Su Rancho Es Mi Rancho
Reading the newspapers, I wonder which straw will break the camel’s back when it comes to illegal immigration. What will finally cause Americans to rise up and take back their country? The tenth family killed by an illegal-alien drunk driver? The 100th housewife butchered by an illegal-alien murderer? Or the next lawsuit that awards damages to illegal aliens after they have trespassed and vandalized a citizen’s property?
It’s happened again. Sixteen illegals, represented by the Mexican-American Legal Defense Fund, sued rancher Roger Barnett in federal court for $32 million. In 2004, he collared the border jumpers and held them at gunpoint on his Cross Rail Ranch near Douglas, Arizona, until the Border Patrol arrived. One of them was a previously deported dope dealer. Since 1998, he has detained 12,000 for the Border Patrol. Illegals have trashed his property, killed livestock, stolen trucks, and even broken into his home. Because they kept wrecking an 8,000-gallon water tank, he installed a faucet so they could get something to drink.
Still, in February, the jury in the case awarded four of the plaintiffs a total of $78,000: $7,500 apiece for two of them because Barnett inflicted “emotional distress,” $1,400 each for two more because of his “assault,” and $60,000 in punitive damages. Barnett considers this an “80 percent victory” because he was not held liable on the most serious and ridiculous charges. His lawyers will appeal.
Barnett isn’t the first victim of the leftist litigation lobby. In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center used the courts to steal Casey Nethercott’s ranch because he, too, made the mistake of opposing the Reconquista.
As justly outraged as Americans are when they hear about these cases, what they don’t seem to get is that MALDEF, the SPLC, and their army of plaintiffs are waging war against them. Lawyers for illegals are waging war to undermine immigration control and even the property rights of Americans who live along the border. The plaintiffs are waging war in the streets by driving drunk and murdering cops, husbands, wives, and even children. Turn on the History Channel’s Gangland on any given night, and you’re likely to see the gory, violent stories of illegal-immigrant gangs. And those gangs don’t merely operate in major cities. MS-13, the Salvadoran gang, reached into Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, near the sleepy town of Woodstock, to murder a former member turned state’s witness.
But back to the border. In 1999, Pat Buchanan visited 82-year-old rancher Theresa Murray in Douglas, Arizona, and described his visit this way: “Her ranch house was surrounded by a seven-foot chain-link fence that was topped with coils of razor wire. Every door and window had bars on it and was wired to an alarm. Mrs. Murray sleeps with a .32 caliber pistol on her head table, because she has been burglarized thirty times. Her guard dogs are dead; they bled to death when someone tossed meat containing chopped glass over her fence.”
“Theresa Murray is living out her life inside a maximum security prison in her own home, in her own country,” Buchanan wrote in The Death of the West, “because her government lacks the moral courage to do its duty and defend the borders of the United States of America.”
Another rancher in Douglas, Richard Kozak, was forced to defend his home from illegal-alien drug smugglers. As the Arizona Star reported in 2004, Kozak finally fought back after watching them traverse his property for two years. They attacked his home, hitting it with more than 30 rounds of AK-47 and pistol fire, and then burned a trailer on his property.
These are not the stories MALDEF and the SPLC want Americans to hear. They tell the story differently. The illegals (or “undocumented immigrants,” as they insist) are merely oppressed and beleaguered campesinos just passing through, hoping for a drink of water and perhaps a small meal in return for a ready smile. They are here, after all, to do the jobs Americans won’t do.
Everyone with half a brain knows this isn’t true. The judges know it. The juries know it. Even the SPLC and MALDEF know it. The question is, why do the judges and juries keep surrendering to the legalized theft these anti-American revolutionaries perpetrate? The answer is clear: white guilt created by the complete loss of loyalty to country, kith, and kin.
The “antiracist” meme running through liberal American Christianity tells us that we must not object to teaching children in foreign languages, must not oppose welfare and other public subsidies for illegals, and, ultimately, must not resist the invasion from the South. Until we realize that what we have is worth defending, we will continue to fall prey to the lie that being an American and a Christian means we must surrender our country to foreigners.
Even if a rancher “wins” in court, every lawsuit that he is forced to fight is a victory for our enemies. One day, Americans will awaken to a country in which the last battle is over. And they will have lost the war.
This article first appeared in the April 2009 issue of Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture.
Entries(RSS)
MALDEF is lavishly funded by major corporations, some of which are now being bailed out by taxpayers. Yes, one must wonder when. I fear never.
MALDEF AND SPLC are well funded by the elites who have decided they want open borders. They want the cheap labor for profit margins,and political capital The elites do not live in our neighborhoods, attend our schools, or go to our hospitals, therfore their standard of living is not diminished, on the contrary it is enhanced. Some of them are some misguided romantics driven by false history that we owe these people something for our alleged misdeeds in the past. One of them is the weird rich kid from Conneticut and when he was Governor of Texas he aggorgantly let it be known.
#2 Oops. "Arrogantly" I apologize for the original mispelling. I'm commenting from work, must keep paying those taxes to support those wonderful migrants.
As Christians, we understand the concept of hospitality, of kindness to strangers. Indeed, most traditional cultures hold the obligation of hospitality as sacred. Nowhere in the Bible, however, does it command us to allow the stranger to break and enter, to invade the sanctity of our homes, let alone change the very fundamentals of our households.
Yes, American Christians have been seemingly neutered by a feminized version of the faith that excuses and therefore allows all. The only question for me is when will we wake up? Mr. Jefferson was correct about human nature, that we are more disposed to put up with abuses than correct them . . . until we reach the breaking point.
Mr. Newton's Third Law of inertia talks about how an object at rest will remain at rest, or an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by some unbalanced force. Americans will indeed remain inert, muddling along until something cataclysmic happens. Illegal immigration, the coming financial collapse, terrorism, along with other forces out there are all potential unbalanced forces that our arrogant "masters" in the plutocracy cannot fully account for.
I feel a combination of fear and hope in this, for I think it is only a matter of time.
Mr. R. Cort Kirkwood, I read your article originally in my copy of Chronicles delivered monthly, and I share your exasperation. You ask " What will finally cause Americans to rise up and take back their country?" apropos the bitter fruits of illegal immigration. It is a fair question and one that needs to be asked. However, after expatiating on the injustices being done to American ranchers, even in the courts, even if they win, you conclude, "Even if a rancher “wins” in court, every lawsuit that he is forced to fight is a victory for our enemies. One day, Americans will awaken to a country in which the last battle is over. And they will have lost the war." So, what was the point of your first question, if it all adds up to defeat? Or do you have an alternative to victory outside the courts?
Dick the Butcher said, "first we kill all the lawyers." That might have been OK for Shakespeare's time, but we need to grease the scribbling reporters first. If Columbia School of Journalism gets attacked, would that be considered hunting in a baited patch?
Well-done, Senor Kirkwood. As a Board member of an organization that seeks to "inform and educate" US citizens about the dangers, immediate and future, of our pending national immigration disaster, I understand your anguish. The truth is, however, that we have allowed the genie out of the bottle for so long that putting him back in appears to be a Sisyphean task, and we as a people, to date at least, have been unwilling and/or unable to undertake such a project.
If you eliminate the lack of political will by both major parties for disparate reasons, and the cheerleading by the MSM, the "why" large numbers of American citizens are unwilling to do what is necessary, I suspect a valid response would be that unchecked legal immigration - the percentage of foreign born in the US population is the highest it has been since the early 20th century - has created a different people and culture from when I was growing up more than 50 years ago, and too many of these "new" Americans share precious little with earlier immigrants.
Further, the support for illegal aliens by major religious organizations has made the "immigrant sob story" much more available; not, however, the crime statistics you cite. Finally, and I really could go on about this subject, I believe that US citizens are being sold a bill of goods about the marvels of "one-world" government, losing in the process the sense of national pride and American "exceptionalism."
"All things be ready if our minds be so:" serious situations, like pending disaster can be turned around, as even King Harry V knew. The task, then, is to continue our effort in preparing all things, so that the minds of the nation recognize the mortal seriousness of illegal immigration. Then, and only then, will the giant awake from his slumber.
With regards to immigration, it seems as if the economic decline of the United States, which I expect to be long term, might act as a blessing in disguise. Although government benefits might be one lure for the Third World to come to the USA, the economic lure may be subsiding. Why leave your rural hamlet in Jalisco, however poor it might be, to live in the apartments of Langley Park, MD or at a shack near the chicken processing plants on Virginia's Eastern Shore if your economic plight is not improved very much. And if the heavily indebted government must cut services, that lure is weakened as well.
Derek,
I read an article a few weeks ago that mentioned something to that effect, that some Mexicans were actually going back to Mexico. I have to see if I can fine it again, but if I was a foreigner I would want to avoid the US as much as possible in the event of a global crash. Folks here are going to go nuts!!!!!!
There are currently no activist organizations that are willing to say: "We seek a reduction of immigration levels and increased enforcement of existing immigration laws on behalf of white people whose interests we represent.” (The only ones that I am aware of are anti-Semitic and/or white separatist.)
The rules of political correctness say that it is unacceptable for there to be advocates for white people as a group. If all immigration restrictionist organizations play by these rules, then this serves to further validate political correctness, which is self-defeating for the restrictionist cause, ultimately. We need new organizations to be created that will not insist on playing by the rules of political correctness.
“Her ranch house was surrounded by a seven-foot chain-link fence that was topped with coils of razor wire. Every door and window had bars on it and was wired to an alarm. Mrs. Murray sleeps with a .32 caliber pistol on her head table, because she has been burglarized thirty times. Her guard dogs are dead; they bled to death when someone tossed meat containing chopped glass over her fence.”
Sounds like the kind of stories that are coming out of the current South Africa, with its ANC inspired attacks on white farmers, and the defensive measures that these farmers have to make to protect their lands. What is happening is that American citizens are being ethnically cleansed, with the full support of the institutions of their own government.
Hal K wrote: There are currently no activist organizations that are willing to say: "We seek a reduction of immigration levels and increased enforcement of existing immigration laws on behalf of white people whose interests we represent." (The only ones that I am aware of are anti-Semitic and/or white separatist.)
Well, "anti-Semitic and/or white separatist" does not describe VDARE, for one. Nor could anyone accuse VDARE of "playing by the rules of political correctness." It does indeed say the things that Hal K wants such groups to say.
R J Stove:
I was thinking of an activist organization that people could join. VDARE is just an online publication. There ought to be something like "La Raza" for white people, or maybe an organization that lobbies Congress and that is actually willing to say that they are looking out for the interests of white people specifically.
The problem with VDARE is that it doesn't really do anything besides posting information and commentary on its website, and it doesn't give people visiting the site anything to do besides reading the articles and making contributions. There is much more that could be done.
@ 13 Hal K
Go ahead and form such a club. Your first 100 members will be state police, FBI agents, Narcs, and spies from the Southern Poverty Law Center and a few other Hillel scholar useful idiots. You will be harassed, get your phones tapped, pulled over by the filth on a daily basis, have dope planted on you and ultimately be hauled off to the blackest prison in your state. Good luck.