http://www.gunowners.org/op0305.htm
Liberals Outraged By Self-defense On The Border
by
Larry Pratt
It never ceases to amaze me how the basic American ideas of self-government and self-defense cause some folks to go bananas. A case in point involves illegal immigration and the views of Bill Press and Alan Colmes.
A recent guest on MSNBC's Buchanan And Press (1/16/03) was Glenn Spencer, president of the American Border Patrol. In his opening loaded question, Press, the liberal co-host of this program, says to Spencer: "Let me ask you, we got the INS already. Why is it a good idea to have a bunch of armed vigilantes out there roaming around the desert stirring up trouble?"
Well, now. The implication here by Press that the INS is sufficient to deal with illegal immigration is absurd on its face. In fact, the INS itself, in late January, issued a report which says the population of illegal aliens in the U.S. has more than doubled in the past decade, with more than 7,000,000 -- mostly Mexicans -- living here. Commenting on this INS report in the Washington Times (2/1/03), Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center For Immigration Studies says:
"The bottom line is America has lost control of its borders. It does not inspire confidence at a time of war when [terrorists] are trying to get into the country and blow you up. The scale of illegal immigration can only be described as enormous." So much for the notion that "we got the INS already" and this is enough to curb illegal immigration.
But, adding injury -- and embarrassment -- to his insult, Press is quickly exposed as being an ignoramus, as not knowing what he's talking about. Spencer says the American Border Patrol is involved in none of the things Press has mentioned. He patiently explains that his group is a combination of think tank and neighborhood watch. They go to the border of Arizona and send live images over the Internet of people violating the border. Then they call the Border Patrol.
Desperately attempting to cover up his gaff, Press says: "Well, maybe I confuse you with another group." He says he did check out the website of the Civil Homeland Defense and they said they require their people to have an Arizona state certified concealed carry weapons course certification. To which Spencer replies: "We have nothing to do with them. We're not connected in any way. We don't correspond or communicate with them. We're a completely different organization."
A little later, Press resumes his attempt to smear Spencer's organization. With no evidence whatsoever to support what he alleges, Press accuses the American Border Patrol of doing what they're doing "just... for the glory." He asks Spencer: "How many members of your gang are there?" To which Spencer replies, again patiently: "No, we don't have a gang. We have a group of people who are concerned about the sovereignty of the United States and the environmental destruction that is going on along the border."
Undaunted, Press -- with no facts to support his view -- continues to sling mud. He notes that one group says Spencer's organization is part of a network of "anti-immigrant racists, white supremacists, out to keep people of color from coming into this country." To which Spencer, patiently, one more time, replies: "Well, if that description fits us, it fits the entire Congress of the United States and the President, because they pass the laws that we're merely seeking to have enforced."
Press -- bloodied but, alas, unbowed -- says yes, "but they didn't give you the authority to enforce the laws. That's the point. You're self-appointed vigilantes, aren't you?"
Spencer: "If you had listened to what I just said -- and, apparently, you didn't -- we are not enforcement. We avoid any contact with the people who are coming in. I'm the person on point. I have a camera. I'm on an ATV. I'm unarmed. I'm the person closest to these people. I have no weapon near me."
No reply from Press. He thanks Spencer for being with them. End of interview.
Now, Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Fox Cable TV's Hannity & Colmes. On one of their shows (11/18/02), they interview Chris Simcox, editor and publisher of the Tombstone Tumbleweed which in a series of articles has called for local residents to take up arms and patrol their border with Mexico. In this early exchange, Colmes quickly reveals his ignorance:
Colmes: "And you feel that you have the right to take it upon yourself to do this, disregarding whatever law enforcement authorities tell you to do?"
Simcox: "Disregarding what law? This is our Constitutional right to protect our borders."
No reply from Colmes. Instead, he wonders just how far Simcox is prepared to go. He notes that two Arizona ranchers wounded "a guy." And "other people" have been accused of "taking people, holding them, tying them down, doing this on their own." Does Simcox support this?
Simcox: "Sure. If it means protecting our national security. And again, we're at a time of alert and alarm against enemies, foreign and domestic. They're -- our government tells us they're here. It's been a year since 9/11, and our government's done nothing to seal the borders and to truly protect American interests."
Simcox adds that his group is made up of "two-thirds retired military personnel and police personnel." Thus, they believe they have the training they need to do the job in a reasonable way.
Colmes persists. Obviously outraged that private citizens would actually defend themselves, their property and their country, he asks, as if this, and not illegal immigration, is the problem: "Are you going to use guns?" Will they tie people down? He demands an answer to these questions.
Simcox: "Sir, we'll do what's necessary to protect."
Colmes: "But, necessary doesn't answer specifically the question, but we thank you for being with us tonight."
But, of course, Chris Simcox has answered, as specifically as he could, Colmes' question. He has made it crystal clear that he and his group will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves.
If ever there were examples of a liberal death-wish it is the views of Bill Press and Alan Colmes on illegal immigration which is a major national security threat. But, instead of being concerned about this growing threat, Press and Colmes trash the Good Guys trying to combat this threat calling them "vigilantes" stirring up trouble, a "gang," and lawless racists and white supremacists. I am glad that neither Glenn Spencer nor Chris Simcox will in any way be deterred by such name-calling.
Liberals Outraged By Self-defense On The Border
by
Larry Pratt
It never ceases to amaze me how the basic American ideas of self-government and self-defense cause some folks to go bananas. A case in point involves illegal immigration and the views of Bill Press and Alan Colmes.
A recent guest on MSNBC's Buchanan And Press (1/16/03) was Glenn Spencer, president of the American Border Patrol. In his opening loaded question, Press, the liberal co-host of this program, says to Spencer: "Let me ask you, we got the INS already. Why is it a good idea to have a bunch of armed vigilantes out there roaming around the desert stirring up trouble?"
Well, now. The implication here by Press that the INS is sufficient to deal with illegal immigration is absurd on its face. In fact, the INS itself, in late January, issued a report which says the population of illegal aliens in the U.S. has more than doubled in the past decade, with more than 7,000,000 -- mostly Mexicans -- living here. Commenting on this INS report in the Washington Times (2/1/03), Steven A. Camarota, director of research at the Center For Immigration Studies says:
"The bottom line is America has lost control of its borders. It does not inspire confidence at a time of war when [terrorists] are trying to get into the country and blow you up. The scale of illegal immigration can only be described as enormous." So much for the notion that "we got the INS already" and this is enough to curb illegal immigration.
But, adding injury -- and embarrassment -- to his insult, Press is quickly exposed as being an ignoramus, as not knowing what he's talking about. Spencer says the American Border Patrol is involved in none of the things Press has mentioned. He patiently explains that his group is a combination of think tank and neighborhood watch. They go to the border of Arizona and send live images over the Internet of people violating the border. Then they call the Border Patrol.
Desperately attempting to cover up his gaff, Press says: "Well, maybe I confuse you with another group." He says he did check out the website of the Civil Homeland Defense and they said they require their people to have an Arizona state certified concealed carry weapons course certification. To which Spencer replies: "We have nothing to do with them. We're not connected in any way. We don't correspond or communicate with them. We're a completely different organization."
A little later, Press resumes his attempt to smear Spencer's organization. With no evidence whatsoever to support what he alleges, Press accuses the American Border Patrol of doing what they're doing "just... for the glory." He asks Spencer: "How many members of your gang are there?" To which Spencer replies, again patiently: "No, we don't have a gang. We have a group of people who are concerned about the sovereignty of the United States and the environmental destruction that is going on along the border."
Undaunted, Press -- with no facts to support his view -- continues to sling mud. He notes that one group says Spencer's organization is part of a network of "anti-immigrant racists, white supremacists, out to keep people of color from coming into this country." To which Spencer, patiently, one more time, replies: "Well, if that description fits us, it fits the entire Congress of the United States and the President, because they pass the laws that we're merely seeking to have enforced."
Press -- bloodied but, alas, unbowed -- says yes, "but they didn't give you the authority to enforce the laws. That's the point. You're self-appointed vigilantes, aren't you?"
Spencer: "If you had listened to what I just said -- and, apparently, you didn't -- we are not enforcement. We avoid any contact with the people who are coming in. I'm the person on point. I have a camera. I'm on an ATV. I'm unarmed. I'm the person closest to these people. I have no weapon near me."
No reply from Press. He thanks Spencer for being with them. End of interview.
Now, Alan Colmes, the liberal half of Fox Cable TV's Hannity & Colmes. On one of their shows (11/18/02), they interview Chris Simcox, editor and publisher of the Tombstone Tumbleweed which in a series of articles has called for local residents to take up arms and patrol their border with Mexico. In this early exchange, Colmes quickly reveals his ignorance:
Colmes: "And you feel that you have the right to take it upon yourself to do this, disregarding whatever law enforcement authorities tell you to do?"
Simcox: "Disregarding what law? This is our Constitutional right to protect our borders."
No reply from Colmes. Instead, he wonders just how far Simcox is prepared to go. He notes that two Arizona ranchers wounded "a guy." And "other people" have been accused of "taking people, holding them, tying them down, doing this on their own." Does Simcox support this?
Simcox: "Sure. If it means protecting our national security. And again, we're at a time of alert and alarm against enemies, foreign and domestic. They're -- our government tells us they're here. It's been a year since 9/11, and our government's done nothing to seal the borders and to truly protect American interests."
Simcox adds that his group is made up of "two-thirds retired military personnel and police personnel." Thus, they believe they have the training they need to do the job in a reasonable way.
Colmes persists. Obviously outraged that private citizens would actually defend themselves, their property and their country, he asks, as if this, and not illegal immigration, is the problem: "Are you going to use guns?" Will they tie people down? He demands an answer to these questions.
Simcox: "Sir, we'll do what's necessary to protect."
Colmes: "But, necessary doesn't answer specifically the question, but we thank you for being with us tonight."
But, of course, Chris Simcox has answered, as specifically as he could, Colmes' question. He has made it crystal clear that he and his group will do whatever is necessary to protect themselves.
If ever there were examples of a liberal death-wish it is the views of Bill Press and Alan Colmes on illegal immigration which is a major national security threat. But, instead of being concerned about this growing threat, Press and Colmes trash the Good Guys trying to combat this threat calling them "vigilantes" stirring up trouble, a "gang," and lawless racists and white supremacists. I am glad that neither Glenn Spencer nor Chris Simcox will in any way be deterred by such name-calling.
