Minuteman Blog Central

What this "columnist" can''t wrap his little mind around is the FACT that the Minutemen are the mainstream and his band of open-border extremists are in the small, small minority in this country.

This also appears to be an attempt to urge the protesters to behave themselves, not that they don''t really think Chris Simcox should be run off the campus, but that it might look bad if they do so.

Lovely coming from a university whose common area is called "Red Square," which is where they''re staging protests. Fitting.

From today''s Georgetown University newspaper:

Inviting Minuteman an Irresponsible Decision
By Moises D. Mendoza

Some activist student groups were alarmed when they heard the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a group best known for setting up stakeouts to block illegal immigrants from crossing the Mexico-U.S. frontier, was coming to Georgetown.

Worst of all, says MEChA de Georgetown Chair Aida Flores, Minuteman co-founder Chris Simcox will be in Copley Formal Lounge next Wednesday as a guest of the Lecture Fund, one of Georgetown’s best-respected organizations.

“It’s like inviting someone from the KKK or something,” she says.

Although Simcox has been accused of white supremacist ties, the Klan analogy is a stretch. So is calling him violent, since Simcox’s group expressly disavows force in its poorly written training manual (instead, volunteers are supposed to report interlopers to the Border Patrol).

But the Lecture Fund is guilty of naivete at best and insensitivity at worst.

They have the right to invite whomever they want. But as one of Georgetown’s high-profile institutions, the fund has a responsibility — just like THE HOYA or The Voice do — to avoid implicitly validating extremists by giving them platforms that they don’t deserve.

The gun-toting Minutemen and Simcox get attention by doing crazy things — like wandering around the border with weapons. They’re not Holocaust deniers or avowed racists, but are extremists nonetheless. What are they doing at an elite university?

“I recognize that he’s a controversial figure and that some people may have a problem with him. But his group has played a major role in the mainstream,” Lecture Fund Chair Michael Jurist (SFS ’07) says. “And I hope everyone respects our rights to bring someone who represents another side of the debate.”

Like most students, Jurist is well-meaning. Be he misses the point. Extremists get mainstreamed when groups like the Lecture Fund provide them a stage.

~SNIP~

To read the entire article:

http://www.thehoya.com/viewpoint/103106/view3.cfm

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

From Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review, on today''s Townhall.com:

An Election About Amnesty

President Bush can lambaste the Democrats all he likes, but on the biggest issue where there is likely to be legislative action from a new Democratic Congress, Bush agrees with Nancy Pelosi and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party. They all support "cutting-and-running" from serious immigration enforcement.

On immigration, it was only the House Republicans who stood athwart the Senate and a Bush-Democratic accord on what is effectively amnesty for illegal immigrants and insisted instead on tougher border enforcement. And there might be substantially fewer of these Republicans after Nov. 7. A Pelosi speakership could represent the final breakthrough for Bush''s lax immigration policy, which was first forestalled by the 9/11 terror attacks and then by the opposition of conservatives in the House.

This election, therefore, is about amnesty as much as it is about Iraq or taxes. There are limits to how much a Democratic congressional majority could directly affect Iraq policy, and Bush would veto any tax increases. It is immigration where there could be real action. This is why conservative writer David Frum long ago suggested a rallying cry for House Republicans trying to save their majority: "Stop the Bush amnesty plan -- vote Republican."

It is obvious that the issue of immigration enforcement has resonance. Democrats have taken a pass on immigration, shrewdly staying silent on the issue in their announced package of minimalist policy initiatives should they win the House (even though not long ago their leadership was vocal in support of amnesty). But their candidates are happy to talk about it on the stump, so long as they sound as tough as or tougher than Republicans.

In Arizona''s 8th Congressional District, Republican candidate Randy Graf is nearly monomaniacal on enforcement. But his opponent, Democrat Gabby Giffords, doesn''t want to be outdone. She supports a guest-worker program, but rarely talks about it. She prefers to emphasize "radar, aerial drones and electronic surveillance" at the border, "tough employer sanctions" and denying government benefits to illegals.

~SNIP~

To read the entire article:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/RichLowry/2006/10/30/an_election_about_amnesty

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!

From "The Hill" Congressional newspaper''s blog, by Chris Simcox:

‘Virtual’ Smoke and Mirrors on the Border
By Chris Simcox
October 30th, 2006

At first blush, it appears gratifying to finally have Congress pass and the President sign into law the Border Fence Act of 2006. Our goal at the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps has always been to see the rule of law brought back to the border. We have sought to show the government what we think homeland security should look like and how achievable and cost effective absolute operational control of our border can be. When you have obvious vigilance at the border you vastly decrease the current steady waves of migrant trafficking, drug dealers, possible terrorists, gang members, rapists, thieves, weapons and sex traders, and untold contraband into our country.

As important a first step in long-overdue federal action this legislation may seem to be, some wise and experienced legislators have raised important and unavoidable questions as to whether the Department of Homeland Security intends to actually fund the proposed 700 miles of fencing authorized by this legislation. Other critical questions revolve around the technology and budgetary standards of the proposed fence design and construction. We need to build an actual fence, not just endlessly propose border security options. Politicians and bureaucrats must stop playing “virtual” smoke and mirrors games that threaten our national security and unnecessarily cost American taxpayers billions upon billions of dollars.

The cost of the “virtual” fence scheme being discussed by DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff is astronomically inflated from real-world necessity. Some estimates have been as high as $3 million per mile.

The Minutemen are building real, actual, cutting-edge technology fencing and barriers at a mere fraction of the cost of such proposed “virtual” fence designs. Why would we not build an actual fence that actually works? It is unconscionable that we should waste millions or billions of dollars at home to gratuitously construct a highly questionable “virtual” security barrier that no one can see at our borders—lest we offend sensibilities abroad—as we exercise our right and duty to secure our sovereign borders. As the Bush administration reminds us daily: we are at war. Meeting the need to immediately and effectively secure our borders without pointlessly putting this country further into debt should be the priority for this government.

In the unlikely event this “approved” 700 miles of security fencing were ever built by this government—that commitment still is woefully inadequate. Real interior enforcement measures must be enacted by Congress placing tough mandates on the executive branch to enforce our laws and discourage the employment and residence of illegal aliens. The attractive nuisance of our government’s offer to foreign nationals to come live America’s good life without the duties and obligations of law-abidingness draws literally thousands of illegal aliens across our wide-open borders every single day, among which all sorts of ugliness—like organized crime, drug cartels and international terrorism—hide.

~SNIP~

To read the entire article:

http://blog.thehill.com/2006/10/30/%e2%80%98virtual%e2%80%99-smoke-and-mirrors-on-the-border/#more-1628

To discuss this topic on our Minuteman Forum, click on the title link!