes have a non-political motivation), maintaining that there was no sign of forced entry in the December 22 shooting case, and following the December 29 attack on Shawna Forde, “acknowledg[ing] they aren’t quite sure what to make of the violent events recently reported at the home in the 2200 block of Rocke­feller Avenue.”

The Herald noted that during Shawna Forde’s unsuccessful 2007 run for an Everett City Council seat, she “pleaded guilty to stealing chocolate milk from an Everett grocery store.

“Forde at the time said the whole thing was a misunderstanding, but pleaded guilty to put the matter behind her.”

In her campaign, Forde “promise[d] to make certain that police aren’t blocked from checking on the immigration status of suspects.”

At the same time, one has to consider the sources. The police are hostile towards Forde, due to her campaign promise to end their sanctuary practices, and the Herald is a pro-illegal immigrant newspaper, which sought to provoke reader hostility towards Forde, by playing the SPLC’s “Nazi card” against her, in the story on the attack on her.

Forde’s border activities have drawn attention from the Montgomery, Ala.-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which has tracked hate groups for decades. The organization profiled Forde in Spring 2008 as one of 20 people it characterized as exploiting any medium to deliver a “message of raging intolerance” on immigration issues.

I’ll try to get statements from the police and from Shawna Forde, but I am starting to get a Rashomony feeling about this story. All that is clear at this point, is that things have gotten very interesting in Everett, Washington, and they are bound to get even more interesting.

The LA Times blog , below. starts out “In May, it was immigrants marching for immigration reform. This weekend, about 50 protesters marched in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday…”

In 2006 there were two million pro-illegal marchers in the streets, largely because they were organized and funded by George Soros. More recently, and absent such funding, it’s been smaller, in the thousands instead of millions.  But it still  seems ludicrous to compare  those marches to a group of 50 protesters on behalf of immigration enforcement.

Does the disparity in the size of the marches  mean that Americans support enforcement less  than they do enforcement? Not at all.(Although it does mean there’s less financial support.)

First of all, the millions of pro-amnesty marchers didn’t signify American support for amnesty–because they weren’t Americans.

Second, the millions of Americans who support enforcement mostly don’t feel they need to march in the streets to support the law. This is a phenomenon that compares to the rarity of pro-Vietnam War demonstrations in the Sixties and Seventies, and the extremely rare “Peace Through Strength” counterdemonstrators during the pro-Communist “Nuclear Freeze” movement in the Eighties.

In both cases  the general public didn’t feel the need to march, since the national government was on their side. When some network news people referred to “Peace Through Strength” demonstrators in the Eighties as members of a “fringe”, conservatives pointed out that the idea of deterrence was not only the official policy of the US Government, (supported by the American people and a strong bipartisan consensus) it was the policy of of every other government in the world. It was the pacifists who were the fringe, not matter how many people they could pack into Central Park for a nuclear freeze rally.

In the same way, people don’t feel that they have to demonstrate against illegal immigration because it’s already illegal.

They’re wrong–marching would help show the patriotic immigration reformers in Congress that they have the support of the American people, and worry the others, but it’s an understandable reaction.

Minutemen, others march in L.A. to protest illegal immigration

In May, it was immigrants marching for immigration reform. This weekend, about 50 protesters marched in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday to decry violence by illegal immigrants and to demand that the Los Angeles Police Department change its controversial policy, Special Order 40, limiting when someone can be questioned about their immigration status, writes the L.A. Times’ Anna Gorman.

The marchers, including anti-illegal-immigration Minutemen and local community activists, also called for justice for Jamiel Shaw II, 17, a black athlete who was shot and killed in March by an alleged gang member who authorities say was in the country illegally.[More]

Last weekend while I was researching my column, I spoke with Glenn Spencer whose website American Patrol is one of the key sources (along with VDARE.COM, of course) of information about the illegal alien invasion.

Some time had passed since I had talked with Glenn. And as we were chatting I realized–again–how much he has done for patriotic immigration reform and how indebted we all are to him for his efforts. “Heroic” is how our Juan Mann describes Glenn.

Glenn’s been detailing the immigration crisis and getting the message out to American longer and better than almost anyone.

Recently, Glenn has taken to the air to monitor the progress (or lack thereof) of the border fence project and he posts his photo of the day that captures other border outrages, mainly in the form of unchecked crossings by aliens.and archives previous photos.

Anyone looking for accurate, current border information should not ask the federal government–that’s akin to leading with your chin–but instead seek out Spencer.

American Patrol’s photo of the day is an essential part of your immigration reading.

Jerk - noun: Slang A foolish, rude, or contemptible person.

During a recent lobbying trip to Springfield Rosanna Pulido, the Illinois spokeswoman for “You Don’t Speak for Me,” a group of patriotic Hispanic Americans, and Rick Jones, deputy director of the Chicago Minuteman Project, saw for themselves the level at which Rep. Luis Arroyo’s (D-3rd) mind actually works.

Pulido and Jones had gone to the state capitol to testify against something called the Religious Ministry Act of 2008 (pdf). No doubt you’re asking, “Huh? What the heck does this have to do with immigration.” Well, you see, the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights says it’s “needed” to address the “spiritual needs” of a growing number of illegals who (sniff!) are ending up in the slammer because of all those inhumane ICE raids around the country.

But, according to Jones, Arroyo, who is cosponsoring the legislation, “didn’t want to discuss the bill. He only wanted to hurl insults at Rosanna and myself. One question directed at me was, ‘Aren’t the Minutemen the group that kills people on the border?’ ” (I say to Arroyo, as I’ve said to others who make this stupid statement, show me the news stories that support your claim.)

Pulido, who is an American of Mexican descent, said Arroyo twice asked her about her nationality and after she had answered the same way twice, he wanted to know if she opposed providing spiritual comfort to her “fellow Mexicans.”

Memo to Arroyo the Arrogant: Where would you be today if intelligence and common sense were prerequisites for getting elected to public office?

Here’s more proof that Mexico is a rich country, not wracked by poverty as we are led to believe by the open-borders hacks. When Mexicans were poor, they ate beans and tortillas, a healthy combination that creates a complete protein.

Now they have excess money to spend on obesity-causing junk food, just like Americans. When you live on Cokes and potato chips, you are headed toward blimpdom. The most obese person on earth is a Mexican.

MEXICO CITY – Fueled by the rising popularity of soft drinks and fast food restaurants, Mexico has become the second-fattest nation in the world. Mexican health officials say it could surpass the United States as the most obese country within 10 years if trends continue.

More than 71 percent of Mexican women and 66 percent of Mexican men are overweight, according to the latest national surveys.

With diabetes now Mexico’s leading cause of death, activists and leaders hope to renew efforts to crack down on fatty-food consumption and encourage citizens to exercise more. But it will be a tough battle, as industry groups are expected to put up a fight.
[Where hunger once prevailed, diabetes is leading cause of death, San Diego Union-Tribune, March 24, 2008]

Alberto Lozano, a very smug spokesman for the Mexican Consulate in San Diego, told Minutemen demonstrators (on March 13th) that “This has been and will be Mexico.”
You can see it here on YouTube.

So was Lozano referring to the Mexican consulate itself as being Mexican territory, in accordance with the common (though incorrect) idea that a consulate or embassy is foreign territory?

That interpretation wouldn’t make sense even if the consulates-as-foreign-territory idea were true. If it were, Spokesman Lozano would have said “This consulate is Mexican territory”. But he didn’t, he said “This has been and will be Mexico” which sounds exactly like reconquista talk. And it’s certainly not diplomatic.
If this happened in a country whose leaders respected the sovereignty of their nation, this guy would have been expelled. The Consul in San Diego and the Mexican Ambassador in Washington would have been called to account.

Of course, that would be in a country whose leaders respected their nation’s sovereignty, as opposed to ours.

Continuing unabated with my conviction that John McCain cannot possibly win in November, I offer this example of the kind of thinking that will doom the Republicans

Dr. Richard Land , a highly respected voice in conservative circles and the president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, recommended yesterday on CNN that McCain should pick as his vice presidential running mate Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

Land’s thinking is that undecided voters of either party who are fond of the idea of electing either a woman or an African-American into the White House could be convinced that, while not on the top spot, Rice satisfies both requirements: she’s a black woman.

You will have to spend a long time–much longer than you care to–to come up with a dumber idea than Rice as vice president.

Rice, a Bush apologist war fanatic who liberally tossed around the word “vigilantes” with reference to the Minutemen, is less popular than her boss.

As amazing as Land’s preposterous idea was that his fellow conservatives on the panel all nodded in agreement as if his idea were the finest suggestion they had heard all week.

From now until November, McCain is going to get a lot of stupid advice from the conservatives he feels he has to appease.

To stand any kind of a chance, he should ignore it all. And most importantly, McCain should separate himself as far as possible from Bush, Rice and the rest of that neocon crowd that Americans are so tired of.