With the New Hampshire presidential primary fast approaching, it might be time to look at two of the Republican candidates who’ve often drawn comparisons in the mainstream media. Namely, former Utah governor Jon Huntsman and 2008 GOP runner-up Mitt Romney. The rap on both men is very similar, i.e. both are technocratic, not very inspiring-yet seemingly competent-moderates who have extreme difficulties rallying the Republican faithful. And while Mr. Huntsman has increased the pace of his attacks on Governor Romney in recent days, you can’t help but notice the similarities between the two candidates.

While many conservative pundits have attempted-unsuccessfully in my view-to argue that Huntsman is an unabashed conservative, you can’t help but get the impression that supporters of past presidential campaigns by Pete McCloskey, John Anderson, Arlen Specter, and Lynn Martin, among many other liberal politicians who sought the GOP nod, said the very same thing about their preferred candidate. The fact remains that Huntsman-much like Mitt Romney, who garnered only one percent of  voters who labeled conservatism as their top priority in the Iowa caucuses-appeals predominately to those Republicans who are outliers within the party. They both garner plaudits from institutional left wing media organs and earn scorn from right wing opinion shapers, although Huntsman’s seemingly conscious effort to attack conservative sacred cows, and like defeated presidential candidate John McCain-one of Romney’s newest supporters-gratuitously insult conservatives, no doubt makes him a preferable opponent of President Obama to people like Stephen Colbert. 

Granted, there are some differences, both substantive and superficial, between the two men that require acknowledgement. While Mitt Romney’s rhetorical bellicosity towards China has been much remarked upon during this campaign, Huntsman-reflecting his history as a diplomat-has gone out of his way to allay concerns that a trade war between the PRC and the United States is imminent. Another distinction between the two is their approach with respect to national security and foreign policy issues. A perfect illustration of how they differ can be found in this exchange between the men over what should be done in the Afghanistan theater of war. But perhaps the greatest divide between the two candidates lies in an issue that has thus far escaped critical scrutiny, which is to say immigration.

While Huntsman has adopted the line of the open borders lobby-including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, whose leadership has slandered any patriotic American who embraces sensible immigration policies even as Mormons die as a result-Romney has thus far espoused one of the toughest stances against illegal immigration to be found among Republican challengers to Barack Obama. He has pledged to veto the DREAM Act, opposed sanctuary cities, supported E-Verify, and highlighted the importance of employer sanctions, which everyone recognizes as the keystone of any successful regime of immigration enforcement in this country. It was the relentless criticism of Romney-and to a lesser extent, Michele Bachmann-that torpedoed the presidential aspirations of Rick Perry, which we can all be grateful for. And perhaps most impressively of all, when pressed to explain how he would deal with illegal aliens who remain in this country despite stepped-up enforcement efforts, he gave the perfect answer.

Even so, there are good arguments to be made against Mitt Romney’s presidential candidacy from a patriotic immigration reform perspective. Beyond the accusation that his tough stance against illegal immigration is merely a cynical political ploy-an accusation whose refutation is not helped by gaffes like these-there is Romney’s distressing support for H1-B visas and legal immigration mechanisms that are not only rife with fraud but existentially harmful to American citizens. However, even when you take into account these severe limitations, Mitt Romney still can be said to have a far superior record on issues of immigration and border security than his fellow Mormon ex-governor, Jon Huntsman. Whether good enough is good enough is a question that Republican voters will have to answer for themselves.

Months of strenuous campaigning, millions of dollars in political advertising, and countless days of retail politicking will culminate in just a few hours, when a select few will decide who will be awarded the first presidential delegates of the 2012 Republican race for President of the United States. Although not always an accurate gauge of who is ultimately nominated by the Republican Party-a fact pointed out rather inelegantly by Jon Huntsman-the Iowa caucuses do have a significant impact upon the results of future contests, particularly the New Hampshire primary.

That’s why it’s important that we scrutinize the words and deeds-and in some cases, rather extensive voting records-of those who seek the GOP nod to face President Obama this November. Specifically, from the perspective of the immigration enforcement and reform  movement. There are a number of recent polls, from Insider Advantage to Rasmussen Reports, which all show more or less the same dynamics at play. Namely, a battle for the top spot between Mitt Romney and Ron Paul, a surging Rick Santorum, a rejuvenated Rick Perry campaign, and a large percentage of undecided voters who’ve yet to make up their minds. While Fox News has provided a helpful primer on the state of play in Iowa on the eve of the caucuses, it’s important that we take some time to ponder the implications of today’s vote, vis-a-vis sensible immigration policy. 

We start with a candidate  American Rattlesnake has neglected to cover this primary season, mostly because his support among Republican voters amounted to a rounding error, notwithstanding some noteworthy endorsements by conservative political organizations and evangelical Christian activists. However, times have changed for Rick Santorum, who now finds himself third among Republican presidential candidates in most Iowa polls. This rise allows us to examine Santorum’s record on immigration and border security issues, which is a mixed bag, at best. While his overall record is absolutely atrocious, if we’re going to judge him by his Numbers USA scorecard-which is as good a barometer of fitness as any in this regard-then the former senator from Pennsylvania is near the bottom of the pack in terms of potential GOP nominees. Roy Beck gives a harsh, but fair, analysis of Santorum in an overview for Numbers USA that I suggest you all read.

His record in the U.S. Senate and Congress was respectable, as Beck readily acknowledges, and got significantly better the longer he served-he was a strong “no” vote against the DREAM Act during the lame duck session of Congress convened by Senator Harry Reid. What’s more, he has tried to woo us during this primary-going so far as to condemn the sanctimonious scroungers at the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops who have turned societal pardon of illegal aliens into an official sacrament. That said, his record on E-Verify, probably the most effective immigration enforcement tool we currently have at our disposal-and a perfect wedge issue, as Mickey Kaus points out-has been positively abysmal, with his past votes and statements regarding legal immigration being a greater disappointment, although not an anomaly in this field, regretfully.

Santorum’s presidential candidacy reflects the essential dichotomy of the Republican field’s relationship to the subject of immigration. While almost every one of the candidates abjures the term “amnesty,” sometimes comically so, and is in a sense an improvement upon the the Republican Party’s previous presidential nominees, and certainly the previous occupant of the White House, almost all of them have serious limitations and flaws with respect to national identity, sovereignty, and the impediments to progress that our current policy of unfettered, mass immigration represents. The reflexive paeans both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney heap upon the disastrous H1-B visa program is but one example of the weakness of the top tier of Republican presidential candidates. Even Ron Paul, who has made admirable strides to highlight pivotal issues such as the insanity of extending birthright citizenship to the children of illegals and subsidizing those in this country who are trespassing, has regressed during this campaign.

Ironically, the wholly antagonistic nature of the Obama administration, which has effectively declared war on large swathes of the American population, presumably comprising  a portion of the electorate he can safely discard, has actually served to enhance the profile of a crop of candidates that has a conspicuously dovish position on the subject of immigration. For even the disingenuousness of a Rick Perry or harebrained, semantic sophistry by a Newt Gingrich doesn’t approach the unremitting hostility this administration has displayed towards enforcing immigration law. From executive edicts that flagrantly defy the law, to implicit sanction given to localities that flout federal directives on immigration enforcement, to politically-driven witch hunts undertaken against those who have the temerity to enforce the law, President Obama has been an unmitigated disaster for  American citizens who don’t profit personally from the illegal alien industry.

So in that sense, any Republican candidate-now that open borders libertarian Gary Johnson has officially abandoned the GOP-would be better than the current resident of the Oval Office. Unfortunately, that doesn’t mean that every Republican candidate would promote good immigration policy once elected to the presidency. Particularly disappointing has been the flagging campaign of Michele Bachmann, who at one point seemed poised not only to become a prime challenger to Mitt Romney, but also to put the issue of illegal immigration at the forefront of this presidential election. Unfortunately, like the presidential campaign of intrepid congressman Tom Tancredo, Bachmann’s candidacy does not look like it will garner much traction beyond the Iowa caucuses. The fact that Sarah Palin has consigned her to the realm of the Huntsmans of this race certainly does not bode well for her candidacy.

However, that doesn’t mean that the attention she -and even the abortive campaign launched by Herman Cain-gave to the subject of our misguided immigration policy-and the intentional recklessness of this administration in disregarding its duty to protect and defend our borders-did not have an impact on the dimensions of the Republican race. Nor does it mean that this issue will be forgotten any time soon, as the Supreme Court hearing regarding the appeal of an injunction against SB 1070 during the height of the 2012 presidential race ensures. Our porous borders and the devastating consequences of illegal immigration during a prolonged recession will be election issues, regardless of the attractiveness of the eventual GOP nominee. It is our job, as citizens and activists, to push whoever that candidate is in the right direction, and to demand that he make the contrast with President Obama on these issues explicitly clear. Our country can’t afford a return to the days of Obama v. McCain, or Bush v. Kerry…and neither can we.

Our last Rattle of 2011 runs the gamut, all the way from an immigration enforcement success in Pennsylvania to a disappointing judicial setback in South Carolina. However, we begin the final roundup of the year with a must-read essay in The American Conservative by W. James Antle III. It looks at the immigration scorecard in a sober, realistic analysis that takes into account the substantive victories of immigration reformers-such as continued nationwide support for SB 1070 and its clones-to the unquestionable failures, including a seismic change in the language of the immigration debate, which has turned the phrase “immigration reform” into a synonym for wholesale amnesty. It’s a piece that anyone who is concerned about this subject-as I know most of you are-should read in its entirety. 

We continue by highlighting a great post over at the American Thinker that poses several questions that Newt Gingrich has yet to satisfactorily answer about his dubious proposal to create a tiered system of permanent non-citizen workers out of the pool of 11-20 million illegal aliens currently living here. Be John Galt  expresses some other concerns that have yet to be addressed by Newt while emphasizing the points made by Mickey Kaus in his own analysis of Newt’s plan. Something that conservatives supporting Gingrich-but who are ostensibly opposed to amnesty-need to answer is why they’re backing a candidate whose immigration platform mirrors the one put forward by open borders, libertarian economist Bryan Caplan.

Staying in the field of presidential politicking, American Rattlesnake wholeheartedly endorses the statements of Mitt Romney, vis-a-vis President Obama’s illegal alien uncle, Onyango Obama. For those of you who might not recall, Omar Onyango Obama is not only residing in this country illegally-much like the President’s beloved Aunt Zeituni-but is the owner and operator of a liquor store in Boston, despite his recent DUI conviction.

Meanwhile, Mitt Romney’s opponent Rick Perry continued his tough on the border pantomime in Iowa, decrying the inability of the federal government to control our southern border with Mexico, as well as declaring that he would withdraw the Justice Department’s lawsuits against states like Arizona and Alabama. The pull quote from this article is “the border has to be shut down for the future of the United States of America.” One wonders what he would do with the estimated forty percent of illegal aliens who overstay their visas. I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see how serious Governor Perry is about his newfound posture of immigration hawk.

It does seem that the current crop of presidential candidates is being forced to address the concerns of Republican voters, however reluctantly and haltingly. That said, VDare has a fascinating piece exploring the damage that refugee resettlement has caused in Manchester, New Hampshire, and why the national GOP has been completely AWOL on this issue, despite its ritualistic paeans to the role of New Hampshire as the first state in the nation to hold its presidential primary. The politically courageous current mayor of Manchester is standing up for his constituents, even if the federal government and parasitical members of the refugee resettlement industry won’t. Perhaps the boldness of Ted Gatsas will serve as an example for his timorous counterparts in the national GOP to emulate. We can all hope.

The internal strife caused by the U.S. State Department in Maine is mirrored in Florence, Italy, where the tragic deaths of two Senegalese street merchants is being exploited by media organs to condemn the “racism” of ordinary Italians. Sadly, the exploitation of tragedies like this for political purposes is nothing new to the multicultural zealots spearheading the militant, Gramscian left. Nor is the equation of patriotic, reasonable opposition to mass immigration to racism an anomaly, unfortunately. It seems like these sorts of ad hominem attacks come with the territory, as Peter Brimelow pointed out in yesterday’s post.

Heading down to Washington D.C., we find that the usual rogue’s gallery of open borders demagogues is trying once again to foist amnesty upon an American public, and a Congress, that has consistently rejected it since it was first introduced over a decade ago.  The tireless efforts of Dick Durbin to give the bird to American taxpayers and hard-working students wouldn’t be newsworthy in itself, if not for the fact that a Philippine newspaper is now leading the charge to see the enactment of the DREAM Act. Media bias in reporting of immigration issues is nothing new, especially from foreign newspapers who hold no reverence for American law. However, the fact that a member of the United States Senate is cribbing notes from a newspaper overseas in order to undermine the country he’s ostensibly representing is a sad commentary on the state of politics in America in 2011.

Taking a short jaunt to Baltimore, we say farewell to WBAL institution Ron Smith. Before being struck down by cancer at the age of 70, Smith was a resonant voice of reason and integrity in a world where too may fall prey to the lure of the D.C. cocktail circuit. Gregory Kane has a fitting tribute to him in the Washington Examiner. Michelle Malkin testifies to the humanity of Ron on her website as well. Like the late, great Terry Anderson-another immigration patriot who died last year-Ron Smith will be missed by many people across the country, most of whom never knew him personally. Rest in Peace, Ron.

In slightly cheerier news, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has approved a bill that would penalize employers who hire illegal workers. Fox News Latino has the entire story, which touches upon similar bills that were eventually enacted in states like Alabama and Arizona. On the other hand, the drive for immigration enforcement suffered a blow in South Carolina, where a federal judge has enjoined a law that cracked down on human smuggling and gave law enforcement officers the opportunity to detain those arrested for unrelated crimes if they were illegal aliens. As Governor Nikki Haley’s spokesman has said, the ultimate resolution of this case rests in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Our neighbor to the north is having its own immigration problems, which  have been amply documented by American Rattlesnake in previous updates. Canada’s capable Immigration Minister Jason Kenney is tackling them in stride, initiating the largest crackdown on citizenship fraud in recent memory. Of course, his proactive initiatives-including an innovative tip line ordinary Canadians can use to report cases of immigration fraud-have earned scorn from the usual suspects. Notwithstanding the carping from bottom-feeding immigration attorneys and radical, open borders socialists, Kenney has earned respect from the public and his adversaries across the aisle, as this National Post article demonstrates.

If only our president had cabinet members willing to stand up for their fellow countrymen. Instead, we have Hilda Solis, the U.S. Secretary of Labor, doing everything in her capacity to empower illegal aliens instead of the Americans who are struggling beneath a crushing unemployment rate and prolonged recession. Even as the unemployment rate plummets in the Yellowhammer State because of HB 56, Solis tries to find ways to double down on the failure of the Obama administration to provide economic opportunities for American citizens. Combined with the administration’s decision to remove the last remaining National Guard troops from our southern border, Barack Obama has demonstrated his disdain for the concerns of the American electorate.

In other administration news, the head of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Alan Bersin, has resigned from his post. An unconfirmed recess appointment by President Obama, Bersin will be replaced by David V. Aguilar. But don’t worry open borders enthusiasts, Mr. Aguilar is four square in favor of amnesty, although he prefers to call it something else.

Finally, the ongoing congressional investigations into Operation Fast and Furious and this administration’s persistent coverup continue apace. We now have Senator Joseph Lieberman, previously known for his atrocious record on immigration issues, directing the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, which he currently chairs, to investigate the interagency “miscommunication” that lies at the heart of the Fast and Furious debacle. Let’s hope that he and Senator Grassley can elicit a more responsive reaction by administration officials than we’ve seen in the past. What is certain is that the men and woman who were killed, including Agent Jaime Zapata, as a result of the Justice Department’s and ATF’s negligence will never return to the warm embrace of their loved ones. If nothing else, let’s push for some measure of justice and accountability for those still alive.

Hat Tips: The Tea Party Immigration Coalition NCFreedom and NAFBPO

As President Obama follows through on his earlier promises of amnesty by fiat, the Internet is swirling with speculation as to motives, consequences, and potential political fallout. I had an interesting exchange on Twitter yesterday that touched upon these issues indirectly when a follower confidently averred that the administration’s earlier decision to impose Secure Communities upon state and local governments would moot any broader discussion of amnesty, as illegal aliens living throughout affected jurisdictions came into the orbit of ICE. Unfortunately, despite assertions by John Morton in the past, I don’t believe the Obama adminstration has any intention of following through on this plan, especially in light of the President’s propensity to proffer the politically expedient lie when it suits his purposes.

With Democratic governors from the states of Massachusetts, Illinois, and The Empire State all refusing to abide by the law-following in the footsteps of President Obama’s own Secretary of Homeland Security, it should be noted-and a politically revitalized coalition of Hispanic advocacy organizations and open borders advocates, led by honorary Mexican Consul General Luis Gutierrez, the notion that President Obama isn’t going to abandon all immigration enforcement strains credulity. Secure Communities isn’t even the most effective tool for federal-local collaboration when it comes to immigration enforcement, as this website has pointed out in the past, yet rest assured that it too will be jettisoned, especially as November 2012 rapidly approaches and Obama’s standing among the radical left, i.e. “progressives,” becomes essential to his reelection. The ecstatic mood among this particular voting bloc is evident to anyone who has visited the Daily Kos within the past week.

As I delineated in my earlier post on this subject, the main theme that needs to be stressed now is what can be done to combat the Obama amnesty. Unfortunately, aside from the characteristically courageous statement issued by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer, Republican elected officials have been almost completely AWOL in the days since President Obama and his underlings decided to stop enforcing immigration laws against anyone who isn’t an ultra-violent. Whether that will change in the days ahead is an open question, but I haven’t been encouraged by the anemic response from most Republican talking heads, particularly our presidential candidates, to an executive decision that flouts separation of powers and makes a mockery of congressional authority.

One of the Republican front-runners who’s been exceptional, insofar as that superlative can be attached to any of these candidates, in this regard is Minnesota congresswoman Michelle Bachmann. Although she has yet to come out with a forceful denunciation of Obama’s administrative amnesty, as of yesterday, at least, she has been a consistent supporter of immigration enforcement. This part of her legislative and public record has been repeatedly documented and has been reaffirmed by the congresswoman herself in recent days. The only other (major)  presidential aspirant-and I must add the caveat that she has yet to declare her candidacy-who has a comparable record is former John McCain running-mate Sarah Palin. The former governor of Alaska has consistently and vehemently defended defended SB 1070, as well as Governor Jan Brewer.

I am not endorsing the candidacy of either woman, but suggesting that the philosophy they’ve espoused is where anyone seriously vying for the Republican presidential nomination should begin. The insipid open borders pandering of John Huntsman, the deceitful charade of Rick Perry, and the sophistry of pseudo-intellectual Newt Gingrich can not substitute for a consistent, sincere commitment to tougher border security, robust internal enforcement, sensible immigration restrictions, and implacable opposition to amnesty, especially the patently unconstitutional, extralegal form of amnesty that President Obama’s flunkies have foisted upon an embattled, denigrated American public.

The person who ultimately wins the GOP nod, in other words, should emulate the example of the brave woman whose photograph you see above. Yes, that person should be able to articulate this viewpoint in a manner befitting the circumstances of  his or her campaign, but the determination and the underlying message-at least as far as the subject of immigration is concerned-should be consonant with the principles enunciated by Governor Brewer and this website for the past year. Allowing President Obama to skate on this issue is not only a politically disastrous prescription-which will embolden an open borders left already flush with victory while simultaneously bolstering Barack Obama’s flagging reelection campaign-but one that is ruinous to America as a society. That’s the message that needs to be drilled into the heads of Republican office-seekers who want to lead this nation.

A few observations about last night’s Republican presidential debate, at least as it pertains to the subjects of immigration and border control:

-Newt Gingrich, despite his previous record of supporting amnesty, acquitted himself quite well. At least, rhetorically. His suggestion that American citizens be able to review prospective immigrants, although impractical in theory, does put the emphasis of immigration in the right place. Namely, in the hands of Americans who are seeking the best and the brightest, rather than simply empowering those who want to settle in this country. Millions, perhaps billions, of individuals would immigrate to the United States if afforded the opportunity, but I think it’s our responsibility to consider the opinions of all Americans, naturalized and native-born citizens alike, rather than simply assume that every single person seeking to come here is doing so in good faith. 

-Herman Cain nicely defused the accusation that he’s a xenophobic vigilante, vis-a-vis the issue of border control, by explaining that he favored the construction of fences as well as welcoming new, legal immigrants who sought to contribute to American society. He noted that you can be both generous and firm on this issue, and that the two aren’t mutually exclusive. I also thought he tackled the amnesty question with aplomb, noting that there does exist a “path to citizenship,” which entails immigrating to this country legally. It would have been nice if he had coupled this with pragmatic suggestions about how to eliminate much of the byzantine federal bureaucracy that currently impedes the process for highly talented, law-abiding foreign nationals.

-Ron Paul continued to attempt a precarious balancing act which entails pandering to the liberal, open borders faction among libertarians, while retaining some of the pro-enforcement, hawkish paleocons who have supported past campaigns. Personally, I don’t think he succeeded. Yes, the welfare state is an attractive nuisance to people from across the globe, and is a huge part of any discussion, but to merely focus on that aspect to the neglect of every other problem unfettered immigration poses-particularly the allocation of scarce resources-is misguided. And although I agree with Rep. Paul that employers are put in an unenviable position-punished for employing illegals yet also prohibited from inquiring into their legal status in many instances-I do believe that a sovereign government has a right to determine who is and is not admitted to its country. And as long as states can Constitutionally establish labor laws, I think it’s hard to proclaim that they don’t also have the ability to proscribe the employment of people who are living in this country illegally.

-Jon Huntsman attempted to run away from his uniformly dreadful record on immigration and immigration enforcement issues to no avail. I suppose he should be credited for at least rhetorically stepping away from the default Bush/McCain stance, although I doubt his sincerity.

Other than that, there’s not much to be said about last night’s Republican presidential primary debate as far as immigration is concerned. We didn’t hear many new proposals, and despite some good answers regarding illegal immigration, there was not enough focus on proactive approaches to reducing immigration levels to a sustainable level in the near future. For a brief recap on what was said at the debate, check out the Twitter stream of Numbers USA, the nation’s premiere, grassroots organization lobbying on behalf of immigration enforcement and reform.

Update: My good friend was also at at the May Day events and has some fantastic video footage, which you can find at The Silent Majority No More. The rest of her coverage can be found at her website as well. More video from the day’s festivities can be found on Youtube.

As promised, today I will present the conclusion to American Rattlesnake’s May Day coverage, including the robust, sustained-and to our country’s enemies, deeply irritating-counter-protest staged by this website’s editor-in-chief in collaboration with New York Ice.

As you can see by the photo above, our critics-in this case, the feral, reflexively violent antifa thugs who met us at Foley Square-were not eager to be photographed. Whether that was out of concern for being identified by NYPD officers the next time they attempt to assault a peaceful assembly of dissident voices, or out of respect for the hundreds of visitors who would be forced to look at their faces in the following days is something I’ll  let you decide.

Fortunately, there were a few “anti-fascists” who I was able to detain for a brief snapshot. This young woman, for example, evokes memories of a young Faye Dunaway, perhaps after being hit with a tire iron. An arresting image, nonetheless.

This zaftig Mexican girl below was particularly aggrieved by my unobtrusive photography that day, although I can’t for the life of me discern why. After bombarding me with some choice expletives for several minutes, she was gently escorted beyond police barricades by some NYPD officers and asked to remove her  jaunty black bandana/face-mask.

At this point, the street theater they were attempting-by ripping signs from the hands of counter-protesters, showering us with abuse, and generally acting like ignoramuses-descended into farce, as the well-fed IA began to weep like a  young child whose favorite plaything has been ripped from her arms.

Even though these photos might lead you to  believe there was a sarin or mustard gas attack upon Foley Square, the truth is that the nose-holding and face-covering is merely part of the theatrical element antifa crybabies brought to the fore during their ridiculous posturing that day. I think you can judge its effectiveness by the look on the face of the Muslim man pictured below.

As entertaining as the black-clad anarchists were, there was also much amusement to be found throughout the rally, including on stage. The African-American gentleman in the background is, ironically enough, named Clarence Thomas. Leader of the radical International Longshore & Warehouse Union-Local 10, he was joined on stage by the afternoon’s emcee, who spent the better part of two hours explaining why her organization had decided to hold two separate rallies which were both ended prematurely.

I AM ASKED WHY WE DECIDED TO HOLD TWO RALLIES, AND MY ANSWER IS…BECAUSE…!

The last declamation was followed in short order by a tangent having absolutely no bearing on the ostensible reason for staging this rally. In other words, even the people who organized this event had absolutely no clue why they were there in the first place. I wish I could say I was surprised by this revelation.

There were also some festive people in Indian, or as the politically correct stewards of speech would say “indigenous,” dress doing a rain dress which was strangely ineffective.

And of course, what illegal alien friendly event would be complete without someone spouting completely inaccurate, misleading statistics that are easily debunked?

Thankfully, on this day the masses of pro-amnesty, anti-American, revanchist reds were confronted by a group of Americans, some of them immigrants themselves, who saw the need to assert their views amidst the cacophony of stridently anti-American voices. Although initially outnumbered, we stood our ground and endured to the end, even outlasting the loud, obnoxious, but morally bankrupt forces that had tried to colonize Foley Square that afternoon.

My favorite part of the day, bar none, was when a group of hostile illegal aliens and socialists attempted to heckle us into submission but were silenced once we withdrew our driver’s licenses and photo identification. When we asked them where their papers were, accompanied by the chorus to the great 1980s Genesis tune, Illegal Alien, we were greeted with shame-faced silence and dumb stares. A small victory, it was nevertheless an  extremely gratifying moment.

Joanna Marzullo, president of New Yorkers for Immigration Control and Enforcement, expresses her point of view. You can find video coverage of her part in the counter-demonstration on Youtube.

Even in the Big Apple, there are people who stand with Arizona, as this past May Day demonstrated.

The lesson to be drawn from this event, IMO, is that no matter how outnumbered you might feel when fighting the hordes of radical, open borders crusaders, there are always people willing to stand by your side when you defend basic American values.

WEEKEND IN WASHINGTON ~
                      Sacking out at CPAC
 
Had a great! time in Washington–the guys were interesting; it was strange but not too terrible to share a room with them, as all the hotels were sold out and overbooked, and Georgia was great, aside from her horrible smoking habit, which was hard to take any time we were outside. We are just not used to breathing that rancid smoke any more, since it has become so rare over the years of froideur against smoking in private and, now, even public spaces.
 
I biked everywhere in DC. There were few riders, so few that they all said hi and waved at me–the weather was gorgeous, about 15-20 degrees warmer than Manhattan, where the black ice has taken up what seems like permanent residence on patches, and filthy crusts of the big snow still grudgingly squats at corners and atop inanimate objects, untended cars and piles of rubbish. There were 12,000 plus people there, and the delight was feeling so in synch with them–they were all on my side of the ledger. It was the biggest turnout in the history of CPAC.

The speeches and presentations were fabulous, some so funny it could have been a nightclub (Ann Coulter), some so magnificent our waves of applause were unbroken from one thought or statement to the next (Florida’s Alan West–a man I think might in a few years be president–he already carries himself with the gravitas of a hero and a leader, which I believe he is and was). We went from early a.m. to late p.m., going from ballroom to meeting space, from 3,000 in a room and overflow, to a packed room or two with ‘only’ 100 or so (on the history of the current Israeli/arab situation), in a room so hard to find it was amazing to us that anyone was seated by the time we found it, far in some aerie of the vast Woodley Marriott on Connecticut Avenue. I was so proud of myself,  flying everywhere on the bike, in strange streets–but it’s not as if it were China, where the streets were black at night, and I never knew where the edges of the road actually were, and every car coming, in either direction, was a menace. 
 
DC midtown is a pleasure, a grid that is easy to figure out and navigate; wide, wide streets; stately and gracious capitol-ish buildings; historic sites; lovely roundabouts (Dupont Circle and others) and to me, the traffic was laughably light compared to the constant turmoil and bubble of the NYC canyons. The cars are slow to accelerate after a light change, which seems strangely courteous and helped me quite a bit to  circumnavigate huge multilane avenues and intersections. I got places in half the time. My friends  arrived via train, or even taxi.

Neither Sarah Palin nor Dick Morris were in attendance; somehow I would have expected both, but she has priorities, and so does he. And as press, even rooms that were packed to the gills were open to me and the men or women I brought with me. Others had to wait in queues that were hundreds of people deep, then repair to overflow rooms for the video of the speakers. Everyone smiled at everyone. We got free T-shirts, hats, buttons, pins, paraphernalia, books. My favorite t-shirt:  I read it for the articles (Constitution.com). There were book signings, and live on-the-spot interviews. Andrew Breitbart got to be caught in the nexus of mics on the central hotel lobby floor. Breitbart was almost as funny as he was smart and cogent on the problems assailing us.
 
People were well dressed, the women were foxy and often sexy, teetery on tall stems and spike heels, the men in well-tailored suits and conservative but cool haircuts. There were well-behaved people from every one of the 50 states, a sprinkling of African-Americans, Hispanics, cowboys, pols, mavens. There were lots of kids, many teens, a few elderly individuals, but masses upon masses of well-informed, sharp adults taking the reins. Many of the ‘jokes’ made could not have been understood were the listeners not amazingly au courant with every aspect of government and events of the day. Former Ambassador John Bolton, serious and deeply conversant with the realities of politics and diplo-urgencies the world over, remarked that with the shocking failures of intelligence revealed by the events in Egypt, Yemen, Jordan, Tunisia and now, Algeria, unfolding without anyone in the administration knowing much beyond the average Joe, this is one time Clapper ought not to be fired, since in all likelihood, he would be replaced with someone even worse.  
 
All in all, the excellent feelings of bonhomie carried us along even though it was hard to find food, and no time for restaurants, though we did find a great organic Chinese place not far from the convention with delicious and light fare. I found a cell phone, three undated/unnamed compromising photos in a plain manila envelope, and a shirt. I turned them in to the hotel Lost and Found.  Our friend Chris lost his cell, and when I called to locate him, a woman answered. She had found the cell, and guarded it for hours, and she and I navigated toward each other through the teeming throngs via constant re-vectoring, and my red hat, something that made finding me easier.
 
The cell phenomenon really is a marvel: We all called each other constantly, since the minute you went to the loo or out for a water, you were swallowed up by people. So all day long we were in constant touch–Where are you now? Which escalator bank? Is that Chris Rock–oh, looks exactly like him, though… Doesn’t Betsy Mccaughey  look great in that winter-white suit? Are you looking at Margaret Hoover being interviewed? Hey! That’s Richard Dreyfuss over there! [I spoke with him Friday and Saturday–he has totally white hair, and wore a Tyrolese hat that made him resemble a cheery troll with mushroom tendencies. I addressed him as Mr. Dreyfuss. He answered me back, Hello, Mrs. Dreyfus. Weird but funny. A hugeuber-liberal, Dreyfuss had to feel this event was excruciating, so I asked if this event were not excruciating; I am sure he is doing some undeclared docu or something…] Was that Jim Pinkerton passing you–is he 6’8″ or what? A giant! And is there free food at that lecture? Did you get that tote bag at the NRA booth? Where’d you get that magazine? Tea Party people were there, a strong undercurrent, with a few presentations in not massive meeting halls. 
 
Lots of celebs, lots of firepower, lots of ‘popcorn’–jumping up and down, clapping madly. My hands are shreds of their former selves. We whooped and hollered. What the State of the Union might have been, should have been, was heard from the Boltons, Haley Barbours, and the roster of outstanding speakers from inside and beyond the Beltway.
 
The only surprising and disturbing thing was the results of the straw poll–some 3,740 people voted–not me, as I never saw the ballots anywhere–and the results were given for the preferred 2012 presidential candidates: Ron Paul (odd, since he has zero chance of winning) and Chris Christie, governor of NJ who is building quite a head of steam, but is not onboard in terms of things like amnesty-which he endorses-and illegal aliens. My friends and I were dismayed, actually, by the huge roar that went up at the results–surely not these people! Paul is draconian, perhaps, on issues, and that makes him popular–but insofar as my issues go, he seems a far outlier who is scarily off the reservation.
 
My companions and I were chastened by the results, even though they were not a scientific poll in any way, and there is the possibility that Paul had a big staff representation at the convention, and voting; we have no way of knowing if the results were skewed, though the interpreters did a superior job of tabulating all sorts of aspects in bar graphs and scales, projected onto our giant screens, and compared last year’s results to this year’s on all the variables. The results were teased out for many minutes with slides and analysis before the audience got the tachlis they sought: Which candidates are favored by this crowd for 2012. Note that the rest of the ticket was not hazarded at all, though Georgia thinks Bachmann and Mitch Daniels, Johnson Huntsman and Jindal have a better chance than the straw poll results indicated.

A sad note: Jonah Goldberg had been scheduled to speak, and at the last minute was subbed for by someone (from the National Review). A friend emailed that Jonah’s 43-year-old brother, Josh, had fallen from something–and had died. Their mother is Lucianne Goldberg, quite famous from blogging … and the Monica Lewinsky “stained-dress confessionals.”
 
We had free wi-fi in our terrific hotel room (another Marriott, just 10 minutes’ biking from the convention), a kitchenette and dishwasher and fridge and stove as well as a dressing room, three beds and great lighting–that is my major focus, as most hotels are underlit. They gave us a fabulous included breakfast with fruit and fries and eggs and waffles and toast and yogurt and cereal and juices and tea and coffee. Held us through the day. 
 
Looking around in the hotel’s breakfast room, I spoke with some men in my elementary Arabic, and I had guessed right–they were businessmen from Tunisia, and we discussed the current Egyptian imbroglio. They think the Muslim brotherhood to-do is overblown, a figment of the press, and not the risk we make of it. While that is comforting, I somehow doubt their take is as real-politicky as is ours. A mistake to judge our situation by another culture’s assessment, no matter how well-meaning.
  
Anyway–a vast high.  I shall go again.
 
marion ds dreyfus          .   .   .        20(c)11