Skip to main content

Battle of the Borders

Profound thoughts and long-term implications coming from Glenn Reynolds. Time will tell what the goal and end-result will be from these mass rallies. I tend to agree with Glenn--whichever way you look at this, the left always has "more control" as the end goal.
...the obvious tendency of this weekend's marches to provoke a backlash makes me wonder why they're happening. One possibility is that the organizers are dumb, and don't think there will be a backlash. The other possibility is that the organizers aren't dumb, and figure that they'll benefit from a backlash if it occurs. Either they win (which means they win) or they lose, and get a prop. 187 type response, leaving both illegal and legal Latino immigrants polarized and looking to them for leadership (which means they win). Given the GOP's inroads into the Latino vote, this may be, in part, an effort to sabotage any Latino realignment toward the GOP.
Meanwhile, the issue is becoming more and more volatile, as protestors and counterprotesters clash.
The problem was that there were two factions present at Bank Calumet in Munster, Indiana. IFIRE, along with CMP, their friends in the anti-ILLEGAL-immigration battle, regularly protests this bank for offering mortgages to ILLEGAL aliens.

Today we had counter-protesters, and the cops at first did nothing to keep us apart. When Jake and I showed up, we had to push our way through screaming socialists (more on that in a moment) to join our protest. Anywhere else we've ever protested with people holding an opposing point of view, the cops have instructed each group to take a certain spot to avoid this sort of thing.

The IFIRE/CMP folks stood together on the sidewalk, and the counter-protesters formed a line, surrounding us, and walked in a circle, jeering, chanting, and shouting slurs like "racist" and "Nazi" in our faces as they jostled by us.

Then the altercation went down. The cops were around the corner, and took a couple of minutes to get through the crowd...
Michelle Malkin highlights the radical ethnic separatist aspects of these rallies, and mentions the LA Times airbrushing of their story.
As Mickey Kaus points out, the reporters at the Los Angeles Times (and all other major media, for that matter) have downplayed the radical ethnic separatism that characterized the pro-illegal immigration rallies over the weekend. While the Times misleadingly asserted that the Los Angeles rally "featured more American flags than those from any other country," its reporters conveniently ignored marchers with extremist signs and banners advocating America-undermining concepts of reconquista and Aztlan:
Lonewacko points out that the Georgia illegal aliens protest was organized by former Mexican consul. What is Mexico's role in this whole fiasco? I would like to see official statements from all of the Latin American embassies encouraging their citizens to calm down!
Tim Molloy of the AP offers a roundup of the recent protest by illegal aliens who are demanding rights to which they aren't entitled in the falsely-titled "Immigration Rallies Draw Thousands Nationwide". It contains the following:
Teodoro Maus, an organizer of the Georgia protest, estimated as many as 80,000 Hispanics did not show up for work.
Molloy or his editors are apparently too shy to tell us that Maus isn't just a member of the "Coordinating Committee of Community Leaders". He's also a former Mexican consul. As with other professions, whether anyone is truly ever a "former" consul is unclear.

Here's an earlier AP article that doesn't disclose his former job. And, here's more on some recent statements he made here.
This is not helping anyone! They are making the situation worse for themselves, and harder for legal immigrants. What do THEY expect? They don't vote, so they don't have any sway with our elected officials. All they are doing is attracting negative attention!

tags: , Politics, border, Terrorism, Homeland Security, MEXICO.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Podcast: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind

Click here to listen to the MP3 audio of the discussion between Michel Martin, Stephen Henderson and myself on the GOP debate, and Bush's push for No Child Left Behind. The segment on the new gospel music competition reality show is a great segment -- check it out as well. Tell Me More, October 12, 2007 · This week, GOP presidential contenders met for a debate in Dearborn, Michigan. Meanwhile, President Bush was stumping for reauthorization of the education bill, "No Child Left Behind." In this week's Political Chat, hear insights from political blogger Josue Sierra and Stephen Henderson, Deputy Editorial Page Editor at the Detroit Free Press.

You can listen on the NPR website right here.


Related Posts:
- On Air: Talking GOP Debate and No Child Left Behind
- GOP Economy Debate


Other Posts of Interest:
- Conference for Minority Journalists of Faith Cross posted at:
http://josue.townhall.com/g/539550d0-6e62-45a9-b375-f9d534488f25

Communism: Good Money for the "El Viejo"

I guess Fidel Castro is doing ok. Forbes lists Castro as one of the richest in the world, right up there with the Queen of England. I bet he didn't like the attention. It was hard to figure it out, but it seems they managed to throw some numbers together.
In the past, we have relied on a percentage of Cuba's gross domestic product to estimate Fidel Castro's fortune. This year we have used more traditional valuation methods, comparing state-owned assets Castro is assumed to control with comparable publicly traded companies. A reasonable discount was then applied to compensate for the obvious disclosure issues.

Victory for Life -- Court backs military on abortion coverage

Great news being reported on the Chicago Tribune. Surprisingly, a decision was handed down in favor of life. I find the quote facinating. These days, one could hardly believe such statement would come from a judge--a federal one of all things.
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA -- A federal appeals court ruled Thursday that military medical benefits should cover abortions only when a mother's life is at risk.

The 3-0 ruling by a panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came in the case of a Navy sailor's wife whose fetus had a fatal birth defect. She had an abortion five months into her pregnancy.

She filed a lawsuit claiming an armed forces health plan owed her $3,000 for the procedure. The government argued that refusing to cover such services "furthers the government's interest in protecting human life in general and promoting respect for life."Tags: , , ,