Posted by
Charles Lewis on Monday, June 18, 2007 12:56:35 AM
by Charles Lewis
Lars Larson is an example of a "conservative" talk show host whose "soft" opposition to the outrages of our open borders policy is analogous to the type of Senator poised to vote for cloture on the "3B" (Border Betrayal Bill) - so that it gets the 60 votes to be invoked - then votes (meaninglessly) against the bill itself, at a point when only 50 votes are necessary for passage (so he can tell his unsuspecting, McCain/Feingold blinded constituents it wasn't his fault).
John Kyl is a perfect example of the latter, whereas Larson, Hugh Hewitt, John Johnson (just kidding, there's a Lars Larson and a Hugh Hewitt, but - as far as I know - no John Johnson among talk hosts), and Bill O'Reilly are a few cases of the former. This hypocrisy distinguishes them from less equivocal opponents of the bill, such as Laura Ingraham, Glenn Beck, Michael Reagan, G Gordon Liddy, Michael Savage, Mike Gallagher, Neal Boortz, and, yes, even usual GOP sicophants Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity, as well as many prominent local hosts.
In my book, "conservative" wags who accept the party line on the persecution of border defenders like "Nacho" Ramos and José Compeán rate the same general distrust I accord those on the inexcusably wrong side of the two other defining moral incidents of recent years - the Clintonista delivery of 6-year-old Elián Gonzales to Fidel Castro (as in Tony Snow, who - as an administration mouthpiece - is also on the wrong side of this one) and the "supply side mass murder" of Terri Schiavo (namely, Boortz).
For those of you who heard Larson's whitewash of Bush's border agent hatchetman Johnny Sutton last week, a refutal:
1. While it may or may not be true that Sutton - over an unspecified period of time - did not prosecute 14 agents who had shot at illegals, what matters is what's happening NOW, since the administration started its policy of prosecuting any border guardian who dares use force (something the National Guard is not permitted to do, by the way) in the course of his job. The truth is that NOW we have a string of prosecutions - at the behest of Mexico: Ramos, Compeán, Hernandez, Corbett, Alemán, the LA cops at the recent riot...
Would Larson have us believe that all of a sudden border protectors en masse have started shooting at invaders just for the fun of it, particularly considering the adverse conditions under which they work and virtual witchhunt threat under which they operate? That they're looking for trouble? The facts speak for themselves: the national border agents union recently voted unanimously to express no confidence in David Aguilar, Bush's appointed border patrol chief. How can any dare do their jobs with this rash of prosecutions?
2. Larson's point about Ramos and Compeán having been convicted by a jury of their peers is disingenuous. Three jurors have signed affidavits affirming that the presiding judge had instructed them that they had to go along with the majority, and that they otherwise would have acquitted. This judge, who also oversaw the convictions of Alemán and Hernandez, also withheld much exculpatory evidence, including the "victim's" later involvement in yet another high stakes drug smuggling, which directly contradicted his testimony and would have destroyed his credibility. Moreover, members of Johnny Sutton's staff were caught red handed lying to Congress about supposed incriminating evidence that didn't exist.
3. The gentleman debating Larson (a listener who'd e-mailed one of Larson's affiliates to complain about Larson's position on the issue) was remiss in not bringing up a very salient point: that the exposure of Ramos to steel-booted invaders in prison (who nearly kicked him to death), the fact that he did not receive medical attention for four days, and the overall deplorable conditions under which these agents are held all point to the truth of the contention that they are being held up (treasonously) as examples of what happens to agents that take their jobs seriously. This is not lost on current border guards.
4. The overriding point is that America is under an invasion of unprecedented scale by a horde intent on a hostile takeover. Her security and very existence is on the brink of extinction. It should never be an issue when those charged with defending her use force against invaders - be they drug smugglers with a million dollars worth of contraband in a stolen van, people smugglers, or just "foot soldiers" in the wave of attackers.
Those entrusted with the crucial, thankless, almost impossible job of enforcing our borders should NEVER be prosecuted for opposing the bad guys. Never, under any circumstances. If invaders knew that these heroes could take them out at their own discretion (which should have been the case starting in '86, when we were promised no more illegal aliens and no more amnesty) we could stop the hordes in their tracks. Invasion is, by definition, an act of war, worthy of commensurate response. Think that's extreme? Go help destroy another country and leave America alone.