Our hard-working, south-of-the-border freedom fighters


Imagine with me we’re attending one of those “candidate forums” where local office-seekers address the public. Two candidates for the office of dog-catcher rise. The first seems unaccustomed to public speaking. He offers no grandiose speech. He just calmly says “If you elect me, I’m going to do my best to round up these packs of feral dogs we’ve got around here, attacking children and family pets and the like. That’s about it.” He sits down.

Now his opponent rises, waving his arms, seemingly quite agitated, growing red in the face.

“I reject this offensive, dangerous rhetoric!” the second candidate shouts. “I’m a passionate defender of man’s best friend, the dog! I’ll have you know that dogs kill a lot fewer children than adult humans do! Furthermore, I consider my opponent’s anti-dog rhetoric to be incendiary! It amounts to species-ism! And there are too many of them, anyway; you’d never get them all. It’s ridiculous! My opponent’s proposal to round up hundreds of our freedom-loving, tail-wagging canine friends is nuts! It’s just plain crazy!”

Other things being equal, which candidate would you vote for? I suspect a solid majority of folks around these parts would elect the candidate for dog-catcher who wants to, you know . . . catch dogs.

Now, I’ve written elsewhere on this blog, recently, that there are times to not enforce the law. Elected officers responsible for enforcing the laws can set priorities. We’ve got so darned many laws (far too many), they pretty much have to. So if an office-holder volunteers he’s going to dedicate most of his man-power to going after murderers and rapists and Somali pirates and bankers who accepted bail-out money but then refused to pass along any of those financial benefits to mortgage holders, as intended — while easing off on arcane regulations that cripple job-creating businesses (starting with this nonsense about carbon dioxide being a “pollutant,”) I’d celebrate that.

If a newly elected president were to publicly announce he believes the “War on Drugs” is unconstitutional, along with any laws under which we currently threaten to jail people for importing, building, selling or owning the “wrong kind” of firearm, that he’s therefore ordering his U.S. attorneys to stop bringing such prosecutions until such time as this new President can convince Congress to repeal those unconstitutional laws, or the high court to join him in declaring them void for unconstitutionality, I’d celebrate that.

So it would be a bit hypocritical for me to start demanding that any elected president and his or her appointed attorney general vow that they’re going to start devoting equal energy to enforcing every law.

But I’m subject to the immigration laws, as you are. It used to be we could leave this country and re-enter without a passport, certainly from Canada or Mexico. That’s gotten a lot harder. I’m subject to laws that unconstitutionally limit my right to travel freely, as you are. It used to be — I distinctly remember, back before 1975 — that if we boarded a commercial aircraft in this country, and we had trouble fitting our cased hunting rifle into one of the overhead luggage bins, the stewardess would help us. No “showing your ID.” No metal detectors; no “body scans.” No de facto ban on firearms. No one would even ask if your gun was loaded. And guess what? There were no mass shootings! (Maybe it’s not the guns?)

We’re subject to all these onerous and intrusive new routines. But illegal aliens aren’t?


We now have a presidential candidate -– Donald Trump -– who says that if elected he’ll enforce the immigration laws now on the books. I differ from Mr. Trump on a number of issues, especially the War on Drugs, where he says he’d like to see more people locked up for longer prison sentences. (A million people in our prisons, each locked up for decades, in a hopeless and absurd century-old War on Plants, and that’s not enough?)

But I find the hysterical response of Mr. Trump’s opponents, to what ought to be a routine and unexceptional assertion that (if elected to head the executive branch) he’d enforce current immigration law, worthy of note. It’s an historical curiosity, especially at a time when we’re overrun with 10 million illegal aliens -– and even legal Muslim immigrants and their children -– who are committing multiple murders, assaulting women who attempt to wear normal bathing suits in public or hotel swimming pools, and asserting they intend to impose Sharia Law on the rest of us, both here in America and also in Western Europe.

That’s why I posted, about 10 days back, the piece I headlined “Setting Up the Straw Man.”

(Scroll down, or find it at https://vinsuprynowicz.com/?p=3218 .)

That post was in response to an early June press release from Libertarian Party headquarters, on behalf of their second-time-around presidential nominee Gary Johnson, which read, in part:

Gary Johnson headshot - 1-7-2016 for web & LP news CROPD 68x90 - 72dpi

“ALEXANDRIA — Bernie Sanders supporters who reject the offensive, dangerous rhetoric of Republican Donald Trump . . . have another choice.

“Two-term New Mexico governor Gary Johnson is the Libertarian nominee for president. . . . Johnson is a staunch advocate for marriage equality, and a passionate defender of hard-working immigrants, whom he notes commit fewer crimes per capita than do U.S. citizens. He calls Trump’s anti-immigrant rhetoric incendiary and racist, and describes his proposal to deport 11 million immigrates (sic?) as ‘just crazy.’”

End press release extract.


When I criticize this stuff, I always draw fire from the self-appointed Libertarian Purity Brigade, who insist that — even though I have long called publicly for the repeal of every drug law and every gun law, for an end to the socialist income tax and the end of the government-run, tax-funded mandatory youth propaganda camps called “public schools,” etc., -– I’m still “not allowed” to call myself a libertarian if I want to see any immigration laws enforced. I’m apparently “not allowed” to assert that if people want these laws changed, they should call for an open public debate on either changing them or repealing them, with detailed proposals.

You’ll note the folks at LP headquarter, speaking on behalf of candidate Johnson, don’t do that. They don’t call for repealing all the immigration and passport and border-control laws. They just want some people to be allowed to break those laws with impunity, while others — well-educated, English-speaking, would-be immigrants who don’t want to place America under Sharia Law; who don’t advocate stoning or raping women who decline to wear burkas; who don’t intend to commit serial identity theft every day to live here on the lam — languish all their lives in some Third World backwater which has a tiny “immigration quota” and doesn’t enjoy the advantage of a handy land-bridge.


In this, I believe many Libertarians have thoughtlessly been seduced into joining forces with the Aztlan Reconquista activists, who we should immediately know are up to no good by the simple fact that they blatantly attempt to censor the words we can use in this discussion, declaring that if we use any concise, clear, and plainspoken terms (“illegal immigrant” is apparently now just as verboten as “illegal alien,” which is perfectly good English, nowhere listed as “vulgar”; check your dictionary) we’ll be branded “racists” — a debate tactic which is, pardon me, horseshit, and which must thus be pointed out and decried and resisted wherever it rears its ugly head, since its only goal is not to answer questions and objections, but instead to gag and silence them.

In my 20 years on the editorial board of the daily Las Vegas Review-journal, I attended many formal meetings with “Hispanic activists” who wanted to lobby us to stop encouraging law enforcement officials to enforce the immigration laws. They would argue that “immigrants” like Albert Einstein had done wonderful things for this country, that Las Vegas couldn’t function without “immigrants” to work as hotel maids and busboys, etc. I would politely reply, “But in the case of the famous immigrants who have done so much for this country, you seem to be referring to legal ‘immigrants.’ I thought you were here to discuss our position on rounding up and deporting illegal aliens.”


A that point, these characters would on occasion go so far as to -– I have witnesses that I’m not making this up -– press the palms of their hands against their ears and exclaim “Stop it! I find thees words offensive! You are hurting my ears! You are offending me! You must stop using thees offensive words!”

They want to purposely confuse, to amalgamate and prevent us from making distinctions between legal “immigrants” -– those generally fine folks who obey the laws and play by the rules because they want to become Americans, to adopt our way of life -– with invaders who break literally dozens of laws to fraudulently set themselves up here with illegal documents, committing identity theft daily, and who are thus (surprise!) predisposed to committing other crimes whenever it proves convenient.

In fact, our friend Carl “Bear” Bussjaeger now offers new research ( https://bearbussjaeger.wordpress.com/2016/06/26/constitutionality-of-immmigration-control/ ) indicating that restrictions on the immigration of characters who can reasonably be assumed to wish this nation and this society ill, who intend to commit violence if we resist their attempt to impose Sharia Law here (or Communism, or whatever) –- who have no intention of switching their allegiance to America — may very well be completely constitutional.

If you’re not familiar with the real-world problems we’re attempting to confront – if you think anyone expressing these concerns is just “some redneck racist who’s making this stuff up,” check out




{object name}  Ten of thousands of protesters for immigration rights marched down Markets Street toward the the SF Civic Center this morning as similar contingents assembled in the Bay Area and thousands took to the streets in other cities as part of nationwide "Day Without Immigrants" demonstrations.


<a href=





What’s that? You think you can count on the “Mainstream Media” to let you know if there’s a problem? Read “Alleged murderer is an illegal alien, but Washington Post won’t say so,” at:


You may have noticed none of those five links focus on the influx -– legal or illegal -– of Muslims who wish to impose the customs that have made their homelands so violent, intolerant and impoverished, including “Sharia Law.” Maybe next time.

For now, I’d just like to note how hard it is for me to believe that it’s been more than 20 years since the lovely Tara Cleveland -– who I met only in passing -– had her run-in with two of these “hard-working, freedom-loving, guest-worker immigrants” we keep hearing so much about.

I have not forgotten her. No one should forget her, or the thousands of others who met similar fates due to the “benevolent” neglect of the “Open Borders” gang.

I wrote about Tara and her fate in my column of July 5, 2009: “Letting the looters vote on who’s for lunch.” You can find the whole thing at:


But here’s an excerpt:

Tara Cleveland, who was killed in 1994 in North Las Vegas, is shown in a modeling photo from 1994. Tara Cleveland, who was killed in 1994 in North Las Vegas, is shown in a modeling photo from 1994. (slug: VILLEZCAS)


. . . I do remember hearing my friend Jackie Casey, former head of the college Libertarians at the University of Arizona, regaling me with tales of how she would join her mother to visit rental properties the family owned south of Tuscon.

Virtually every night, the human waves pouring north through the area would invade these residence units, using the sinks and other available surfaces for bodily activities which most of us reserve for actual toilets. Jackie and her mom would don elbow-length rubber gloves and go to work with their ammonia and bleach, cleaning up the human feces deposited by our noble wave of “harmless guest workers” who I’m “not allowed” to call trespassers because they “never initiative force or fraud” against anyone, merely going “where landlords and employers want them.”

“How does giving amnesty to a couple million knowing law-breakers not encourage the next set of knowing law-breakers, inviting them in no uncertain terms to ‘Come on in and enjoy all the free stuff; after a few years you can get ‘amnestied’, too!”?” I asked in my June 14 column.

“You say ‘knowing law-breakers’ like it’s supposed to be a bad thing to knowingly break the law,” objected one of my irate young correspondents from the Libertarian Purity Inquisition. “Coming from someone who so vocally praises the American Revolution, this seems odd.”


Tara Cleveland was a lovely Las Vegas beauty pageant runner-up, an all-A student who wanted to go to law school and who sang at an annual “Spring Fling” employee party here at the Review-Journal 15 years ago. A short time later she was involved in a minor traffic accident in nearby North Las Vegas in which her car was struck by another car driven by two illegal Mexicans — pardon me, two “honored guest workers from south of the arbitrary government-drawn line known as the ‘border,’ who were here only to seek honest work and better themselves.”

These two honored Latino guest workers immediately thought, “What would brave freedom fighters like George Washington and Nathan Hale have done, in these circumstances?” So, of course, they ran away.

Tara Cleveland may have acted unwisely, but she was doubtless filled with righteous outrage that this twosome showed no intention of standing responsible for the damage they had caused (a scenario repeated literally scores of times every day, throughout the Southwest, driving all our insurance rates sky high, if I’m “allowed” to mention that.)

Tara pursued and confronted the pair. At that point, channeling the spirits of brave patriots like John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, these two south-of-the-border freedom fighters shot Tara Cleveland in the face with a double-barreled shotgun, which had the predictable effect of killing her. They then stole her car and ran away again, eventually reaching Mexico. ( www.lvrj.com/news/47992826.html .)

It sure puts me in mind of the courage, the principles, the self-sacrifice of the men who risked their lives and their personal fortunes to fight the American Revolution, doesn’t it you?

One of the pair, Joseph Villezcas, was turned over by Mexican authorities in 2006, after they determined he was not actually a Mexican national. He was returned to Nevada and convicted of second-degree murder. But the other, now-33-year-old Fernando Garcia Valenzuela, received sanctuary in Mexico.

Clearly a genius on the order of Ben Franklin, freedom-fighter Valenzuela was not about to stay home, though. He was arrested in California in 1998 and 1999, though authorities there did not link him to the outstanding Las Vegas warrant, possibly because he used fake ID and a fake date of birth — while somehow still not “initiating force or fraud,” you understand.

What an inspiration, that Fernando Garcia Valenzuela. They should put a flintlock in his hand and add his image to that statue of the Minuteman on Lexington green, don’t you think?

Valenzuela, who does not seem to be God’s most brilliant criminal, was pulled over by police in Whiteville, Tennessee again last month, arrested on three felony drug charges, and — guess what? — finally linked to the 15-year-old warrant for the murder of Tara Cleveland.


“I’m sure there are some individual illegal immigrants who are irresponsible,” responded one of the armchair anarchists who wrote to take me to task for my police-state leanings, last month. (They don’t use their real names; I will refrain from dubbing this one “Buzz Spacecat.”)

But “So what?” Buzz continued. “I hear some native-born Americans are irresponsible, too.”

Where do these people live? By the time I get to the jump page of the “local criminal trial” section of my daily paper, these days, I practically have to color code the stories to keep straight which illegal alien committed which child murder.

The Federation for American Immigration Reform ( www.fairus.org ) reports “criminal,” criminal aliens now account for 29 percent of prisoners in federal Bureau of Prisons facilities.

Even if there are now 30 million illegals in this country — sounds high to me, but who really knows? — that means they’re overrepresented in our prisons by a factor of three. And none of those inmates are in there for their initial crime of violating the immigration laws, you understand.

Since local police and school agencies adamantly refuse to make any effort to count illegals and their children — lest they be accused of “racism” — such numbers are much harder to acquire for local jurisdictions. But since illegal alien trespassers are more likely to violate local laws (burglary, murder, etc), than federal laws other than immigration laws (which apparently “don’t count”), it seems safe to assume their representation in state and local prisons is even higher, particularly here in the Southwest.

Taxpayers now spend more than $1 billion per year maintaining “criminal,” criminal aliens in federal and state prisons, according to the U.S. Bureau of Justice.

And ask those charged with collecting hospital bills how many illegal aliens make good faith efforts to pay the huge bills for the emergency rooms they use in lieu of paying a hundred bucks for a routine doctor visit.

There is a theory that this is a good thing: “Let socialism be overburdened and collapse. Then we will build a better, more Libertarian society on the ruins.”

Interesting theory. It can be argued, for instance, that a society more respectful of the Rights of Man was built on the ruins of Rome, once Rome fell.

It was. The only problem is — it took about a thousand years.

If there is no right to exclude looters from our midst; if we must allow free entry to anyone who wants to come to our community — and the smallest community is my house — and then allow them to decide how my stuff shall be redistributed “by majority vote,” then freedom of a family of three can last only until four “guest workers” break down our front door (“Buzz” can hardly say, “But that would be illegal,” since he’s already endorsed felony lawbreaking by millions of freeloading looters as some kind of noble evocation of the spirit of the patriots of 1776) and “vote” on how to divvy up the food in my refrigerator.

I would wish Buzz a happy life in the Looters’ Carnival he prescribes for all of us — if only I were not forced at gunpoint to share it with him.

Thus ends my column of July 5, 2009.

By the way, my follow-up column the next week (July 12, 2009), titled “We love it here in Libertyville. But we’re changing that to ‘Stalingrad’,” makes my case that even a brand-new, remote enclave, founded by and including only freedom-loving libertarians, would soon be swamped by collectivists, and cease to exist in the form intended, unless those libertarians were smart enough to immediately create a strict . . . “immigration policy.” Read it again today, absolutely free of charge (I’m such a BAD capitalist) 🙂 at:


3 Comments to “Our hard-working, south-of-the-border freedom fighters”

  1. Technomad Says:

    Part of the problem is that Boobus Americanus is subjected, from early on in his life, to propaganda about Ellis Island, happy immigrants weeping with joy at the sight of the Statue of Liberty, and other such treacle and poisoned honey. The fact that each previous wave of immigrants brought problems in its wake is glossed over.

    Personally, I’m a lot more worried about the Aztlan nutcases than I am about Islamic nutcases.

  2. R. Hartman Says:

    You might be well-advised to keep an eye on both. It’s not either/or.

  3. Vin's Brunette Says:

    Technomad, not long ago I might have agreed with you. I’m pretty new to the subject of Islam . . . have now spent an unnerving few days delving into it. It seems to me that (generally speaking) Muslim individuals are NOT the problem (they’re hardly at fault for being born into their particular country/culture/creed) — but Islam itself, as a religious/political ideology.

    Talk about poisoned honey! It’s unlike other religions we westerners are familiar with, almost seems akin to malware for the mind. (Although perhaps you know more about malware than I do . . . it’s the analogy that comes to mind for non-tech me.)

    If you’ve got 8 minutes to spare, this Youtube video covers the basic dilemma of Islam in-a-nutshell, more succinctly than any other single link I’ve yet come up with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8c38_46W5c

    Here’s another (10 minutes) that features the son of a Hamas leader — he moved to America and renounced Islam: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl641IFO10g

    A lifetime of brainwashing can hardly be unique to Americans . . . that may be darn near universal, sad to say. As well as the problem of nutcases. 🙁

    BTW, Vin and I have a few dear Mexican friends — fine people . . . I am sure plenty of Muslims are great people also.


RSS 2.0" title="Subscribe to this posts comments via RSS 2.0">RSS subscribe