Magic City Morning Star

Advertising | RSS Feed | About Us 

Last Updated: Oct 13, 2013 - 12:38:22 AM 

An eclectic mix of news and information
Staff Login
Donate towards our web hosting bill!

Front Page 
  -- Local
  -- State
  -- National
  -- IRS News
  -- Win at Work
  -- History
  Tech Notes
  -- Comics
  -- R.P. BenDedek
  -- Kenneth Tellis
  -- M Stevens-David
  -- Down the Road
  Today in History
  -- Editor's Desk
  -- Guest Column
  -- Scheme of Things
  -- Michael Devolin
  -- Tom DeWeese
  -- Ed Feulner
  -- Jim Kouri
  -- Julie Smithson
  -- J. Grant Swank
  -- Doug Wrenn
  Agenda 21
  Book Reviews
  -- Old Embers

Web Directory Reviews
WDR Directory of Directories
Restore The Republic - The Home of the Freedom Movement!

Nicholas Stix

Invaders Demand Surrender: Who Will Say “Nuts” to Them?
By Nicholas Stix
May 9, 2006 - 7:33:00 PM

Email this article
 Printer friendly page
The Gathering Storm

Was May 1 America’s version of Hitler in the Rhineland?

On March 7, 1936, Hitler illegally marched into the Rhineland at the head of his then ragtag Reichsarmee (Imperial Army). The Rhineland had been permanently demilitarized by the Treaty of Versailles, which ended World War I – then known as “The Great War.”

In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, journalist-historian William Shirer told of how on March 7, instead of taking the Fuehrer and his troops prisoner, complacent French troops nearby played soccer. Although the French had heroically held off the Germans for four years during World War I, in June 1940, French troops in the Rhineland would offer at best token resistance before surrendering to the Germans, who steamrolled the entire country in a mere six weeks.

Although we eventually bailed out France, she never recovered from Hitler. You wonder if, had the French stood up to Hitler in 1936, whether they would be bending over for Moslems in 2006.

If America does not stand up to the illegal human beings in her midst, and send them back from whence they came, America will be destroyed within a generation, by which time she will exist in name only.

May Day! May Day!

May 1 was supposed to be a “Day Without Immigrants,” and yet all we heard or saw all day via the media, was “immigrants” telling us that we were without them, and that our withoutness was hurting us terribly. It didn’t hurt me or mine one bit. Had it not been for the saturation media propaganda, we wouldn’t even have known about it. (Mind you, we had no need to go to Manhattan.)

Had the illegals been serious about making us do without them, they would have slinked off into the proverbial shadows in which they live in the cliches of MSM propagandists. If only they lived in the shadows! It is American citizens – including millions of American workers who have been unemployed for so long that they long ago exhausted their benefits and no longer show up in unemployment statistics, or are chronically underemployed in part-time, low-wage jobs – who have been forced into the shadows by the motley anti-American alliance of the MSM, America’s alleged educators, communist organizers, the cheap labor lobby’s stooges in the U.S. Senate, and the traitor in the White House.

On May 1, alleged TV journalists kept saying that the “boycott” marchers were demonstrating their “power.” At the immigration-restrictionist Web site VDARE, columnist-blogger James Fulford heard and read the media use the phrase “show of force”  though he reports that at least one outlet, the Los Angeles Times, thought better of it, and changed its photo caption from “Show of Force” to “Images of Protest.”

Fulford wrote, “It should worry you that Mexico is deploying a “show of force” in American cities, and it should also worry you that the American media doesn’t think anything of it.”

“Worry” is not the emotion I’m feeling these days.

I wonder how many American patriots, watching the celebratory May 1 TV “news” coverage of lawlessness, shot out their TV sets.

I don’t know what was more disgusting that day. Was it the millions of criminals who have impoverished millions of law-abiding, working-class Americans, flaunting their contempt for American law, and demanding that they be rewarded for their crimes?

Was it the alleged journalists who gave up all pretense to objectivity and became shameless, slobbering, illegal immigration cheerleaders? (I’m sure that pleased their own illegal nannies, cooks, gardeners and cleaning ladies.) They tried to avoid showing Mexican flags, but it was impossible! They were more successful, however, in editing out the racist America-bashers.

Was it the communist organizers egging on the illegals?

Or was it the alleged parents and alleged educators who again committed the crimes of educational neglect and contributing to the delinquency of a minor, by telling tens of thousands of students to commit truancy that day, as they had previously done in March and April?

As a legal immigrant I know said, if legal citizens (well, white or Asian legal citizens) encouraged their kids to be truant, they’d be brought up on charges.

Candy and Flowers

The New York TV news broadcasts I saw gave no time to critics of illegal – much less, legal – immigration. They let invasion advocates claim that people whose very existence on American soil is a crime, were exercising their “constitutional rights.” Alleged reporters lied, in claiming that most Americans support an illegal immigrant amnesty “under certain conditions,” as a WNBC reporter asserted.

The WNBC reporter was probably speaking on the basis of the rigged Time magazine “poll” that moderate Democrat blogger, Mickey Kaus, made a mockery of.)

Neither that nor any other “journalist” I heard that day would report on the demand three weeks earlier, on CNN’s Lou Dobbs Tonight, by boycott organizer  “Nativo” Lopez, whose real name is Larry, the president of the Los Angeles-based Mexican-American Political Association, for "full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States."

DOBBS: And will you accept anything less than amnesty?

LOPEZ: Absolutely not. We're looking for full immediate, unconditional legalization for all persons currently in the United States. They've already paid their way, Dobbs. They paid their way more than enough, than anybody can expect of them, we don't need earned legalization, we need legalization right now of all our folks here….

And May 1st, you are going to feel the effects of nobody going to work, nobody going to school, shopping or selling, because we're calling it The Great American Boycott: A Day Without Immigrants. Marching in the street for full, immediate, unconditional legalization of all working people that are here currently without documents.

DOBBS: Nativo, you're talking about feeling the impact, you're talking about a boycott of all illegal aliens in this country?

LOPEZ: Well first off, I refute your terminology. You don't say kike, patty, WOP, OK, you don't say nigger.

DOBBS: Partner, I don't even listen to that kind of language. You pollute the air.

LOPEZ: You're using language that's offensive to me and offensive to my people.

DOBBS: You are wrong.

LOPEZ: You pollute the air every day, Dobbs. You are absolutely wrong….

DOBBS: ... Let me tell you what. If you're going to boycott the country … what do you expect the impact to be?...

LOPEZ: Basically to send a message to Congress, send a message to America, send a message to you, to appreciate the labor of immigrants in the United States, appreciate us, the same way when you lose a loved one, and you -- and you try to...

DOBBS: Nativo, let me ask you something.

LOPEZ: ... recoup that love of that person with flowers, with candy, because you now appreciate you've lost her. And that's essentially the effect of a political message to Congress on May 1st. We won't go to work, we won't go to school, we won't be buying products, we'll be marching in the street for legalization.

DOBBS: What would you do, do you suppose, Nativo, you and anyone who would join in such a boycott -- what do you do without America? You're suggesting what we would do without illegal aliens, what would you do without America?

Lopez evaded Dobbs’ question, repeating his baseless claim that America needs illegals.

DOBBS: Nativo Lopez, an organizer -- Nativo, let me ask you just one thing as we sum it up. How do you say chutzpah in Spanish?

LOPEZ: I don't know. It takes a lot of brains, that's for sure.

DOBBS: You've got that right.

LOPEZ: We've got it, because we're out in the streets.

Lopez also considers the notion of assimilation deeply offensive. He condemns amnesty requirements that illegals must learn English and American history, pay a fine and back taxes, swear an oath of allegiance to the United States of America, and give up their allegiance to the nation of their birth. And as Paul Nachman reported at VDARE, Lopez adamantly opposes America building a wall to keep out future invasions. Thus does Lopez refuse to recognize America’s right to exact any of the duties that she has always required of all new citizens, and even her right to act as a sovereign nation.

Lovers or Rapists?

Big Media likewise refused to report on the outrage felt by millions of American citizens at Nativo Lopez’ criminal circus.

During the Passover seder, one of the four questions the youngest boy at the table must ask is, “How is tonight different from all other nights?” And so it was with the so-called boycott. How was the strike different from all other days?

Illegal aliens made it impossible for Americans and legal immigrants to drive in the cities where the criminals marched. They refused to serve Americans, and successfully pressured American businesses whose customers are virtually all Americans, to shut their doors to them, or to refuse to make deliveries to them. In other words, they were obnoxious.

And yet, illegals now expect us to love them all the more. Well, here’s how it works in the real world. Back in 1995, I used to write in defense of “immigrants.” Since then, I have made a point of researching the reality of “immigration,” but my most dramatic lessons have come at the hands of the “immigrants” themselves. And tens of millions of Americans have learned the same lessons the same way.

On May 1, alleged reporters all repeated the illegal alien talking points asserting that illegals are essential to the U.S. economy. And yet, what contribution do they make? They don’t do jobs that “Americans won’t do”; before the illegals came, all of those jobs were either done by Americans (by American employees, or in cases such as mowing lawns, or small-scale home repair, often by American homeowners themselves), or simply not done, because employers would not pay even a subsistence wage. Is it a good thing that there are millions of people who will now work for less than subsistence wages?

An economics student will respond, “But that’s impossible. No one can work for less than a subsistence wage.”

Wrong. A law-abiding person cannot work for less than a subsistence wage, because he cannot pay his taxes, rent, medical bills, subway fare, etc., on those wages. (Unless, that is, he is virtually homeless, as I was when I worked for below-subsistence wages teaching college during much of the 1990s, had to give up my apartment, and ended up having to sleep on an army cot in my mother’s studio apartment.) But a person willing to break any number of laws can live on below-subsistence wages. A person who is in the country illegally, getting paid under the table (i.e., not paying any taxes), and living in an illegally overcrowded house (paying way below market-level rent), who illegally rides the subway without paying his fare, and who, when he gets sick, instead of going to the doctor and paying for his care, simply shows up at a hospital emergency room and freeloads off of paying Americans, can work for less than subsistence wages.

As economist Thomas Sowell has shown, illegals don’t even provide cheap lettuce.

Oddly enough, however, increasing numbers of illegal immigrants are doing quite well. The workers at IFCO Systems, the company that was raided by the feds in a propaganda op last month, were making $600-700 per week, better money than I ever made teaching college with a master’s degree.

That employers would hire illegals to even well-paying jobs is due to three factors: 1. The employers do not pay taxes or benefits for the illegals; 2. Illegals are seen as more pliable, diligent workers than Americans, especially compared to American blacks; and 3. A fashionable, socially acceptable hatred of the white American working class.

And yet, illegals do not contribute at all to “the economy.” They do better or worse for themselves – and since their mere existence in these United States is a crime, they don’t count – send billions of dollars annually to their home countries, which also does not count, and contribute to their bosses getting rich – who, because the latter are criminals, also don’t count. American businessmen-criminals, foreign illegals, and foreign economies, si. The American economy, no.

Illegal immigrants only contribute to the American economy in a parallel universe, in which what is good for Mexico and good for a lawless employer class is good for the United States.

So, what businesses were hurt by the illegal aliens’ strike? The same businesses that have made millions off the hiring of illegal aliens, or who profit indirectly from them. For instance, Home Depot indirectly profits off of the illegal aliens who loiter in front of its stores, because Home Depot’s customers use them as indentured servants. Those are the same businesses that expressed their support for the illegals’ boycott. Nowadays, self-righteous opportunists always seem in a hurry to express their impassioned support of crime and evil – while others must foot the bill.

Businesses hurt by the “boycott”? Cry me a river!

Dreams and Delusions

Unlike in 1940 France, America’s surrender will not take place over six weeks’ time. It has already been underway since circa 1970, and will require another thirty or so years to complete.

And yet, even if the invaders do win, their Reconquista will be a pyrrhic victory. Reconquistas’ revanchist wishes and dreams are synonymous with what they define among themselves as the true meaning of “bilingualism.”  In this political fantasy, they assume that the whites and Asians whom they hate will remain in the states that the Reconquistas have taken over, and be forced to live as virtual slaves, with most of their income confiscated by the government and given to Hispanics. (In 1995-96, when I taught at “bilingual” Hostos Community College in The Bronx, a tenured activist professor had propaganda fliers explicitly promoting the above sense of “bilingualism” placed in our mailboxes. Reconquistas hold blacks in contempt, but know they can’t squeeze nearly as much out of them as they can out of whites. Interestingly, while blacks have for forty years looked down on Hispanics, while using them as political pawns, Hispanics presently seek to force that same subordinate role on blacks.)

It’ll never happen. For one thing, it’s economically impossible. The only way you can have lavish social welfare programs is if almost every able-bodied person is working at a well-paying, or at least decently-paying job, while very few people qualify for welfare programs. Otherwise, you end up in a vicious circle of increasing taxes, private sector de-investment and flight, a shrinking tax base, increasing illegitimacy, poverty, crime, and illiteracy, all leading to additional tax increases, leading to…

The other reason it won’t happen, is that whites and Asians will leave for states in the Northcentral and Northwest regions, which will then engage in their own immigration enforcement, the feds be damned. Thus will there be high-tax, high-crime, high-illegitimacy, low-education, predominantly brown states and predominantly white/Asian states with much lower tax rates and rates of social pathology. (Where will blacks live under the Reconquista? Beats me.) America might still exist on paper, but terms like “U.S.A.” would be meaningless, except to foreign postal services.

If we let the invaders and their Marxist and elite allies destroy America, they will ultimately turn certain states such as Texas and California into huge slums – like much of today’s Mexico and Central America – and thus expand the Third World. The American Dream will then be dead, and the Reconquista Dream will turn into just another Banana Republic nightmare.

But I'm not ready to surrender, are you?

In late December 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, the German Reichsarmee laid siege to the Belgian town of Bastogne, which was held by the 101st Airborne. On December 22, a German messenger went in, relaying his commanding officer’s demand that the acting CO of the 101st Airborne, Gen. Anthony Clement McAuliffe, surrender. Gen. McAuliffe’s one-word answer became the most legendary statement of the war: “Nuts!”

(The story of the men who held Bastogne was brilliantly told by the 1949 movie Battleground, which was written by Master Sgt. Robert Pirosh, who fought there. Pirosh, who had been a successful comedy screenwriter before the war, became the Poet Laureate of the Infantry after the war.)

McAuliffe was a great commander, and he led great men. McAuliffe’s men held Bastogne until armor and air cover could arrive, and eventually beat the Germans. As columnist Bethanne Kelly Patrick writes, “Their victory resulted in the first full-Division Presidential Distinguished Unit Citation.”

In case the story of Bastogne is too metaphorical for you, consider a very real invasion from over 50 years ago. We had over one million illegal Mexicans at the time, most of them in Texas. Many were holdovers from the “guest worker” Bracero program with Mexico. As the saying goes, there’s nothing more permanent than a guest worker. Others were conventional illegal border crossers, lured by exploitive farmers.

Ike was president at the time. Did he dither, cowed by charges that it would be “xenophobic,” “inhumane,” and “impractical” to send the illegals back? For the same charges made by today’s Fifth Columnists and opportunists were made at the time. Not at all. Instead, in July 1954, Ike had his commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), Gen. Joseph May Swing, set in motion “Operation Wetback.” INS officers swept areas known to harbor illegals, stopping Mexican-looking men on the street, and demanding that they show legal identification. Thus did the INS summarily deport, using trains, buses, and ships, one million Mexican illegals back to Mexico.

Who will be today’s McAuliffe, today’s Ike, today’s Gen. Swing, saying “nuts” to the invading army laying siege to us? And who will be today’s 101st, today’s “INS,” standing with them, and vanquishing the invaders?

There is still time to save America … but not much.

© Copyright 2002-2013 by Magic City Morning Star

Top of Page

Nicholas Stix
Latest Headlines
The GOP Primaries: New Hampshire, Michigan, and Beyond
Seeing Reds: Overcoming Political Colorblindness
The FBI's War on Richard Jewell - Part II
Grade Inflation and Reality Testing
Remembering Richard Jewell

A Dinosaur of Education - a blog by James Fabiano.
Shobe Studios
Wysong Foods - Pets and People Too